All Episodes
June 15, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:18:58
Muslim City In Michigan BANS PRIDE FLAG, Leftist FURIOUS That Their Policies BACKFIRED Hilariously

Muslim City In Michigan BANS PRIDE FLAG, Leftist FURIOUS That Their Policies BACKFIRED Hilariously 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
01:16:41
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.
It was oh so many years ago that we were having this discussion about bringing in Muslim immigrants into the United States.
In fact, it was basically how I launched my first YouTube channel.
Donald Trump appeared on Fox News and he said, do you see what's happening last night in Sweden?
And everybody was like, nothing happened last night in Sweden.
What are you talking about?
What he was actually talking about was a documentary, a mini-doc produced, about crime in Sweden and refugees.
And this sparked a big conversation about Muslims and things like that, for which I went to Sweden to investigate.
And a lot of people were talking about this.
What would happen if the United States allows large populations of non... of religious conservatives and Muslims into this country?
That seemed to have been the debate.
Well, the point that I was making the whole time was, for one, I really don't care.
I think that the main issue is, well, for one, immigration's fantastic.
We want more immigration.
Genuinely believe that we do, but it's got to be controlled.
It's got to be legal.
unidentified
Legally.
tim pool
That's what Donald Trump says.
It's got to be legal because when people come to this country, we want them to integrate.
We want them to be able to find jobs, to be happy, to live properly.
And so what happens with Sweden, Is that when they just brought in all of these refugees from Somalia in the 90s and they didn't do anything, these people were settled in the same place.
What ends up happening is you create extrajudicial jurisdictions.
You have areas where the entire population is Somali.
I believe it was Somalia.
And, um, or was it Sudan?
I could be wrong.
But you have a population that is not integrated with the native economy and population, so when the police come in, they say, you don't do anything for us, you have nothing to do with us, and it creates conflict.
Well, we're starting to see that.
So when I tried warning all these lefties and liberals, listen, you want to bring in immigrants, you want, you know, the southern border right now, it's a big problem, it's got to be done legally.
But they didn't listen!
They didn't listen.
So now what's happening?
Michigan City, with all Muslim council, bans pride flags on public property at bizarre council meeting in which LGBTQ couple kiss in front of shocked religious groups.
Hamtramck has banned LGBTQ flags from public areas.
Okay.
As is their right.
It's their jurisdiction.
They voted on it.
Now, of course, the left is freaking out, demanding state-level intervention because it violates civil rights or whatever, but what do you think happens when you champion the importation of religious conservatives into your state?
This is what I try telling people over and over and over again.
Law does not matter.
We were talking about this last night.
My friends, legality is meaningless.
unidentified
Okay, not completely meaningless, but mostly meaningless.
tim pool
When it comes to a very large nation like ours, we understand the law, and the law can be simple like, don't speed over, uh, don't go faster than 60 miles an hour in this area.
Is that a moral question or a legal question?
Honestly, I do not believe there is any strong morality, uh, a question of morals in how fast you go.
No one's saying like, I'm just opposed!
unidentified
It deepened my soul because of my faith!
tim pool
Nobody says that.
The reason we have that law is for a more logical and practical reason.
We say, well, typically in this area, due to the length of distance between streetlights and the amount of time you have to stop, we think the speed limit should be lower, high pedestrian traffic, lower speed limit.
It's not about morality, it's about functionality and safety, right?
But there are certain laws that are based on moral questions.
This right here is absolutely morals-based.
And I think it's correct.
I'm not saying it's correct to ban flags or anything like that.
That's entirely up to the City Council that votes on it.
My point is that...
In this country, we can have, we do have, as I often mention, laws that don't make sense.
Laws from a long time ago that say, like, you can't put a pie on your windowsill on Sunday afternoon.
Nobody enforces that law anymore.
Even though it's on the books, no one's going to enforce it.
Because morality and cultural cohesion matter so much more.
This is the perfect example of everything that I've been talking about.
An all-Muslim city council says, of course we'll ban pride flags.
And you know what?
I don't care.
They can do what they want.
It's their town.
They voted for it.
The funny thing is, the LGBTQ couple kissing in public at the meeting to protest this.
Yo, y'all are the ones who supported this.
I have a friend.
This is the weirdest thing.
I had a friend who had this poster in her room and it was, you know, pro-Muslim, like, image of a woman in a hijab or whatever.
And I'm just like, you know, women in Iran are protesting, ripping these things off their heads.
You know what I mean?
Like, I genuinely don't understand how you can have these people begging for some kind of liberal, true liberalism, classical liberalism, And then actively be like, I support the religion that they follow and all that stuff.
Like, I get it.
I get it.
I shouldn't be so obtuse.
You're allowed to practice your religion, and that's what we want to defend.
But when I say something like, sure, you know, we invite these people in, but you do realize they're all going to want to live near each other, and they're going to vote for their laws, and they're going to give you this.
Now they're shocked about it.
Well, I'm not.
I don't care.
You know, I tweeted something earlier that I'm sure might irk some pro-lifers, but I'm not pro-life.
I'm certainly not psychotically a pro-abortion like the left is.
More traditional liberal position.
And I think many of you probably agree, but not all of you.
I know a lot of people who watch very much disagree with me on this one.
And we try to figure out how to work together.
But I said, I got an idea.
If you're pro-life, you're not allowed to get an abortion.
And if you're pro-choice, we'll help you get one.
And it's not a serious tweet, but I'm making the point.
Please.
Please.
The things that you vote for and ask for, we will deliver to you.
But you know what's funny is the pro-lifers completely understood the point I was making, and it's oh so sad that the left had no understanding!
And so it's like I get these responses from people and they're like, huh, so basically what we're asking for?
You're so dumb.
Do you think this is a gotcha?
No.
No, I don't think it's a gotcha.
Not at all!
I'm saying excise yourself from the gene pool!
I'm saying you will.
It actually kind of horrifies me that these people are so willing to do this, but this is my point.
If the left is hell-bent on pro-choicers just getting abortions whenever they want, And people on the right are morally opposed to it and won't do it even if it is legal.
The end result is obvious.
Liberals will remove their children from the population and there will be no new liberal voters and conservatives will have more kids and the country will become conservative.
Now, a lot of people are like, yeah, but the schools, the schools and all that.
No, no, no, you don't understand.
These people, their ideas, their policies are completely self-destructive.
I'm very optimistic that this country is going to make it through the tumultuous period of wokeness.
Yeah, there may be civil war because...
However you want to define it, I don't know the extent to how bad it will get.
We're at the point where the president arrested his political rivals, so things may be getting bad.
But I don't see them winning this one.
I really just don't.
You take a look at these images.
You take a look at this story about the city council and Hamtramck.
Like, what do you think's gonna happen?
These people keep inviting policies that destroy their moral framework, or lack thereof.
So what happens?
Okay, by all means, keep bringing in more religious conservatives.
Support endless migration.
More religious conservatives.
You think that you're gonna win these votes?
It ain't gonna happen.
And what do we know about the people crossing the southern border?
Yo, many of these Latino-Hispanic individuals crossing the border, they're Christians!
Not all of them.
The proportionality of Christians among the Hispanic population has gone down, but many of those crossing the border, they're literally Christians.
So by all means, you keep bringing them in, and this is what's going to happen.
They say a Michigan city with an all-Muslim government has banned LGBTQ flags from public areas after a bizarre hours-long meeting.
The Hamtramck City Council took a turn when a young woman wearing a clown nose made a speech mocking the council and its majority Muslim population before kissing a woman standing next to her Tuesday night.
Sure, many Hamtramck residents have fled countries where being gay is a death sentence, but nothing says we have to make it comforting and welcoming here, The Wind said on Tuesday night.
While we can't legally discriminate against LGBTQ people in the U.S.
anymore, the city of Hamtramck can say, ew, no, be proud somewhere else.
The meeting was so well attended, people were listening from the hallways as council members said the pride flag clashed with the beliefs of some members of their faith.
Can you believe it?
Absolutely amazing.
Businesses and residents in the Detroit suburb aren't prohibited from displaying a pride flag on their own property, see?
