All Episodes
Sept. 5, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:38:06
Elon Musk DECLARES WAR On the ADL, Threatens LAWSUIT For LYING To Advertisers To Destroy Twitter

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 Elon Musk DECLARES WAR On the ADL, Threatens LAWSUIT For LYING To Advertisers To Destroy Twitter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:34:15
Appearances
Clips
j
josh hammer
00:32
| 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.
Elon Musk has declared war on the Anti-Defamation League, threatening to sue them for defamation.
And once he's through with them, everyone says that they will be dropping the anti, and everyone will call them the Defamation League.
Haha.
Yeah, I know.
I stole that joke from Twitter.
But the ADL's mission is fairly... Well, I want to say it's kind of obvious to anyone who pays attention to politics.
On the surface, they say they're trying to stop hate speech and anti-Semitism.
But in reality, what they do is purely political.
And this is evidenced by statements made by the organization in the past and where they currently are.
It seems that their mission more so aligns with the establishment narrative mission and less so with actually stopping hate speech or defending free speech.
The ADL routinely smears and harasses people and organizations, forcing them to ban people that the ADL deems to be a problem.
We've got an article from Politico that Elon Musk has highlighted.
The ad boycott that has Facebook on the defensive.
Hundreds of companies are boycotting the social media giant.
Here's the backstory.
And of course, everyone's blaming the ADL for this, basically, because, well, Whether it's just on its own or part of a coalition of organizations that are engaging in this behavior, this is what activists do.
They terrify advertisers, but you know what?
It's not going to work anymore.
Just take a look at Bud Light and Target.
And in the inverse, take a look at Rich Men North of Richmond and take a look at Sound of Freedom.
Four examples that I can give you.
Too positive, too negative.
Showing that we will not back down.
That we are standing up for what we believe in and we are done being manipulated by lies in the media and by activist organizations.
Shout out to our good friends over at Public Square that are helping build the parallel economy.
But I'm sick of it.
Look.
You know, I don't really care about what you choose to believe in your life, your religion, your political views.
I will argue with you.
I will disagree with you.
But if you are a dishonest actor seeking to gain power by manipulating people and lying, we got a problem.
Don't care what your reasoning is.
Let's take a look.
Elon Musk gave us a pretty intense breakdown.
His accusation is that the ADL is contacting advertisers and has gotten them to drop Twitter, cutting them off from a substantial amount of revenue that could be around $22 billion.
Oh boy, there's more.
Elon Musk says that he will, we're assuming he's going to do it, release all communications with old Twitter and the ADL and they'll show us the communications and who the ADL was targeting.
Now this is a really big one, ladies and gentlemen.
This is a big one because not only is Elon Musk going to go to war with the ADL and potentially have a tortious interference lawsuit himself, But anyone who is targeted by the ADL will likely have their own defamation and tortious interference claim.
I'm not a lawyer.
My general understanding of tortious interference would be like if I have a contract with, uh, let's say somebody makes sunglasses.
We have an agreement.
And then a third party goes to them and issues threats to get them to break that contract.
That would be tortious interference.
Something like that.
Again, not a lawyer, but that's my general understanding.
If someone's running a business and utilizes Twitter, especially now that there's monetization, but even before then, let's say you're on Twitter and you made memes.
And then from those memes, you would sell t-shirts.
You would say like, look at this picture of Joe Biden, you know, doing the robot.
And then you would link underneath it, buy my t-shirt.
That's your business.
You have a business arrangement with Twitter.
Twitter and you have a contract as to what you can and can't do and why.
That's the terms of service.
It's an agreement.
The ADL then steps in, and a bunch of other activist organizations, and they go to Twitter and say, ban that person and shut them down.
Interfering with the agreement you have with Twitter.
Now, here's the problem.
Often, we have seen, and we know for a fact, that Twitter was banning people who did not break the rules.
unidentified
And they would always just say, whoopsie, whoopsie daisies.
tim pool
Oh, this is gonna be interesting.
Because if they just claimed it was an oopsie-daisies, these communications should be rather enlightening.
How much do you want to bet there's an email from the ADL to Twitter saying, ban person X. Ban, oh, I shouldn't say that.
Ban so-and-so.
Ban this individual.
And then all of a sudden, shortly after, oop, Twitter accidentally banned them!
Because here's what happens.
Twitter gets scared that if they don't, they're going to lose ad revenue, so they just do it.
This is the nature of modern politics, especially in the tech sector.
Because I've talked to these CEOs, you know what they've told me?
Look man, either I ban the one person, or everyone gets shut down.
That's how they view it.
You get a company, let's say there's a big tech social media platform.
A company goes to them and says, if you don't ban, you know, John Doe, we will sever services to your platform, affecting thousands, tens of thousands, or more, or we'll pull advertising, and then you can't maintain your servers, and you go down.
They say, okay, look, what do we do?
Typically, the CEOs just say, it's one person who cares.
We've got 330 million, you know, however many users, let's just ban the one person.
Often, they're scared that if they go too far and ban too many people at once, it'll create a splash.
So they do it, you know, little bits at a time.
That's how the game is played.
Here's the story from Deadline.
Twitter owner Elon Musk threatens lawsuit against the ADL for unfounded accusations and blames them for lost revenue and valuation.
We have this from NBC News.
This one's a little bit funny, but basically the same thing.
He's blaming the ADL for lost revenue.
Here's Elon Musk tweeting, To clear our platform's name on the matter of anti-Semitism,
it looks like we have no choice but to file a defamation lawsuit against the
Anti-Defamation League. Oh, the irony. Well, it's funny.
It's probably why they call themselves.
ALX responds, Wouldn't be the first time the Defamation League would be found to have defamed people.
Highlighting the story from 2000, Judge fines ADL $10.5 million in Colorado defamation lawsuit, to which Elon says, Interesting.
In our case, they would potentially be on the hook for destroying half the value of the company, so roughly $22 billion.
Ian Miles-Chonk says, Godspeed, and may the odds be ever in your favor.
Elon Musk breaks it down.
We have this.
Dr. Knowitall responded saying, I've not seen anything related to this up until recently.
Are they alone seriously responsible for destroying half the value of the company?
I won't ask for details, lawyers and all, but I'm very interested to find out what the heck has been going on when the time comes.
Elon says, Based on what we've heard from advertisers, ADL seems to be responsible for most of our revenue loss.
Giving them the maximum benefit of the doubt, I don't see any scenario where they're responsible for less than 10% of the value destruction, so around $4 billion.
Document discovery of all communications between the ADL and advertisers will tell the full story.
Tesla owner Silicon Valley responds.
Are advertisers willing to come back when you tell them the truth?
Elon says.
Advertisers avoid controversy.
So all that is needed for ADL to crush our US and European ad revenue is to make unfounded accusations.
They have much less power in Asia, so our ad revenue there is still strong.
This controversy causes advertisers to pause, but that pause is permanent.
Until ADL gives the green light, which they will not do without us agreeing to secretly suspend or shadow ban any account they don't like.
That is the relationship they had with X and Twitter for many years.
Presumably, they have that with all Western search on social media orgs.
One individual responded, can confirm, Filipina here who's on the pulse and weekly discussions with Starlink community owners and enthusiasts in Philippines.
We are not directly affected by most Western issues, so it's very different here in Asia.
We very much keep to ourselves, except for China, trying to diversify faster now in the country.
Market sentiment is still strong for ex-Tesla and Tesla Asia, as well as a desire to have another HQ here besides the one in Singapore.
We're priming Philippines to be energy sustainable, etc., etc., basically just confirming what Elon says.
In the Asian markets, the ADL has very little power.
So, you got Billboard Chris popping up, saying, Sue them!
That's right.
Elon Musk says, to be super clear, I'm pro-free speech, but against antisemitism of any kind.
Mike Cernovich responds, it's been proven that Democrat groups buy bots to falsely smear people via association.
How many antisemitic accounts are real versus how many are funded and operated by the DNC to create fear and division?
Elon says, It is impossible to tell with unverified accounts whether you're dealing with a small or large number of real people, as sophisticated bots are virtually indistinguishable from humans.
With unverified accounts, there is also no way to tell if the organization complaining was somehow complicit in creating the very thing they complain about.
Now that one, that's where it gets really interesting.
The accusation, the argument, the ADL, Or other shadowy activist groups make accounts specifically to generate hate so that these organizations can use these tweets as evidence in their claims.
Oh boy.
We'll see how it works.
Here's how the smear operates.
From Politico, this story from 2020.
Elon Musk, I believe it was Elon Musk who highlighted this.
Actually, maybe we have, let me see if I have this tweet pulled up.
I don't, I just have some responses.
But I believe it was Elon who referenced this.
It was, yeah, I'm pretty sure.
This is an old story, it says, inside the ad boycott that has Facebook on the defensive.
All right.
Now, for many of you that are in the weeds and pay attention to politics, you know exactly what's going on.
This is the game that activists play.
It's really fascinating to me, the political conversation and the holistic view of it.
It's yin-yang, baby.
Within good there is evil, within evil there is good, but there is good, there is evil, there is light, there is dark.
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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
See you on the tour.
tim pool
I take a look what's going on.
It's fascinating to me that you have these people on the tribal left and they just outright
lie.
It's.
the next video.
It's crazy.
Don't get me wrong.
That's what I'm saying.
Yin Yang, baby.
You got people on the right who lie, who are grifters.
We know that.
But it really is inverted.
In the freedom faction side of things, with disaffected liberals, libertarians, conservatives, etc., post-liberals, you have individuals who maybe disagree on how things should be solved, what we should do, why things are happening, but we agree on certain truths and certain facts.
That is, we all saw the video of Joe Biden saying that if you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting a billion dollars.
On the left, they lie and claim it never happened.
It's fascinating to me.
You've got a sworn affidavit from the prosecutor outright saying he was fired because of his investigation into Prisma, and that he believes Joe Biden was likely taking bribes.
And they say, never happened.
And the people who follow them blindly believe it.
That's the game they play.
They want to make sure that everyone is trapped in their matrix, their false version of reality.
If you come over to this side, if you step to the flames and the fire, you'll find that, uh, say for instance, me and Ben Shapiro will disagree on policy to a great degree, but we'll agree on certain facts.
We'll agree on certain issues, and we'll try to find a logical basis for the worldviews that we have, and there are moral opinions and questions that we differ on.
But for the most part, we'll agree on basic issues of fact.
If you get into an argument with someone on the left, well, there's a reason why they typically don't go on certain shows.
I'll say this, too, because we got Bill Maher going viral quite a bit.
We have tried pretty hard to get Bill Maher out here.
And I understand.
You know, you're not going to get someone who hosts their own show to travel halfway across to literally the other side of the country.
I shouldn't say halfway, but literally the other side of the country to come on someone else's show.