You guys are welcome, Council Member Naeem Chowdhury said.
But why do you have to have the flag shown on government property to be represented?
You're already represented.
We already know who you are.
We want to respect the religious rights of our citizens, Chowdhury said.
He's right.
He's completely right.
This is the correct move.
Do not display a hate symbol on public property.
And the progress pride flag and the pride flag is an abject hate symbol.
Now look, the left is gonna say, uh, Tim Foole, uh, Tim Foole, he's so stupid, it's not a hate symbol.
You can call it whatever you want.
But if Christians, a protected class, and Muslims, a protected class, are offended by your symbol, which is not a traditional long-standing symbol of this country, it is a hate symbol by your definition, not mine.
Not mine.
Okay?
I honestly think you want to fly a flag, fine, so be it, but I agree with the idea of not flying ideological symbols that are offensive on public property.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
See you on the tour!
tim pool
There is, however, a limit.
The American tradition.
If it has been long-standing in this country, then I think, within reason, we accept those things.
So, if the state of Virginia wants to fly the Gadsden flag, then I think that is appropriate and acceptable because that is a flag of our country.
A traditional flag representing this nation and its freedom.
However, the issue with the pride flag is that it quite literally misappropriates God's covenant, which is particularly offensive to those who have faith in the Abrahamic religions.
I don't know exactly about Islam and the Quran and all that stuff, but I know that there is a... I believe it is mostly shared.
Christians and Jews do share the same idea of God's covenant after the flood, but I could be wrong, I could be wrong.
What I know is, the rainbow is supposed to represent God's covenant to Earth that it will never be flooded again.
And by all means, I'm not saying you have to be Christian and believe any of that stuff.
I'm saying if there is a protected class that cherishes this symbol, and then you take it and use it to symbolize sexual activity, you understand why that would be offensive to some groups.
If you want to fly that flag on public property, you are going to have people saying, like, you're insulting me.
You have right now the drag nuns in California.
I mean, this is a Christian minstrel show.
It's intended to mock and insult a protected class in this country.
If you want to maintain that we must protect protected classes and we must do away with hate speech, it is your leftist definition that we are agreeing with in that capacity.
Saying, okay, fine.
No pride flags.
You're the one who asked for it.
But of course, they don't really want equality.
What they want is supremacy.
Hamtramck population 27,000 is an enclave surrounded by Detroit.
More than 40% of residents were born in other countries, according to the U.S.
Census.
It became the first city in America to have a majority Muslim population in 2015.
The two women kissing were followed up by Dearborn activist Hassan Aoun.
Aoun, who spoke passionately against the pride flag.
He said, quote, I am a Lebanese person and I support the American flag.
We are not going to sit here and tolerate you guys coming and saying, oh, it's Pride
Month, you're gay.
No problem.
Don't sit here and throw it down kids throats, my throat or anybody's throat.
The council voted unanimously to display only five flags, including the American flag, the
Michigan flag, and one that represents the native countries of immigrant residents.
Mayor Amar Ghalib made the flag a campaign issue when then-Mayor Karen Majewski flew one on city property in 2021.
You can see a lot of people were here.
We serve everybody equally with no discrimination, but without favoritism.
Ghalib told the Daily Mail.
Ghalib told the Daily Mail he was upset by what he felt was residents and the media believing they're targeting the LGBTQ plus community.
It's not targeting any specific group, but it doesn't allow any preferential treatment for any group either.
It confirms the neutrality of the city government, and it doesn't allow any religious, racial, ethnic, political, or sexual orientation group flags on public or city properties.
Bravo!
Oh, that is based!
The American flag flies, that's what they said.
But any individual group that wants to fly a flag representing one, no.
No preferential treatment.
unidentified
The only flag we fly is the American flag.
tim pool
And you know what?
That means they ain't gonna be flying the Gadsden flag, I'd imagine.
And I'm a big fan of the Gadsden flag, but I can accept that.
The American flag is the flag of all people in this country.
If you are gay, straight, lesbian, bi, trans, if you are an immigrant, if you are a Christian, if you are a Muslim, if you're a Buddhist, if you're a Hellenistic pantheist, or whatever, then the flag represents you too.
Because that is what the flag has always meant.
Well, if you look at the Constitution, if you look at the Declaration of Independence, you can see the messaging was there.
But it was never truly upheld properly in the early... I shouldn't say never.
I should say that in the early days, it wasn't being truly upheld.
And great men like Frederick Douglass challenged the American people to uphold their own words that all men are created equal.
All men as in all humans.
And so what has happened?
The flag came to symbolize civil rights.
Equality.
And it helped to create the greatest nation this world has ever seen.
Talk about a heck of a story!
Ain't it great?
So why come here and supplant our symbol of peace, equality, civil rights?
Don't get me wrong, the peace thing, it's been subverted.
The United States certainly has its problems.
But this country was doing real, real, real good until old Woodrow Wilson came in.
So maybe the symbol starts to change in that capacity.
And for many around the world, it doesn't symbolize those things anymore.
But I assert that in this country, we all should assert that meaning.
The flag represents strength, honor, integrity, unity, civil rights, real justice, equality under the law.
All of these things in this country that have helped make it the greatest nation on this planet.
And I hear the left saying things all the time, like, but look at Norway, they got better healthcare, and it's like, the United States may not have the best healthcare, may not have the best education system, may not have the best railways, but I will tell you this, cross the board, you do the math, for the size of the country, the accomplishments we've had, the inventions we've made, the standard of living increases that we've brought to all people, The expansion of civil rights.
You're not gonna, you're not gonna be able to tell me.
A country of a few million people, yeah, maybe they can do better than us in a lot of ways.
But for what this country is, for its size, for its unity?
Can't be beat.
Can't be beat.
You look at these other countries, and, uh, nah.
Now, this country may be losing its way, don't get me wrong.
There's a lot of things we have to fix.
There's a lot of things we have to fight for.
And the, uh, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
We can never let go.
So when these ideological, zealous groups try to fly their flag over ours, we say no.
I stand here!
In solidarity with my Muslim brothers and sisters, immigrants and Muslims, who said outright, we believe in the American flag, and we don't prioritize anyone over anyone else.
And I'm like, here, here.
That's the way it's supposed to be.
That's based.
And this is what the left gets.
We tell them, look, when you import religious conservatives, you're gonna get religious conservative policy.
So be it.
I ain't crying about it.
I got no beef here.
That's what I was talking about with abortion.
My stance on this is basically there are very difficult civil rights questions pertaining to two individuals in one body.
And I think that if the baby can survive, terminating the life of the baby is wrong and should be illegal.
But that means that there is a period before viability of the baby where we have a serious question to ask about whether the government can mandate another person provide their body to someone else.
Perhaps if there is a consensual offer, That results in, you know, pregnancy.
Well, then you have a challenging question as to whether or not someone can rightfully evict the baby, which would kill it.
But these questions of logic and morality leave me in a morally vague pro-choice position.
And I say morally vague in that I am not wise enough to solve these problems, these philosophical questions and legal questions.
So I typically err on the side of, for that reason, within a certain time period, I believe that it should not be a matter for government intervention.
After a certain time period, it should.
This is the traditional pro-choice Democrat position.
The only problem now is that Democrats have gone full pro-abortion with no restrictions up to the point of birth, which is just outright psychotic.
So I'll tell you this.
Pro-lifers.
Yeah, they find it abhorrent.
They want it to stop.
And he banned completely at all stages.
I hear you.
And I understand the argument.
And it gives me strong moral and ethical questions in my mind.
I just don't have the answers.
I don't.
I can at least tell you one thing.
If pro-lifers aren't having abortions, and they are having kids, and pro-choicers are having abortions, even up to the point of birth, the future's conservative.
Period.
This is your proof.
I've had people ask me, like, Tim, how do you, how can you believe that the future is going to be conservative?
You know, if the left is indoctrinating our kids in these schools and doing all these things, and I'm like, you know, it's right here.
It's right here.
It's plain as day.
They bring in religious conservative immigrants, and then they ban the pride flag.
So what do you think is going to happen when it comes to birthing children?
And you will say, yeah, but they're indoctrinating kids everywhere, all across the board.
It's like, it ain't stopping these people.
Do you think that this all-Muslim council is going to have their kids be taught that their ideas are wrong?
Ain't gonna happen.
They are in control now.
They are the majority.
So, try as they might to indoctrinate your kids.
It will not work.
Some kids will be indoctrinated.
We're seeing it.
But these are typically less morally strong families.
Many conservative families are facing things like this, but the stories we hear about a person having their kids be, you know, indoctrinated, these tend to be default liberal types who don't pay attention.
The people of strong faith who are bringing their kids to church or to mosque or to temple or to whatever, to synagogue, you know, these kids are being surrounded and protected by a larger religious community who are not going to allow these bad things to happen to these kids.
It's just not going to happen.
So I look at this and I say, to the left, so be it, man.
You reap what you sow.
This is what you've asked for.
I ain't going to be crying about it.
Me?
I'll get by just fine.
You know, I may have disagreements with religious conservatives on the questions, on many moral questions, but for the most part, I will tell you this.
In that meme that Elon Musk shared, I'll put it this way.
left and the right, and then the left moves so far left that now the traditional centrist
left individuals are closer to right wingers.
Yeah, we're all there, baby.
I'll put it this way.
If you come to me and you say that you want babies to be aborted up to nine months with
no restrictions.
I'm going to tell you that you're insane.
There's literally no logical reason to do that.
If the baby must be delivered from the woman because the pregnancy must be terminated, the baby is alive and can survive on its own.
Why kill it?
That's what an abortion does.
That's the legal definition.
Terminating the pregnancy in a way that ends the life of the baby.
They say, what if the baby is stillborn?
It is not aborting a pregnancy if the baby is already dead.
It actually is legally distinct from that.
And there's complicated questions, but in terms of the law and the legal questions, when we refer to abortion, let me just clarify for you, it is if the baby is alive and you terminate its life in the process.
If you come to me and say you want no restrictions up to the point of birth, I'm gonna say no, never happening.
I will never vote for that.
If I have to choose between one of two candidates, and one guy says, I want to ban abortion, and I go, okay, well, that's a little extreme.
I mean, banning it outright?
There's a lot of circumstances where there may be a necessity, and there's questions about the rights of women who's, like, raped or some things?
Ah, that's tough.
And then the person over here says, I would like to have anyone be allowed to abort a baby at any point for any reason up to nine months.
I'm like, I'm gonna vote for this guy.
You know why?
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 I don't think either of them are good options, but clearly one is more morally just.
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
I don't think either of them are good options, but clearly one is more morally just.
And if the only choice is we have to ban all of it to stop these people from outright just
killing babies at nine months, I'm like, damn, that's not my I'm not of the conservative
pro-life position.
But you better believe I'd vote for that over abortion at nine months.
That's crazy.
And that's what they're doing.
So now you're ending up with people like me saying, this Muslim city council says no preferential treatment for any ideological group that's based.
I completely agree with that. 100%.
So I'm good.
If you want to push centrists and traditional liberals and disaffected liberals towards the religious right, congratulations, you have done it.
And you reap what you sow.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Last night, in the Members Only section of Timcast IRL, one of our members brought up to us that there's an event called Music Fest taking place in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Now, we here are big fans of Yingling beer.
When the Bud Light controversy started, Yingling posted this picture of someone holding a beer with an American flag, and Yingling is quite delicious.
But they pointed out to us that Yingling is sponsoring a drag show that allows babies That's right.
This is a very interesting story.
The tweet in question, read from MusicFest, need your drag fix before our iconic MusicFest drag show?
Will the Queens return to MusicFest Cafe presented by Yingling on June 30th?
Close out Pride Month with a fierce show.
Ladies and gentlemen, the tweet has been deleted.
Yeah, no joke.
This is, uh, wow.
So, in response to this information being presented to us, I wanted to fact check.
I said, this can't be right.
Is Yingling really sponsoring a drag show that allows babies?
So sure enough, I pulled up the actual information.
So this is a MusicFest website, ArtsQuest ticket policy, and it says all persons entering a venue, including babies in arms, must have a ticket.
And it says attendance of children under two may not be recommended for some performances.
My understanding is that, uh, checking this website, I don't see anything barring anyone based on age.
Just a recommendation.
Now, according to our member, they contacted MusicFest who said 13 and up for the drag show.
I don't know if that's true.
We haven't reached out to MusicFest as of yet.
But I do think the big and very interesting thing here is they deleted the tweet.
So I was planning on doing maybe a shorter segment about this, but considering the impact, and considering that we are halfway through what they call Pride Month, and everyone is disavowing I assume this to be a disavowal.
I don't know exactly why.
I'm wondering if Yingling reached out and said, take this down, we did not sponsor this.
As many people have pointed out to us, Yingling didn't sponsor the drag show, they sponsor the venue.
What the venue does, what the venue does, they just put their name on the venue.
Still, I don't think that absolves you of all responsibility, Yingling.
If the events that are taking place in there bear your name, then I think you need to say something about this.
Now, this is what's interesting.
Let me, uh... So, this was the original tweet.
I said, a drag show that allows babies?
Cassandra McDonald says, WTF, Yingling Beer?
But the big news now is that when you try and pull up MusicFest's tweet, what do you get?
Sorry, that tweet has been deleted.
Wow.
You want to talk about winning the culture war, this, this is something else.
It's, uh, Starbucks, now MusicFest.
Everyone is trying to disavow their association to the targeting of children.
Everybody knows just what the Bud Light Effect means.
We don't care, for the most part.
I know conservatives more so do.
But me, as you know, a traditional liberal, I don't care if a guy wants to dress up like a woman and go parade around on stage and do gay burlesque.
In fact, I'm happy you have your space where you can do your thing.
I'm fairly liberal.
But don't allow children.
It's not appropriate for kids.
Adult entertainment, not for kids.
Now I wonder about the laws in Pennsylvania.
I don't know for sure, but this just looks like more victory.
And I got no beef with Yingling.
Still a fan, and that was the big question.
Are you going to support Yingling after seeing that they've done this?
Because it says right here, look at this.
The Queen's Return to Music Fest Cafe presented by Yingling.
And they allow babies, anyone, children into these events.
I don't think Yingling was aware of what was going on.
I think that they're actually only sponsoring the venue.
I think that's all true.
And I think this takedown was likely because they said, hey, no way.
No way.
So that's that's that's the big news right there.
Of course, the Bud Light fiasco is still ongoing and the media is desperate to try and cover up what's really going on.
So let me just say to all of you, my friends, this seems to be a tremendous victory.
It's not just about this one music festival or whatever it is they're doing or whatever it may be, because I only ask the question.
Because I don't know for sure exactly what their plans were, but the fact that they deleted the tweet... Wow.
I believe the tweet was put up like a week or so ago.
And so they've taken it down, probably because Yingling is already facing a backlash.
Here's what I request.
Because we're fans of Yingling.
We do not put them in the same category as Bud Light.
Some people have pointed out that Yingling has done Pride ads before.
I personally don't care about that.
I care about the targeting of kids, more so.
I do believe it all overlaps, and now the boundaries are being pushed, but Dylan Mulvaney was overtly targeting children.
I mean, you see these videos, Eloise and playing with dolls, TikTok's audience is under 21.
The idea that Bud Light would try and do a promotional sponsorship to someone whose audience is under the legal drinking age, they're targeting your kids, man!
With alcohol, lewd and lascivious behavior, etc.
So, I'd like to see Yingling make a statement.
What was this all about?
You can simply say, we sponsor a venue, we have nothing to do with the events that take place at that venue.
There you go.
Here's what I think.
I think they're gonna say nothing.
Because PR 101 is to shut your mouth and say nothing.
Here's the current, uh, here's how the tweet currently looks.
I was getting ready to, uh, produce a segment.
I was actually gonna do this one probably for, like, four.
And then I saw the tweet was deleted by the author.
The tweet was deleted by the author.
MusicFest has deleted the tweet!
That doesn't mean the event is over.