So when Bill Maher was out in D.C., we put out the offer, like, hey, do you think he'll have time to come out?
And they said, no.
And I'm like, okay, fair point.
He was doing stand-up at MGM National Harbor, and we were like, is there any possibility?
And they said, no.
I said, totally get it.
He flies out of here, he does the show, he leaves.
That's fine.
So we said, hey, writer's strike.
Think he'll want to come now?
They said, no.
I said, okay.
And then I said, you know what?
This conversation matters.
We offered to do our show from L.A.
to rent a studio and be out there for the week so that I could sit down with Bill Maher and have that conversation with him.
They don't want to do it.
Why?
I'll tell you exactly what I think.
First, nobody owes me their time.
But I think it is fair and obvious that the left Even people like Bill Maher cannot, cannot engage in honest conversations lest it destroy their businesses.
And Bill Maher knows this better than anyone, but he is near the border of this faction.
You see, I think Bill Maher's well aware of what's really going on, but he has to maintain that I'm a liberal.
Yeah, I don't really care.
I think politically I've always been more traditionally liberal, but the truth is the truth.
So while I may be, you know, in favor of like a progressive tax system to a certain degree, though I don't like how the tax system currently works in this country, I may be pro-choice and want some kind of universal health care or whatever, if we agree on the facts, our opinions on policy aren't nearly as important.
But this is what you get.
Bill Maher is scared of the likes of the ADL.
Many of these organizations are.
And he knows that if he steps out of line, he's in trouble.
Now, over the past couple of months and past couple of years, Bill Maher has been moving away from that space.
And that's a good thing.
But this is what you see.
This is ideological capture that the ADL and other organizations like the SPLC exploit in order to lie about people to manipulate public perception.
I got a personal example for you.
For those that are wondering why this is so important, let me show you Tim Pool's good old Wikipedia entry.
That's right, my Wikipedia entry.
Ah yes, there are so many funny claims made in this silly Wikipedia entry, but this one I love the most.
Take a look at this.
A report from the Election Integrity Partnership said that Poole was a super-spreader of fake news surrounding voter fraud before and after the 2020 presidential election.
You know why I really, really love this one?
I get so many messages from people saying, Tim, why do you use NewsGuard?
Why do I use... Oh, it's not currently logged in right now.
So, this is the funny thing about them claiming that I was a super-spreader of fake news.
Wow!
NewsGuard certifying fake news websites?
Well, that can't be.
NewsGuard, for those that don't know, gives ratings to various news agencies, and it's a sliding... It's like, you know, if you're above 60% or whatever, you're considered good.
If you're below it, you're considered fake news or whatever.
They used to give green check marks, and they used to give exclamation points.
They don't do that anymore.
Now it's just a percentage rating system.
But all of the sources that I use, I should be fair, the overwhelming near absolute majority of sources I use must have that NewsGuard certification.
Because I realized a problem in how all of this was going down with organizations like I was being smeared by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
They wrote this hilarious article that claimed I traveled to Iran for a Holocaust deniers conference.
I've never been to Iran!
It was amazing.
unidentified
Why?
tim pool
Well, they had found that there was a conspiracy theorist website based in Iran that had been deleted and archived and they pulled it up and it claimed that at some point I had been there.
And they cited that as evidence.
Well, several people threatened to sue them.
They had to retract that article and apologize because how insane is that?
That's their, you know, that's their standard?
Well, seeing things like this, I realized something.
Look, whenever a story comes out and makes a claim about something, someone sends me an article and it's like some weird website like patriotinfonews.us or something.
And then I try and search for the original source to figure out who's making the claim and why.
And I still do this for the most part.
However, when NewsGuard first started to emerge on the scene, I said, this is the tool, this is the shield, quite literally, the little shield icon.
I always check the sources on these articles, but still the left would try and claim it's fake news.
Okay, now I made a very simple point.
If the New York Times says that Joe Biden did a thing, Well, there you go, 100% certified.
I often tout their certification by NewsGuard because now it's on them.
The Microsoft partnered, funded, whatever you want to call it.
They have like a deal where they're like integrated in the Edge browser or something like that.
Now, if you have a problem, Election Integrity Partnership, wow, you really got to take it up with NewsGuard because all of these sources that I have are certified by them.
See how that works.
They still lie though.
And why do they lie?
The funny thing about that story is that all of you know I have continually maintained that the election fraud stuff was nonsense.
I think some of it's interesting.
I think there are certainly questions.
I think fraud exists.
But I think Trump lost because of universal mail-in voting.
There are a lot of interesting questions.
I don't know if that degree of fraud actually amounts to people are, you know, people are saying like, How could Biden have gotten 81 million votes?
And it's like, that's not even the margin you need to worry about.
The margin was 42,000.
It depends on the states.
And now you can see they're trying to prosecute Trump.
But my issue is, you know, you get universal mail-in voting and activists on the ground knocking on doors, and you can easily, easily get 42,000 votes to beat Trump by.
I suppose the argument from the Trump supporters is that Trump actually won by millions in these states, and that's how many they pulled off.
But I'm not convinced.
I'm really not.
And I never have been.
So why then would they claim I was pushing voter fraud narratives?
Oh, I remember, because there was a story in North Jersey that was from like an NBC News affiliate, I think, that said they found a bundle of fraudulent votes.
Oh, because there are numerous stories about this?
How many stories do I have to debunk?
Doesn't matter.
What they're concerned about is that I was covering these stories that were getting downplayed and getting hundreds of thousands of views on them, even if they're NewsGuard certified.