The event is likely still taking place.
They're just concerned about a backlash for allowing babies and children at a drag show.
So I have questions.
I have questions.
But this is the current state of things, I suppose.
So I'm glad we were able to still pull that up.
But of course, but of course, my friends, the lie persists.
The media is desperate to do away with the Bud Light effect, but there's nothing they can do about it.
Major corporations are reacting to what's happening politically, and they're stepping back.
The media, of course, is more activist-based, and they're trying to maintain the lies in the narrative.
The Washington Post tweeted this.
Bud Light has been targeted by a recent boycott, but consumers might be moving away from the brand anyway amid stagnation for domestic beer in general.
This is the most obvious and brazen lie It's amazing!
So, my friends, I hope you are all taking a look at what's going on with the deletion of the tweet, with Target hiding the merchandise, with the stock price tanking.
We are winning.
What is the purpose of this lie?
First, let me explain.
Molson Coors, Coors Light, and Miller, they've skyrocketed in sales.
Domestic beer is stagnating.
No, actually, Miller and Coors are skyrocketing.
Try again.
Modelo, as sold in the U.S., is actually owned by a U.S.
company, so, uh, try again.
You see, what's happening is, these people in the Washington Post, these are psychotic cultists.
And they're angry!
unidentified
How dare you defy our narrative!
tim pool
So they're gonna lie about it.
But you can't lie about money.
I mean, you can lie about money, but you can't lie about people not spending it.
Okay, well, you can lie about it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, you can lie all you want, it won't change what people are doing.
There you go.
So what's happening?
Regular people have had enough.
They don't want to buy these products.
They're not buying these products.
You can have all the ESG in the world, but if your business can't sell a product, the loans are meaningless.
And this is the argument a lot of people made.
They said the point of ESG is that if these companies do not have a good ESG or CEI index score, I think it's redundant, a CEI score, then they can't get loans.
And if they can't get loans, they can't expand their business.
You know what else hurts a business?
No customers.
So when Bud Light loses 30% of its market share and is toppled by Modelo, which in the U.S.
is owned by Constellation Brands, not by Anheuser-Busch, well then, I think ESG is out the window.
But of course, the people in media who are funded, they can't let it go.
They have to fight tooth and nail to maintain the lie and just try and figure out how to keep companies in line.
Here's the reality.
Wake up call, Yingling and every other company.
If you embrace and sponsor, fund, support the targeting of children, we don't buy your products.
Now I'm a bit agnostic as it is on Yingling.
I don't know what this is all about.
So I don't want to say outright I'm going to boycott yingling.
I'm not a big drinker as it is, so I don't really drink a lot.
But I have had a couple yingling beers in the past couple of months.
And when we go out, typically it's the only thing we order.
We're big fans.
But I'm a little confused right now.
I mean, they took the tweet down.
Who took the tweet down?
Does Yingling know about this?
Maybe they don't even know about it.
Maybe they sponsored a venue.
Maybe Music Fest deleted the tweet because they're concerned if Yingling finds out, they're gonna pull their sponsorship of the venue.
Maybe they should pull their sponsorship.
What say you, Yingling?
Do you support your name being attached to an all-ages drag performance, a lewd adult performance?
We just saw the President of the United States, his administration, denounce and ban activists who are engaging in lewd and lascivious behaviors at the White House.
Even the Democrats agree.
How about that?
Maybe not all of them.
But the White House said this is not appropriate.
Not appropriate.
Do you think it's appropriate, Yingling?
I'm a big fan.
I would love nothing more than for Yingling to come out and be like, we do not want to be involved in this, we did not support this, and we're pulling our sponsorship.
I'll tell you this.
If Yingling came out and just said, guys, we had nothing to do with this, I'd say, don't worry about it, man.
I am a reasonable person, I don't expect them to be involved in every single thing, and it looks like they only sponsor the venue, not the event.
However, if Yingling comes out and says, not only did we have nothing to do with this, we are appalled, we are pulling our name and sponsorship from this venue, I'll go out and buy out the entire supply of Yingling from the local liquor store.
I'll buy it all!
Because that is, that is a powerful statement.
But I'm not, I'm not trying to be a dick and be unreasonable, okay?
I run a company.
You know, some people come to me and say like, oh, what about this thing?
It's like, dude, we had nothing to do with that, right?
Nothing to do with that.
I can understand if you're a massive brand, you've got a lot of sponsorships, you do a bunch of PR, and then someone somewhere down the line may do something bad.
I'm not gonna blame you for it.
Let's pull up this story from the Washington Post, so I can talk to you how they're trying to manipulate the narrative.
Bud Light has been targeted by a recent boycott, but consumers might be moving away amid stagnation for domestic beer in general.
Even amid fallout prompted by a Bud Light advertisement featuring a transgender influencer, Anheuser-Busch InBev was confident in May that Bud Light was still America's top-selling brand, a title it has held for more than two decades.
But a recently released analysis of the beer brand's sales numbers suggests that Reign might be in jeopardy.
Might be?
Just stop, dude.
Bro, who is this author?
Julian Mark?
You are so sad in your desperate attempts.
We've had the numbers for weeks, okay?
I already covered the story.
Modelo is the top-selling beer.
Everybody's running the story.
Except you, apparently.
But keep trying to lie.
In May, Salsa Modelo Especial, the Mexican beer brand, outpaced the longtime leader.
As AB InBev grapples with a wave of cultural backlash.
In the four weeks leading up to May 20th, Modelo Especial claimed the highest share of U.S.
sales at 8.6%, compared with Bud Light at 7.6%.
That is a turnaround from the four weeks leading up to March 25th, when Bud Light claimed 10% to Modelo's 7.7%.
So when you say, it may be in jeopardy, its reign might be in jeopardy, calm down, good sir.
Because I can respect that, at least after the fact, you admitted Modelo already outsold Bud Light.
And you'd think, two and a half months on, we're not talking about something short term.
We're talking about a major brand shift.
It happened.
The backlash to Mulvaney included a conservative boycott of Bud Light.
Customers angry with the partnership have filmed themselves destroying cans of Bud Light.
Some liberal customers, meanwhile, grew angry with the brewer for failing to stick up for Mulvaney.
AB InVev did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While recent events may have affected Bud Light sales, broad market trends were favoring Modelo even before the Mulvaney controversy.
Dave Williams, Vice President of Analytics and Insights at Bump Williams, told the Washington
Post in an email, "...consumers might be moving away from Bud Light because expanding the customer
base for US domestic beer continues to be a struggle for brewers." Asked whether Cinco de
Mayo, the Mexican holiday, contributed.
Amazing!
They're trying so hard!
Modelo has been on a steady rise for a long stretch now.
I mean, Modelo is pretty good.
And while holiday-timed executions can lead to some lift in sales, they continue to perform after Cinco de Mayo just as well.
In recent years, Modelo and other Mexican beer have a growing presence in the U.S.
According to a post-analysis, about 80% of America's beer imports are from Mexico, up 17%.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Let's break it down, my friend.
It is simple.
Miller and Coors are going up, up, up.
Bud Light is going down, down, down.
And Modelo has taken the number one spot.
That's not a coincidence.
It's all connected.
So, no.
This is not an issue of, well, domestic beers are failing.
No, they're not.
Miller and Coors are skyrocketing.
What are you talking about?
And you can say, like, across the board they should be doing better or something like that, but you can't measure that right now.
If Miller and Coors are skyrocketing because of this anomalous event, we don't know to what degree a stagnation of domestic sales really is having an impact.
It actually may be boosting domestic sales.
This may be reversing whatever trend you may have thought you saw.
The reality?
They're desperate.
The Bud Light effect is palpable, it's real, and it's terrifying to these customers.
So much so that Music Fest deleted their tweet promoting a drag show for babies.
I'm sorry, a drag show allowing babies.
They are panicking!
So I'll make sure that I will scream it from the top of the mountains that these companies do this stuff.
And I'll say it again.
I don't care if you have a drag show.
In fact, I hope you have more drag shows.
In fact, I offered to put on a drag show.