They still will claim I was spreading fake news.
That's the game to lie.
And then people who watch shows like Real Time with Bill Maher are left in the dark.
And I do personally hold Bill Maher responsible for this.
The dude does not read the news.
He doesn't do it.
Maybe he did in the past.
Been a big fan of the guy for a long time.
And this is what I want to talk to him about.
Hey, Bill, you were wrong about all of these things.
You know, at what point do you sit back and say, maybe I'm just out of the game?
At what point do you accept responsibility for not knowing and misinforming millions of people?
Yeah.
I don't think he cares.
I really don't.
And that's probably why he will not have a sit-down conversation with me.
Look.
I've had people who have been on the show, who are high profile, who have been on Bill Maher, who know him, say, we want to get you out there, we want to get on the show.
And I'm like, yeah, real time's a different beast.
Real time might be interesting to be on, but what I want is that sit down on Club Random to talk with someone like Bill Maher.
And it's not all about him, but he's just a good example right now.
Because we recently reached out and said, hey, there's a writer's strike going on, Bill's not doing a whole lot, is there any opportunity to have a sit down with Bill Maher?
And they're just like, not interested, not interested, not interested.
And I think the reality is, Bill Maher and his people know.
You can sit down with Joe Rogan, and Joe Rogan is more of a middle-of-the-road guy who's going to defer to his guests fairly often.
Yeah, I'm not.
I'm gonna go, here's a source, here's a source, here's a source.
Not my opinion.
Tell me what you think.
And that's very different.
That's a lot more difficult to deal with.
And that's the reality of where we're at.
This is the power of these activist organizations.
You've got people like Bill Maher who fear their audience doesn't care about what's true.
Their audience cares about what is tribally beneficial.
I'll give you an example.
Over the past, over this Labor Day weekend, I called the Krasensteins evil.
The Krasensteins border on abject evil.
For those that aren't familiar, they're very prominent Twitter personalities of the liberal persuasion.
But I don't think it's fair to call them liberal.
I think it's fair to call them zealous tribalists.
Here's an example.
They put out a tweet about the Proud Boys that received nearly two decades in prison sentencing for rioting.
Some of them, I think the charges you see that they've received, The charges are a bit over the top, right?
They gave Joe Biggs a terrorism qualifier because he knocked down a barricade.
Dude, if you riot, okay, at the Capitol, that's much more serious than rioting at a liquor store or in a city.
You've got federal charges versus local charges.
But hold on there a minute.
If you burn down a police station, that's substantially more serious than knocking down a temporary barricade.
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
Joe Biggs' punishment should probably have been time served.
Two and a half years in jail.
Two years for knocking down a barricade!
And you can argue, hey man, the guy then went and went into the Capitol, and he was at the front line where people were fighting with cops.
Alright, now you've got some serious questions.
About what is the appropriate term for these individuals?
Yeah, I think, look, if you ride it at the Capitol, you go to jail.
Even Donald Trump agrees.
But 17 years plus the two and a half already served?
20 years in prison?
Are you nuts?
And the best the Krasensteins could muster was perhaps 8 to 12 would have been more sufficient.
unidentified
8 to 12 years, dude?
tim pool
Are you a fifth?
A sixth?
A fifth or a sixth of someone's life for this?
Dude, the guy who burned down the police station?
josh hammer
Four years?
tim pool
I'm like, maybe it's a little light, but I don't know.
Four years of someone's life for maybe this attempted murder.
Yeah, maybe that one gets cranked up a little bit.
There are murderers who have gotten less time than Joe Biggs.
Then you got a dude who pepper-sprayed cops.
Very bad.
I think that warrants a couple years.
Pepper-spraying cops in a riot where you're trying to storm into the Capitol?
Ooh, that's pretty bad.
Hey, time served.
Two and a half years.
Then you got a guy who broke a window.
And I'm like, very bad.
At our Capitol?
Dude, I take personal offense.
I do.
To the people smashing out windows at the Capitol.
Because I stand with those other Americans.
You can see them on camera.
And they're saying, stop!
Stop, like...
It is shocking and offensive that people were riding, trying to break into the Capitol.
It's the stupidest thing ever.
It's not the 1600s.
You don't win political power by standing in a building anymore.
Alright, but the idea that these guys go to prison now.
Here's why I bring up the Krasensteins.
Because their whole perspective on this is, it's justified, it's warranted.
These are the people that will say, anything that satisfies my tribal view, My tribal way of thinking is just.
That's the banality of evil.
To march behind a banner of tribalism and say, whatever we do is just, maybe a little excessive, but we're, it's just, no it isn't.
Look, man.
Antifa dude throws a water bottle at the cops.
What do they get?
A couple months slap on the wrist?
Probation or something?
Fine.
Guy throws a brick through a window?
Criminal charges.
You trespass on a property, you know what the activists get for trespassing?
They get nothing.
Nothing.
You get arrested, then you get court supervision.
When activists on the left go and occupy a space, they'll get arrested.
The court will then say, disorderly conduct, trespassing.
The sentence?
Court supervision, don't come back.
Take a look at what happened when they marched on Brooklyn Bridge.
Occupy Wall Street.
Yeah, most of them got court supervision.
Don't come back, don't do it again, and this goes away.
Then take a look at the people who had no idea what was going on on the opposite side of the Capitol building, and walked in confused, and then left.
Because I've met some of these people.
16 months?
2 years sentence?
That's what they're going for.