Surprisingly, didn't get any interest from anybody.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks said that if he had the money, he'd put on the biggest drag show ever, just to stick it to the right.
And I said, what do you mean if you had the money?
You're a millionaire!
It's not gonna cost that much money to put on a drag show.
So how about this?
I'll put on a drag show.
It'll be great!
We'll get a bunch of drag queens, we'll get a bunch of prominent LGBT personalities, people to come and speak about their thoughts on the matter, and, uh, whatever their opinion may be, left or right, I don't care, you know, and we'll have free food!
And drinks!
21 and up, of course.
Because, you know, the alcohol.
Not appropriate for kids.
I don't care what these adults are doing in private venues.
I don't appreciate them going out in public and doing kink and BDSM displays.
I don't appreciate the Pride event in West Hollywood where two adult men performed a sex act on each other in front of children.
That should be- I mean, it is illegal.
But it's not like anyone's gonna go do anything about it down there because the cops are cowards.
Or the cops agree with it.
I mean, that really is, to be completely honest.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news to all the back-to-blue people, but I gotta tell you, when you see these videos of adult men performing sex acts on each other in public, I just gotta tell you, the cops support it.
The police support it.
I mean, that's it.
It's already illegal to do these things.
The police support it.
The cops like it.
I'm not saying every single county.
I'm not saying every jurisdiction.
I'm saying in these places, when y'all are like, back to blue, baby!
Yo, I don't care.
I'm at this point where I'm like, it does suck that these cities are falling apart.
I think we need federal intervention in places like San Francisco.
But I gotta tell you, if they're defunding police in Los Angeles, good!
These are cops who appreciate and support and defend adult men performing sex acts on each other in public.
That's the LAPD.
So I don't care if they get defunded, good, get rid of them.
You know what we need?
Donald Trump needs to get elected and then federal law enforcement should do its job.
And what is its job?
To uphold the rights of citizens in this country.
If crimes are being committed and the police will not uphold them because the cops like the crime, then federal law enforcement should go in and enforce the law.
Now, the unfortunate reality is that inches us towards a federalized nation.
I'm not a big fan of that.
A lot of conservatives and libertarians make the argument that California should be able to do whatever they want.
I do not think we should sit back and let our cities just be destroyed.
Now, I know, you may be saying, but Tim, you're saying, get out of cities.
You know, fair point.
No.
And then when the Daniel Penney thing happened and I said, well, you reap what you sow, you live in these cities.
I had a lot of comments from people.
There was a super chat where someone said, we cannot let them destroy once great American cities, just let them win.
And I said, you're right, actually.
So I donated to Penney.
And I think this changed my view a little bit.
A little bit.
I still think it's appropriate to get away from cities' short-term gains.
But we also want to make sure that we keep the culture war fights in these cities, these battles, these cultural shifts.
And that means we should be prioritizing and funding legislative battles and legal battles in winning these cities back.
So if Donald Trump is elected, Who has the bravery to do such a thing?
should go into these cities and just start enforcing the law.
What's that?
Two nude men are performing sex acts in front of children?
Well, they weren't both nude, they're wearing BDSM gear.
Okay, well, you go in, you stop the float, you say, you're under arrest.
End of story.
Who has the bravery to do such a thing?
I don't know.
I can tell you, though, if Donald Trump gets elected and puts out a call for officers to
enforce the law, he'll find a lot of really good people who want to save this country
from the lewd and lascivious behaviors, from the corruption that they even know is wrong.
They deleted the tweet.
They fear something.
Let me put it this way.
If the overwhelming majority of people in this country say you are doing something evil and you argue, no, I'm not, I'm right, then I believe you genuinely think you're right.
When you tried to hide the thing you did, now I can only assume that you don't believe what you're doing is good.
Let me put it this way.
The Founding Fathers wrote their beliefs and shared them far and wide.
They used pseudonyms.
Why?
They were afraid of reprisal and action from the crown.
I can certainly understand that.
Anonymity is a powerful thing.
But they made sure everyone knew those views and they spread that around far and wide.
I don't know who posted this tweet.
But they deleted it!
Because they know it's wrong.
They could easily put out a statement saying, we agree with and support the right for these things to happen.
No one knows who did.
But they're scared.
They're scared that the majority, that most people in this country, do not want their kids being targeted and think this is inappropriate, and they're worried it will cause them financial harm.
Imagine sacrificing your worldview for money.
There's a lot of people who have no worldview.
They have no moral framework.
They just want money.
And this exemplifies it.
Congratulations.
Would love to hear a response, Yingling, as to what this was all about.
But either way, it got taken down.
Now I'm curious if the event is still happening and what their age restrictions will be.
We'll reach out.
We'll follow up on the story and see where we're at, but I'll leave it there for now.
Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
I think AI is going to be a lot of fun.
I think there's some things that it can do that'll be really cool, but I think it's going to destroy us.
I think the machine is going to destroy us.
I think we will lose control of it because we are not a centralized nucleus of people.
We're a decentralized network of individual thinkers.
If we give the reins to AI, it will start doing things we can't comprehend because of the macro scale by which it operates.
We will perhaps do one small task.
Maybe we're riding our bike to deliver a product and we won't realize we're building a nuclear bomb.
Now don't get me wrong, government can do the exact same thing, but AI is going to be out of human control.
And this is why I'm so concerned and offended by the use of AI for manipulation and why I think we need to slow things down.
I hope y'all are ready for this story.
Amazon locks man out of his smart home after baseless racism accusations.
This issue has raised questions about the risks of smart home technology.
And this is where it's all going.
I'll give you the simple version real quick.
A guy was accused of being racist, so they locked him out of his own house.
Not like out of the physical house.
They locked him out of using his own products in his home.
So imagine your thermostat, your refrigerator, whatever it is that you want to connect to the machine.
And then what happens when you've said naughty words?
I'm sorry, John.
I can't let you do that.
And now you can't cook your roast!
Looks like you're gonna have to go leave, find food somewhere else.
Good luck with that.
Because when you bring your phone to go to the Amazon store, it'll say, sorry, it can't let you in.
You're racist.
Here's a story from IGN.
Check this out.
In a world where technology is seamlessly intertwined with our daily lives, a man recently encountered an occurrence that showcased why relying on tech can be inadvertently complicated.
The alarming incident caused a smart home owner to get locked out of his own home for a week due to a misunderstanding with an Amazon delivery driver.
The unwanted disruption happened when a package was delivered to Brandon Jackson's home by an Amazon driver.
Everything seemed like it was going smoothly until Jackson was unable to access his Amazon Echo devices the next day, indicating that his account had been locked.
In an attempt to address the problem, Jackson contacted Amazon's customer service and was asked by an executive if he knew why his account was locked.
which triggered the safety lockout mechanism, when he was unable to interact with his devices.
In an attempt to address the problem, Jackson contacted Amazon's customer service
and was asked by an executive if he knew why his account was locked.
When I answered I was unsure, their tone turned somewhat accusatory.
I was told that the driver who had delivered my package reported receiving racist remarks from my ring doorbell.
That's right!
His automatic doorbell response was racist so he gets locked out.
Jackson, who claimed that his house has multiple cameras recording everything that happened within his property, reviewed the footage and found no proof of such remarks, being uttered.
According to him, the driver, who was wearing headphones, must have misheard the doorbell, as the only sound it could make was the automated response, excuse me, can I help you?
Adding to his bafflement, upon reviewing the footage, it became evident that no one was home during the incident, meaning the delivery driver had truly misinterpreted the situation.
However, despite clearing the air with Amazon, Jackson's account was still locked for an entire week.
Amazon allegedly did not opt for a more reasonable approach, such as sending a warning email or contacting the homeowner before locking him out of his own house.
Following the messy ordeal, Jackson said he is seriously considering discontinuing his Amazon Echo devices.
Now that's just Amazon Echo.
That can be annoying.
Did you know there are smart locks?
That's right.
You can buy, at Best Buy, a smart bolt you put in your door that connects to the internet.
They're actually quite fun and convenient.
We used to use something like this.
We have a different system now.
I'm not going to say too much due to security reasons, but we stayed away from these ones for a few reasons.