Shockingly insane.
And you get the likes of the Krasensteins cheering for this.
This is the evil that we face.
This is my opposition to the tribal left.
There is no justice.
There is no meritocracy.
There is simply, join the collective or else.
Defend what we say or else, whether just or not, whether backed by logic or not.
This is where we are.
And it's the likes of the ADL that are weapons for this organization and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
They lie about people, they cheat, and they steal for political power.
And you know what?
Whatever our faction is, freedom faction I like to call it, we tend not to do that.
And that is a disadvantage.
But so long as we keep waking people up to the truth and challenging the system, we are winning.
And so I'll wrap it up again by saying this.
Good on Elon Musk.
More power to you.
Godspeed, good sir.
And never forget, Bud Light, Target.
When those companies act out, do something bad, we push back.
And we say, enough of this.
Richmond, North of Richmond, Sound of Freedom.
We say, this is what we support and what we like.
And so long as that's the game we play, we've won.
I watched a video of the feds arresting a guy over being at the Capitol on January 6th.
And I'm like, be careful.
They want you to act out.
They need you to.
They need it January 6th.
Do not give it to them.
With a smile on your face, be like Jesus and turn the other cheek and know that we are winning the culture war.
We are.
And right now, the data suggests Donald Trump is going to win in 2024.
Doesn't mean he actually does.
Who knows what's going to happen?
But right now, they are in desperate need of some kind of right wing acting out, so much so that they'll likely fake it.
Democrats, I'm saying specifically, bots or otherwise.
But you know what?
I think Elon wins this one.
I don't think they can keep up this narrative anymore, and I think we're gonna win.
So long as we are vigilant, so long as we remain peaceful, so long as we focus on the policy and the procedure, we can win.
And never forget, we are winning.
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.
Jill Biden has tested positive for COVID-19, just in time for the start of election season, which brings up many questions about what does this mean?
Why is it being reported?
And where does it go?
Certainly, Jill Biden having COVID-19 is not the most newsworthy thing, and they would not need to release the information.
So why do it?
No idea.
But now everyone's talking about Alex Jones because not that long ago, Alex said that he spoke with a TSA employee who said that by mid-September or around now, they would be bringing back mask mandates.
And that's been the big question about politics entering 2024.
Tucker Carlson says they're not going to do the mask mandate thing.
They did that.
It won't work again.
Others have speculated.
We here at Timcast have speculated they will try to bring back some kind of mandate or lockdown.
But we don't know for sure.
We do know that in many areas they've already brought back masks.
And there's a conversation about bringing back mask mandates.
But again, we don't know.
Let me clarify something for all of you when it comes to Alex Jones, as he is trending, because he said that a TSA agent told him some things.
The media ran full speed in a desperate attempt to debunk the narrative from Alex Jones, saying that there are no known plans from the TSA to bring back mandates, and that it was all just one big conspiracy theory.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
It's just variables.
That's it.
So let's just break it down this way.
Alex Jones talks to a guy who works for the TSA who says, they gave us a briefing on mask mandates.
Alex says, I fear they're going to come back.
The media then claims to conspiracy theory, but it could be much simpler than that.
Plans change?
The guy was wrong?
The real story is Alex Jones talked to a guy and here's what he thinks.
Prepare accordingly.
You typically don't operate in your life, or you shouldn't, as if there is a singular guarantee as to what happens tomorrow or the day after.
Now we have our routines, we know things are certainly more likely than others, but it's this simple.
What is the social benefit?
What is the benefit to your life from Alex Jones coming out saying that he talked to this guy?
You can prepare accordingly.
That's it.
And maybe there will be and maybe there won't be.
But you want to take the precautions because they may try to bring back mask mandates or lockdowns.
Now, here's what I think about the Jill Biden stuff.
We'll read through this, but I'll give you the preliminary thoughts.
Even if she was sick, they don't need to come out and say this.
So there's got to be, in my opinion, some kind of political benefit to this.
And there's a few questions.
Do they reintroduce the fear of COVID just before the 2024 election cycle so that they can justify universal mail-in voting expansion?
Perhaps.
Perhaps they—Tucker Carlson's right.
They don't go the full route of locking everything down.
The speculation we've had is that maybe they just say, no, we're not going to do that.
We're going to issue guidelines.
Look, Jill Biden got sick.
Joe might get sick.
And it's a serious thing.
So we're going to issue guidelines.
You don't have to quarantine, but because some of you might, based on our guidelines, we need to expand universal mail-in voting.
We need to make sure that workplaces can't discriminate against those who seek to quarantine for their own health and safety, but that you don't have to.
Based on this guidance, some businesses may just institute private remote working policies or mandates.
And we have a list of many of these companies that have done so.
But again, I'm not entirely sure.
The other big question is, does this affect Joe Biden?
And could this be how they get him off the ballot to swap in Gavin Newsom?
Maybe, maybe not.
I don't I don't I don't know, honestly, you know, but there is some speculation, some discussion about what would remove Trump from the ballot.
Nate Silver's got a comment, some some comments out now saying that if Joe Biden suffers a Mitch McConnell moment, that could give Trump his second term.
Considering the pollster's opinion here, okay, what if Joe Biden is incapacitated by COVID?
Now they get COVID fear and they might say Joe Biden can't handle running for a second term.
Or they could use it as an excuse so that he doesn't have to campaign and they just say, oh yeah, he's unavailable on the campaign trail.
He's ill.
Personally, I think if they go with a Joe Biden is ill narrative, it weakens his chances substantially.
And if Joe Biden has a McConnell moment, that's what they're calling it, I guess, Yeah, he's in trouble.
He's in trouble.
Let's start with the news here from CNN.
First Lady Jill Biden tests positive for COVID-19.
They say that she has mild symptoms.
President Joe Biden has tested negative.
The diagnosis has upended the first lady's plans to begin teaching the fall semester at Northern Virginia Community College on Tuesday.
She is working with the school to ensure her classes are covered by a substitute.
Dr. Biden.
I love that they call her Dr. Biden.
who remains at the family's home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, typically teaches on Tuesdays
and Thursdays. An administration official told CNN Monday that there are no changes to the White
House COVID protocols for the president's schedule at this time. The diagnosis of the first lady,
72, comes amid a busy week for Joe Biden, who delivered a Labor Day speech in Philadelphia
earlier in the day. The president is scheduled to present the Medal of Honor to an army captain
in a White House ceremony Tuesday before departing for the G20 Summit in India on Thursday.
Well, I really do hope for the best for these individuals.
You know, political differences Yeah, you know, I don't want anybody to get sick and get hurt.
You know, we'll see.
But now we have this from Nate Silver.
Could it be the mask mandates are coming back and this is how they will scare people?
Or could it be that they're going to give Biden a McConnell moment?
Maybe COVID could be the factor.
Take a look at this.
A McConnell moment for Biden could give Trump a second term.
Nate Silver, the founder of FiveThirtyEight, argued Monday that President Biden's age is a legitimate concern for voters in the 2024 election, warning that former President Trump could be, one, Biden has a McConnell moment away from a second term.
If the expert class doesn't understand that Biden's age is both a real concern for voters and a valid concern, they'd better be prepared for getting a second Trump term instead.
This election is probably going to be close, and Trump might be only one Biden-as-McConnell moment away from winning.
The reference to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell comes in the wake of the GOP leader's second public freeze-up.
Now, what I said on Twitter was basically, when Joe Biden has some kind of mental episode, he just keeps rambling and saying words, so, from a distance, he appears to be completely with it, despite the fact that he's not.
There's one viral clip going around Where Joe Biden's just rambling incoherently.
He's like, you know, you got a kid, you know, he was like, it's an interlocking message.
And then, you know, it's on the moon and is wondering what's there.
And I'm watching this just like Joe Biden.
Literally, his plan is to just keep saying words.
I'm willing to bet they briefed him on this and said, Mr. President, If at any point you become confused or disoriented, just keep talking.
Because then people will clap anyway, and it's gonna go over their heads.
Maybe they'll think I just didn't hear him properly, but if you freeze up, like Mitch McConnell, now you got a viral video problem.
They go on to say, in late July, the 81-year-old Senator similarly froze for about 20 seconds during his weekly press conference.
We saw it again.
Now, the issue with Mitch McConnell and what we saw the last time, he's gripping the sides of the podium very, very tightly.
Where are my hands at?
Very tightly.
And he's like swaying a little bit.
I think he's probably lightheaded and on the verge of fainting.
And then his aide comes up and she's like, or the staffer, she says, like, did you hear the question?
He goes, yes.
And I think he's just putting all of his energy trying to keep himself standing.
It's terrifying, man.
Then you got Dianne Feinstein in the wheelchair, totally oblivious to the fact that she was hospitalized, confused to what's going on, giving power of attorney to her daughter.
Now, we got a problem with people who are incapable of doing their jobs.
But here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
Mask mandates may be coming back!
Maybe that's why they're reporting this news.
Again, I'll stress, they could have just, you know, I don't know, not said anything.
They could have said that Jill Biden is going to take a few days off and start late.
They could have literally said nothing and no one would have thought twice about it, but they decided to put out a statement saying she's got COVID.
Okay.
Well, you know, I don't know.
Maybe that's it.
Maybe they're just, it's a routine.
Hey guys, you know, she has COVID.
Fox News reports Fauci concerned people won't comply if masking recommendations return.
I hope they abide.
Several businesses, schools, hospitals have reinstated mask mandates.
In a Saturday interview, former White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci spoke out in defense of masking up amid today's rising COVID cases.
In the event that masks are again recommended, he is concerned that people will not abide by the recommendations.
I would hope that if we get to the point that the volume of cases is such, and organizations like the CDC recommends, CDC does not mandate anything, recommends that people wear masks, I would hope that people abide by that recommendation and take into account the risks to themselves and their families, Fauci told CNN.
And they're going to mention his past, and yeah, we all get what Fauci did and who he is.
When you're talking about the effect on the pandemic as a whole, the data is less strong, Fatcher said.
But when you talk about an individual basis or someone protecting themselves, there's no doubt, there's many studies that show that there is an advantage to masks.
The Cochrane Study, led by 12 researchers from esteemed universities around the world, compared the use of medical surgical masks to wearing no masks.
Now hold on there!
This is where things get interesting.
Fauci wants us all to wear masks.
And we have this story from The Independent.
Dr. Fauci refutes study claiming that masks don't work as COVID concerns rise.
We've heard this from quite some time.
In fact, I do believe YouTube has removed their policy on masking advice.
Now, as always, I recommend you talk to a doctor about what's right for you, because I'm not a doctor.
I'm not a scientist.
I got no idea.
But I do know that there is a debate over whether or not masks are effective, and that YouTube for a long time banned The statement that masks did not work.
I do believe they removed that rule and it's been gone for some time, so I'm not entirely sure.