One, they can be hacked.
Someone can just open your door by clicking a button.
Screw that.
Someone get access to your email?
Look, if you need a key to get in, you need a key to get in, right?
To be honest, these bolts don't do a whole lot.
A strong kick can break a door open.
So, what's a bolt really gonna do?
Now, if you got, like, a bunch of them, it might keep the door closed for a little bit, but seriously, someone determined is gonna find a way to get in your house.
Maybe they'll climb through a window or something.
The purpose of the locks is just so that it's difficult.
Someone goes to your door, they may be fiddling around, and then, well, it's very hard.
Someone might see you.
If you can't pick that lock very quickly, if you can't get in, if someone doesn't recognize you, hmm.
How about this?
With a smart bolt, you hack in their email, as you're walking up, you pick up your phone, you hit the button unlocking the door, and then you walk up, you knock, and then you open the door and walk in.
And anybody watching just saw you get let in.
Because the door was unlocked for you.
So, it's not like the biggest deal necessarily.
I'll tell you what the bigger deal is.
Let's say, uh, you are falsely accused of being a racist by some, I don't know, let's say Karen.
Let's use, let's use the word Karen.
Let's, let's tell the left.
Let's say there's an angry, nasty manager at a Whole Foods or an Amazon store.
And then she goes in, you buy something.
And let's say that you have some choice words.
Maybe she says something insulting and you say, man, that's inappropriate.
I don't, don't talk to me like that.
Don't talk to me like that.
And then you leave.
So she goes over to where you just purchased something.
She types in racist.
You get home.
You walk up to your door.
You press the button.
It goes, bam bam.
And you go, uh, what's going on?
Bam bam.
Okay, uh, my phone's not opening the door.
Uh, where's my keys at?
Well, maybe you brought your keys and you're okay.
You say, okay, I'll put my groceries down, unlock my door with the key.
That was weird.
Then you walk inside and you say, you know, I'm not going to say it, but you say, you know, prompt, turn the TV on.
What's going on?
You grab the remote, press the button.
You turn, it turns on and it says warning.
Your account has been disabled due to derogatory comments made in one of our locations.
So now you can't watch your TV and you're like, wait, what's happening?
You go to your fridge.
Sorry.
Can't access your smart fridge.
There's a panel on the front.
You can still open it.
There's food in there.
And you're like, this is getting nuts.
You go to your thermostats.
The heat of the day.
It's getting warm outside.
And you spin the knob.
Nothing happens.
And it says, your account has been temporarily suspended for hate speech.
And you go, this is crazy.
And then when you call Amazon and say, I don't know what this is all about, they'll be like, we had a report from one of our managers that you engaged in hate speech.
That's it.
Your account's suspended for one week.
And this is basically what happens to this guy.
But imagine how bad it's gonna be if your whole house is linked into this system.
Now, here's the best part.
It's the future, my friends.
You go to the grocery store, it's a day later, you're gonna pick up some sauce or whatever, and you can't buy the food because you're using an e-wallet on your phone to buy things.
And you're like, I don't have cards anymore.
This is the future with this system.
Now it gets worse.
Because I'm just giving you the what could happen now scenario.
Let's talk about the AI.
Oh boy.
Now, you've got a new smart device in your house.
And when you plug it in and turn it on, it says, hello, would you like to opt in to our customer feedback service program?
It allows us to make our service better for you.
And you're like, oh yeah, sure, whatever.
And it's like, thank you, connecting.
What does it mean?
It's going to record you.
And so then, one day, you're talking, and you say something like, I was watching YouTube and there was this E girl, shout out to Keemstar, that happened to him.
And I think she said something else.
An E, so there's an E hyphen girl, right?
And it sounds like a different word.
And all of a sudden, everything shuts down.
Sorry, you've engaged in hate speech.
We don't allow those words.
But hey, what's happening?
Well, you agreed to this, remember?
Our customer feedback system, we're recording you.
And you say naughty words.
So we're not providing you service.
Do better.
The first time it happens, it says, do you agree not to use these words anymore?
And you'll say, I didn't use the word.
It'll be like, incorrect response.
You used the word.
Do you agree not to use the words anymore?
Fine, OK, I agree.
Thank you.
Account restored.
If it happens again, you'll be suspended for one week.
That's where we're going.
That's where we're going.
It gets better.
You ready for this one?
Do you have a smart device?
Do you have one of these things?
You do realize it is listening to you 24-7, right?
It's remarkable because I was tracking this story.
It's almost 10 years ago.
And people were like, I think my phone's spying on me.
Well...
First, a lot of the ads you get aren't spying on you.
It's creepy algorithmic predictions based on things you've searched for and related things.
Where you've been based on your GPS data.
A lot of people think it has to be spying on me.
I was talking about spaghetti and then all of a sudden it showed me an ad for spaghetti.
It could be because the AI can see things you don't know it can see.
This happened with a guy, he received advertisements for pregnancy and prenatal care stuff for his daughter, and he got angry and calls the company, why are you sending this pregnancy stuff to my teenage daughter?
And they said, it's all automated.
Turns out she was pregnant and she didn't even know.
She had searched for things online that were correlated with pregnancy, so it started sending her pregnancy ads.
So here's the best part.
The devices have to be listening to you 24-7.
How else would they turn on?
If you have a- I'm gonna give a hypothetical, because I don't actually want to say the wake-up command.
But let's say your wake-up command was, Greetings, Cortana.
You know what I mean?
You know, there's other ones I won't say, because I know your devices may turn on.
How does it know you told it to turn on unless it's listening 24-7?
You get it now, right?
Your device that is voice-activated has to listen to everything you say 24-7.
Otherwise, it wouldn't be able to turn on.
Get it?
Here's how it works.
When you say words, it records it, sends it to a company that translates it into text, puts it back into the input as text, and then executes that.
That means your smart devices are listening 24-7.
They have to be, otherwise they can't turn on!
And there it is.
I wonder how many people are like, wait a minute, holy crap.
So one day, you'll be watching Dave Chappelle, and your smart device will hear what Dave Chappelle had to say, and then everything turns off.
You ready for that world?
It's gonna be fun.
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.
You spent so much time trying to figure out if you could do it, you never stopped to ask if you should do it.
Man, that quote goes a long way and needs to be said over and over and over again on so many issues.
I was just talking about AI.
And now this, from the Daily Mail.
Warning over creation of synthetic human embryos, as top scientists say breakthrough could have chilling effect if misused.
Apparently, they have made humans without using a sperm or an egg.
Synthetic human embryos.
What will come of this?
I truly wonder.
There are a lot of questions about the universe we don't know.
One of the things I find truly fascinating in all of these questions and debates is the idea of ensouling.
Would a clone have a soul?
unidentified
Hmm.
tim pool
Do souls exist?
Certainly many people believe they do.
But I wonder.
I wonder what makes us us.
We just don't know.
We have general ideas.
We have science.
We have faith.
Some people think they know.
Some people believe they know.
But, uh, you know, there's faith, and then there's science, and then we just don't know.
I don't know.
I don't.
I should say I don't know.
Maybe you do.
I just wonder.
Check this story out.
Scientists have stunned the world by revealing the creation of synthetic human embryos in a lab without eggs or sperm.
The breakthrough by Cambridge University and California Institute of Technology experts could soon provide insights into miscarriages and genetic disorders.
However, synthetic embryos are not covered by laws in the UK or in most countries around the world and come with serious ethical and legal issues.
Scientists who were not involved in the achievement have now shared their concerns about the technology with one calling it chilling.
It is important that research and researchers in this area proceed cautiously, carefully, and transparently, said Professor James Briscoe at the Francis Crick Institute.
A human embryo in the lab at nine days after fertilization, as scientists say they have created an embryo without eggs and sperm.
Yo, what?
How?
They, like, inject the genetic matter into some synthetic?
Well, they say the danger is that missteps or unjustified claims will have a chilling effect on the public and policymakers that would be a major setback for the field.
The synthetic human embryos were grown from embryonic stem cells, special human cells that have the ability to develop into different cell types, from muscle cells to brain cells.
Professor Briscoe stressed, the profound ethical and legal questions that now arise due to the work, announced on Wednesday, on the International Society for Stem Cell Research's annual meeting in Boston, and first reported on by The Guardian.
Unlike human embryos arising from in vitro fertilization, where there is an established legal framework, there are currently no clear regulations governing stem cell derived models of human embryos.
There is an urgent need for regulations to provide a framework for the creation and use of stem cells derived from models of human embryos.
Very interesting.
So what are they saying?
They took someone's stem cells and then stimulated it into an embryo which can then grow into a human being?
I don't know.
Maybe I'm wrong.
unidentified
I don't know.
tim pool
I'm not a science guy, huh?
An embryo is the early stage of the development of an animal that lasts from shortly after fertilization until the development of body parts when it becomes a foetus.
A foetus.
While the embryos do not have the beginnings of a brain or a beating heart, they do include cells that would go on to form the placenta and yolk sac.
They say, unlike human embryos arising from in vitro, there are currently no clear regulations, so they're not really explaining what the image is.
An embryo, I suppose.
Very interesting.
It's unclear, however, whether they would continue maturing beyond the earliest stages of development.
Professor Briscoe pointed out that the Cambridge, California team hasn't published a research paper or even preprint about the achievement, so it is not possible to comment in detail on the scientific significance of the story.
Although it is very early days, synthetic models of human embryos based on stem cells have a lot of potential.
They could provide fundamental insight into critical stages of human development.
These are stages that have been very difficult to study, and it's a time when many pregnancies fail.
Excuse me.
Fresh insight might lead to a better understanding of the causes of miscarriages and the unique aspects of human development.
Dr. Ildem Ackerman, Associate Professor in Functional Genomics at the University of Birmingham, said the development has significant implications.
Obviously, the research can provide a deeper understanding of how tissues and organs form, potentially leading to advancements in regenerative medicine and the treatment of developmental disorders.
Nevertheless, the ability to do something does not justify doing it.
You see?
That's what I'm trying to say, right?
Ethical frameworks should be established and maintained in line with the public's view on the subject.
The international team's synthetic human embryos best resemble blastocysts, clusters of dividing cells in an early stage of an embryo.
So here we have a model showing stage 1 fertilization and then, I see, so if you look at the sperm and egg, day 2 you get the zygote, 2-cell stage, 4-cell stage, 8-cell stage, and then the blastocyst is day 5.
So it appears that this is what they're making.
Wow man, this is crazy stuff.
The embryos were cultivated to a stage just beyond the equivalent of 14 days of development for a natural embryo.
Although the international team referred to them as synthetic embryos, they are not truly synthetic because they were not created from scratch.
Instead, they are derived from living stem cells that originate from an embryo.
Okay, so they've basically cloned an embryo.
That's less alarming, but still kind of freaky.
Essentially, what scientists do is cultivate a single stem cell and encourage its growth into an organized group of cells that, in theory, possess the potential to develop into an implantable embryo.
She added, This report suggests that there is now proof that human embryonic stem cells can potentially become embryos.
Professor Roger Sturmey, a senior research fellow in maternal and fetal health at the University of Manchester, said synthetic embryos could reduce the reliance on real human embryos for research.
It is still human embryos!
Man, there are deep and dark questions about this.
And I think when we talk about the issue of abortion, you need to understand that this may be a large component of why they want abortion in nine months.
Scientific research on human beings.
You know, we have these debates a whole lot.
As it pertains to abortion.
And people seem to think that it may just be the left is amoral, maybe they're in favor of depopulation, or maybe they want to be able to do scientific research on human beings.
And how do you do it?
Well, if a human life is protected under the Constitution, you can't.
But what if we make the argument that certain life is not in fact life?
There you go.
This raises a lot of questions.
A synthetic embryo is still a human embryo.
Does it have human life?
I am no religious leader.
I can't tell you, man.
I just think this stuff is freaky and it's gonna get darker.
They say the work builds on a steadily growing foundation of research that demonstrates that stem cells can, under very specialized lab conditions, be persuaded to form a structure that resembles the embryonic stage called the blastocyst.
In normal development, the blastocyst is an important structure as it is around the time that the embryo begins the process of implanting into the uterus and establishing pregnancy.
Well, there's the question.
Are they gonna do that research?
Are they going to try to grow this in a person?
They've already done it with, I believe it was a lamb.
They grew it in a bag.
Man.
Dark days indeed.
There's that viral video where they show babies being grown in pods.
And they say, you don't need women anymore.
Grow them in pods.
I hate to think what a future will be like if this is the path we go down.
Humans no longer make babies the old-fashioned way they grow them.
Genetically modified, specialized, designer babies grown in pods.
Man.
Crazy.
For all we know in a hundred years, it'll be normal.
And we'll be like, can you believe people used to actually physically give birth?
How crazy.
But I gotta be honest.
If we can make babies in machines, for what purpose would a society have women?
unidentified
No, seriously.
tim pool
We talk about the supplanting of women's spaces.
But if we were going to try and design humans, we want stronger, faster, higher grip strength, more muscle mass, Wouldn't they just start making all of the babies dudes?
If you don't need women to have the babies?
It's a creepy thought.
I'm not saying it's a good one.
I'm saying there will be people who will absolutely push for that.
They're going to say, You know, I'll say it again, man.
I'll say it again.
study this period are urgently needed to help us understand infertility and early
pregnancy loss. To understand.
I'll say it again man. I'll say it again. You, uh, man. You spent so much time asking if you
could you didn't ask, you didn't stop to ask if you should.
You're talking about all the stuff we need to understand, and there's a tough question there.
I do think knowledge is a good thing.
But at what cost?
What must we pursue?
There's a question over whether or not technology is actually destroying humanity.
And I wonder.
Technology results in a massive boom.
We don't have the cultural wisdom to handle technologies of this level, even the ones that we develop.
You know, if you were to bring weapons and technology to a less socially developed culture, they'd go nuts with it.
And we talk about if aliens came to Earth and gave weapons to one nation, what would happen?
They'd probably take over.
Maybe, maybe not.
But we don't even think about the technology we develop and how it affects us.
When we invent a technology, those who invent it may understand it, but do regular people?
Will they be able to appropriately apply the use of this technology or is there even an appropriate use?
It's getting crazy out there.
I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I'll see you all shortly.
I don't like using the term morbidly obese for people who are over a certain size.
And I always try to be careful.
Look, you know, you guys know me.
I'm not trying to intentionally disparage or disrespect anybody.
But I like to be accurate and use terms, right?
Now we have this story.
Plus-size influencer J. Lynn Cheney rips plane seat policies after demanding other flyers pay for extra seat.
Oh.
We've been here before, but here we are again with another story just like this.
Okay.
I want to be precise.
Morbidly obese means very, very large.
And it's a medical term, I believe.
It means that you are very unhealthy and the obesity could be a factor in killing you.
I also believe that there is something that we refer to as moribundly obese.
And you can look this up.
I don't believe this one's a medical term.
I could be wrong.
But moribund, it's really annoying when I try and type this in and Google's like, did you mean morbidly obese?
And when I tell people moribundly obese and they go, you mean morbidly?
No, I did not say the word morbidly.
Morabund means, at the point of death.
Like, you are about to die.
And so I think we need that extra category.
Because, if you look at the world's fattest man from a hundred years ago, you're like, wow, that guy doesn't look that fat relative to today's standards.
Seriously, it's bad.
We've got serious problems in the West.
So there is obesity, someone slightly overweight.
Then there is morbid obesity, someone is very overweight.
And then there's moribund obesity, where someone's literally struggling to breathe and could die at any moment.
And I think that's an important category that we should bring up when it comes to people who are beyond morbidly obese.
Just something I wanted to say in material to... mostly to this article.
But here we go.
Once again, a plus-size travel influencer is demanding that airlines change their discriminatory policies that make larger flyers pay twice for the same experience, admitting that making such a change may make fares for everyone more expensive.
I would like to... I want to tell you something, you know?
You're not going to be flying private.
Yeah.
You know, we talk about the solutions to this issue.