But now we have this story.
A viral clip from CNN where Smirkonish, who's more of like a centrist figure, says this study shows that masks didn't do anything.
Fauci refutes this saying, but there are other studies.
They say this from The Independent.
Dr. Anthony Fauci pushed back against a report claiming that masks do not work to stop the spread of COVID.
In a CNN interview, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease said he's concerned about anti-masking rhetoric, given that COVID cases are rising in the U.S.
I am concerned that people will not abide by recommendations.
And we're not talking about mandates or forcing anybody, you know the Fudgy Boys.
But when you have a situation where the volume of cases in society gets to a reasonably high level, those who are elderly and those with underlying conditions are going to be more susceptible and vulnerable.
If they get infected, to get severe disease leading to hospitalization.
So I would hope that if in fact we do get to the point where organizations like CDC recommend that people wear masks, I would hope that they abide by the recommendation and take into account risk to themselves and their families.
Smirkonish then asked Fauci about a study published by the Cochrane Library earlier this year, which raised questions about the efficacy of masks.
He directed Dr. Fauci's attention to an opinion piece published by the New York Times in response to the review titled, The Mask Mandates Did Nothing, Will Any Lessons Be Learned?
That's actually really interesting.
The New York Times put that out.
The piece quotes lead author Tom Jefferson, an Oxford epidemiologist, saying there is no there is just no evidence that masks make any difference full stop.
He went on to say that mask mandates imposed early in the pandemic were influenced by non-randomized studies, flawed observational studies, They say randomized controlled trials are thought by many to be the gold standard for medical research.
In the study conclusion, the authors wrote that the pooled results of randomized controlled trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical and surgical masks.
Smirkonich asked Dr. Fauci how Americans should think about masks in light of the Cochrane Library analysis.
How do we get beyond that finding?
Now, I'm not a big fan of Fauci.
I think the dude did many things wrong.
saying that other research has highlighted the efficacy of masks.
When you're talking about the effect of the epidemic or the pandemic as a whole, the data
are less strong.
But when you talk about an individual basis of someone protecting themselves or protecting
themselves from spreading it to others, there's no doubt that there are many studies that
show there is an advantage to wearing masks.
He said, now, I'm not a big fan of Fauci.
I think the dude did many things wrong.
But I do want to say in this instance, I half agree with him.
And it's kind of simple.
Smirkonish is referencing one single study.
That's it.
And it's fair.
Assess it.
And respond to it.
But Fauci says there are many other studies that show masks were effective.
He's right.
It's fairly split.
I know a lot of... It's a very tribal issue.
My issue with everything, as always, is the mandates.
Government forcing people to do things.
In this instance, Fauci is saying, well, I see studies that say we should do this.
Well, okay, whatever.
I don't know, man.
I don't trust the government.
I don't trust the CDC.
I don't trust the World Health Organization.
But who am I?
I'm not a doctor.
I always recommend that you find someone that you do trust that does know about these things and can answer all of your questions.
And that's the most important thing.
In this instance, though, a lot of people are coming out and being like, aha, this study says masks don't work, and Fauci is cornered, and it's like, yeah, but come on, man.
If someone came to you and said, here's one single study saying one thing, you'd be like, well, if it goes against what I say, I want more evidence than that.
So in this instance, I think we have something clear to say.
If there is not clear evidence because there is disputed studies, I'm wondering, one, how many studies say masks don't work, how many of them say they do work, and then maybe the answer is we should not recommend their use with conflicting data, but there's no reason, unless there's data, that if you want to wear it, wear it, right?
I guess that's it.
One of my concerns is that there are, there is evidence, there are some studies that argue wearing masks could increase certain other illnesses because it gets dirty and it's gross.
Maybe disposable masks make sense.
My view has always been kinda, look man, when you talk you spit.
Yeah, I know you're not intentionally spitting on people, but you know, it's flying around.
And the mask does prevent that.
So it probably does.
I just kind of feel like it's fairly obvious.
If there are diseases, I'm not saying COVID, but if there's any kind of disease or illness transmitted through saliva, and like getting in your face or getting in your hands and getting in your nose and getting in your mouth, then I'd imagine a mask would help reduce that.
That's it.
I don't know, seems pretty simple to me.
But the question is always about mandates.
Are they going to re-institute mandates across the board?
At the same time that we have all this reporting, and it's fair to point out, a lot of people are saying that Lionsgate, while they're listed in this, has recently—many people have said they've rescinded their mandates, so it's hard to know exactly what the future has in store for us, but this is from September 2nd—that, look, as I say always, it's the mandates that are the problem, as far as I'm concerned, but Joe Biden also recently came out saying he wants to fund another vaccine.
You gotta watch out for some of this fake news.
I think there is reason to believe they want to bring back some kind of COVID regulation, mandate, or otherwise.
The theory that we have is that they'll issue recommendations, as I already stated, recommendations that will give them justification for their voting policies.
Why not?
Why not exploit a crisis?
The interesting thing is, with the vaccine rollout, the question will be whether or not they will mandate this.
If the CDC and the World Health Organization issue recommendations, then you'll get Fauci and Biden or whoever else falling on the, we're not mandating anything!
But private companies will start to do it, and they will say based on this guidance.
YouTube will then impose rules once again on all of us, and oh boy, here we go.
But I don't know.
I don't know exactly what will happen.
But I always think you gotta watch out for the private sector on this one.