Oh man, she started a change.org petition.
Demand the FAA.
Demand for the FAA to protect plus-size customers doubling down and being discriminated against while flying to do their size.
You know, there's a reason why I want to talk about this subject.
This is where leftist ideas, nonsense, clash with physical reality.
You want to fly in a plane, and you say it's discriminatory to... Oh, let's talk about this.
There's no solution here.
You say it's discriminatory because you are overweight, so you have to pay twice as much for the same experience as someone who is not overweight.
Hold on there a minute.
You get twice the space.
It's discriminatory if you receive two seats for the price of one.
Why don't I get two seats for the price of one?
The only real solution to this, if this petition would actually make sense and go through, would be that everyone must be guaranteed, like, three feet of space on a plane.
Maybe, I mean, go ahead and do it, but you might as well be flying private, if that's the point.
Get, like, ten people on a plane.
Because if you- everyone is supposed to get the same amount of space for the same amount of money, then they'll just have to increase the amount of space everyone gets and increase the amount of money that you spend.
I got a solution for ya.
Here's what you can do, airlines.
All seats will be sold as pods for one price.
Now, hold on.
What's a pod?
Well, a pod is a group of three seats.
But how is a single individual traveling for work supposed to do it?
Well, you can also offer up a buddy system, where, here's how it works.
Every seat is the size of three, and it costs the same price, $1,000 or $1,500.
And what you do is, you log in the website, and in order to buy the bundle, you have to say, looking for group.
Need two more people who wanna go in on this pod with me.
And then you split the cost.
Now, everything's hunky-dory.
Legal and fair.
Now, no one's paying more for the same experience.
I'm just saying that I bought a pod and I'm gonna share it with my two friends that I just met.
And the people who are more abundantly obese, well, they can buy a pod as well.
And maybe someone will want to share a pod with them.
Maybe they can negotiate price.
Maybe the person will say, you're too large and I'm not going to fit in the pod.
There you go.
Problem solved.
No longer discrimination.
Anyway, you get my point.
It makes no sense.
They want special treatment.
They want special things.
Here's what you said.
We have to pay two fares, even though we're getting the same experience.
You're not!
You're getting two seats!
I don't get two seats!
If anything, our experiences are a little bit more challenging.
While Cheney has held firm in her demands, in April, she admitted that if her petition's demands were met, ticket prices for all customers would likely increase due to demand.
Okay, look.
It is not fair that you, because you've chosen to be more abundantly obese, take up extra space.
It's not fair.
I'm not trying to be mean to this person.
You've made the choice to gorge yourself and gain this weight.
There's no question about it.
You made those choices.
And that's totally fine.
You can live how you want to live.
I got no beef.
But don't expect me to have to sit next to you and be crammed into a space I don't fit in because you eat too much.
It is difficult to provide one-size-fits-all answer to the question of who will pay for policies mentioned in the petition, she told Fox News.
However, what is clear is that the mistreatment and discrimination of plus-size travelers, okay, come on, just call them morbidly obese, is unacceptable and must be addressed plus-size.
Plus-size.
Come on.
She added, Implementing policies to accommodate plus-size passengers may come with associated costs, but these costs must be weighed against the benefits of creating a more welcoming and inclusive travel experience.
In her petition, Cheney urged the FAA to mandate that all airlines create a comprehensive customer-of-size policy that prioritizes the comfort and well-being of all passengers.
Cheney, as well as other plus-size travelers and travel experts, are calling on airlines in the U.S.
to standardize their policies.
So this is what I was saying when I was saying this is where leftist policies clash with physical reality.
Planes have weight restrictions!
Sorry.
Have a nice day.
Nice talking to you.
When we used to load planes, we had to write down the average size.
You know what's funny?
I did a segment like this a month ago.
I'm telling the same story again, because it keeps happening.
We'd write down the average weight in the cargo, and if you're on a plane with very few passengers, they tell you where you have to sit.
Because if too many people on one side, it shifts the weight of the plane.
Yeah, that's how it works.
We've flown private in a few instances.
We've got some high-profile interviews coming up where we may have no choice.
And I don't want to say too much, but some big, big, big names.
And that means we have to fly at very short notice.
We're talking people who will tell us the morning of, like, hey, I got an hour at this time.
Come now or don't.
And so that means we got to get a PJ like that.
Now, a day's notice is not possible.
But we have flown for reasons like this, on private, and talked to... And here's an interesting thing.
Some of these companies, like Varijet, for instance, comparable to a first class ticket.
So it's like, if you're going to fly first class, like a regional flight, maybe like Texas, You are actually better off flying private if you're on a full plane with four adults and two kids.
It's gonna cost you the same as it would if you were flying first class.
So if it's like a business thing, it may make sense.
Very jets, very cheap, they're very small jets.
But with this, private jets, yeah, there's weight restrictions.
Here's the funny thing.
When you're booking a private jet, they ask you what your weight is.
They say, how much do you weigh?
And what luggage do you have?
And, uh, if you weigh too much, they're gonna say, we can't carry that much.
It's not because we don't like you.
It's not because we think there's something wrong with you.
It's because the plane can't fly!
It's physical reality!
You'll need to get a bigger jet.
And don't get me wrong, a 57 can carry a lot of weight.
And it would take a lot of morbidly obese people to ground a flight like that.
And carry a lot.
But you can't physically fit in the space.
So what are they supposed to do?
I just find this world we live in so fascinatingly absurd.
But let's...
Here we go.
Other plus-size travelers have also complained.
Being a large person is not a choice as many people mistakenly believe.
There is unfortunately a lot of negative attention and prejudice against plus-size people.
It's not as if someone is getting up in the morning and making a decision that they're going to be a large person.
So through that lens of human rights, I don't see any justification for charging these people a double fare.
That's just not true.
It was, um, about a year and a half ago, I weighed 200 pounds.
And I didn't care.
Yeah, I literally didn't care.
I was skating all the time, and I was like, whatever.
And then one day, I didn't eat any sugar.
For real, that's what happened.
I was downstairs, we had salami and roasted red pepper feta dip.
Delicious!
No sugar in it.
No sugar in the meat.
And that was all I ate that day.
Been working a lot.
And I was like, you know, I didn't eat any sugar today.
Normally, I would do, like, rice or something with my food, or have bread.
And then I was like, I'm just not gonna eat any more sugar, I guess.
And then I cut out almost all the carbs.
And guess what?
Within a month, I lost 20 pounds.
And about two months after that, I lost another 10.
Down to about 170.
And then, since then, I've had a little bit of sugar here and there.
I was basically at, like, 10 grams of carbs per day, and then went to, like, 30 or 40.
Some days more.
Because I'm mostly like, I never really... I was never like, I must lose weight or anything like that.
But you know what?
One day I just changed my diet then lost a bunch of weight.
Seriously.
Yeah.
It's a choice.
It is.
Now, I didn't understand.
I didn't care.
I thought I wasn't eating that much, but it was the carbs.
We would order, like, hibachi or something, and I'd get, like, rice with my chicken, and I'm like, it's chicken, vegetables, and rice, you know?
And I'd be like, I don't want the heavy sugar stuff, we'll do just the rice, because rice is just rice.
But rice is very, very dense in carbs.
And so I was eating foods like that with bread and all that.
So yeah, it is.
You can choose to stop eating that stuff.
Talk to a nutritionist.
Figure out what diet works for you.
I mostly just had no more bread.
Cutting that for the most part out.
Makes me feel sick.
Don't like it.
And then started just doing meats, cheeses, fish, fats.
The other day we did, uh, on Tuesday, we did Taco Tuesday!
And we got tortillas.
And we got keto tortillas.
I didn't even eat those.
Cause they got gluten in them.
And I'm just like, I don't know about all that gluten stuff, maybe it's not that big a deal, but I'm just gonna stay away from it.
So I took the beef, put it in the bowl, put the cheese, sour cream, avocado, and peppers and mixed it all up and just ate it like that.
In a bowl.
It was delicious.
You can choose to eat better.
I think these people are just entitled.
Whatever.
Welcome to the real world.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Export Selection