You have this from Newsweek, mask mandate update, COVID, I'm sorry, California officials addressing, address, address rising COVID cases.
In this article, they talk about how they may, in California, bring back mask mandates.
So I don't know.
Honestly, that's my question to you.
Why do you think this is in the news again?
Well, I got to say, with Joe Biden getting COVID, I'm wondering if that's their, you know, two birds with one stone.
We keep talking about how they want Joe Biden off the ticket.
They don't want him to run.
They don't think he can win.
They want Gavin Newsom.
I don't know that Gavin Newsom can win either.
I certainly think he'd probably do better than Joe Biden.
As Nate Silver pointed out, Joe Biden's too old.
He's one McConnell moment away from losing.
Gavin Newsom doesn't have that problem.
Joe Biden being so old is a factor.
Now you've got another Wall Street Journal poll showing that most people think the economy has gotten worse under Joe Biden.
They need someone else.
The temporary placement of Joe Biden, the single term, was enough when people were mad about Donald Trump and you had COVID, but you're not going to have those same benefits.
So maybe.
Maybe Joe Biden gets sick.
That's it.
He gets sick and says, I have to realize I'm not a young man anymore and I can't do this.
I think that's bad for Democrats across the board.
It shows weakness.
Bringing in Gavin Newsom might help, but California is in a really bad spot.
If Gavin Newsom ends up being the Democrat nominee, just think about the commercials.
unidentified
They're going to be like, human waste on the ground, defecation, theft, robberies.
Is this what you want for America?
tim pool
It'll be everywhere.
Literally.
Everywhere.
Commercials will be running videos of people doing awful things.
And they'll blur some of it.
But those crime sprees, they're gonna use that.
And that's Gavin Newsom's legacy.
If he can't clean up his own state, can he really help this country?
And that's the narrative you will get.
This is where things get interesting because I understand there's a lot of people, you know, Trump's too old too.
But Trump has that anti-establishment base.
There's a hilarious article that I quoted this weekend and it said Trump's status as an anti-hero is making him invincible.
And they used a little cartoon image of Trump wearing a cowboy hat and a bandana like some kind of, I don't know, bandito!
And I'm like, yes, a western bandito anti-hero.
That's the Trump image.
But maybe they're right.
Maybe Trump's image as an anti-hero is exactly what he needed and what he needs and all he needs.
Because people look at the establishment and they say, it is crooked, it is broken, give me anything else.
We'll see.
We're a divided nation.
And it's hard to know what the strategy is going to be.
Maybe Jill Biden gives Joe COVID and Joe gets sick and bows out, but I think that shows weakness.
The theory that I'm banking on, well, I shouldn't say theory because I really doubt it will happen, but I think it's the best path that the establishment machine has, is that Joe Biden suffers some kind of McConnell moment and then falls over and Gavin Newsom runs to save the day.
And then Gavin Newsom resuscitating Joe Biden on stage at a campaign rally in California.
Joe Biden saying, Gavin's the guy.
He's a national hero.
I don't know how else they pull this off.
A little bit too movie-esque, I might add, but think about it.
That's the kind of thing the American people, not all of them, but a lot of them will eat up.
And then how do you challenge that?
You know, everyone's going to say, thank you, Gavin Newsom.
No idea, my friends, no idea.
Everyone seems to think they know, but trust me, in six months we'll all be saying, I didn't see that one coming.
To be fair though, there is a possibility we all say, I saw this one coming.
Maybe it's war.
Tucker Carlson seems to think they're going to start hot war with Russia to stop Trump from winning.
Well, it's true, statistically.
Historically, a president during war has a higher chance of getting re-elected.
Many people are scared to switch presidents during a time of war.
I'm also curious that if we do go to war with Russia, Biden just freaks people out!
He says the wrong names of countries, and maybe people are going to say, dude, give me anyone else.
But maybe that's it.
Maybe it's a combination of multiple factors.
War with Russia escalates to the point where the U.S.
is directly involved through a direct confrontation.
Gavin Newsom steps up and says, my state may have its problems, but you know Trump does not have the temperament to deal with a war on this level.
I don't know.
Some people may argue he's the only one who does.
They'll argue that Gavin Newsom doesn't have any foreign policy experience either.
I guess we can only sit back, wait and see.
But I know a lot of people saying, you know, highlighting the Jill Biden having COVID story is like, yeah, here it comes.
Just in time for 2024's election cycle.
They're bringing back COVID.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
A personality on Russia's state television has threatened to retaliate against any aggression by the U.S.
by nuking the U.S.
directly.
There's a bunch of arguments here.
Perhaps the argument is it's just some guy on TV and what does it matter?
The other argument is this is how the Kremlin sends out its messages.
You have a prominent personality on TV saying to the United States that in the event of the U.S.
escalation of war with Russia, Russia will not respond in Europe, but will respond by nuking the United States.
At the same time, North Korea has warned The United States should understand the real devastation of nuclear war and has run a simulated nuclear explosion.
I know a lot of people are already going to respond to this saying, ah, it's nonsense.
Nothing's going to happen.
They're saber rattling.
Let me slow you down there, my friends.
Perhaps you're correct.
Perhaps nothing will come of this.
It's silly nonsense.
Guy on TV says they're going to nuke us.
He's not the Kremlin.
He's not Putin.
Vladimir Putin said he would use tactical nuclear weapons, like the recently-deployed-for-combat-duty Sarmat, also known by the media as the Satan-2 missile, a Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle, or MIRV for short, which can drop a plethora of warheads and just bombard several cities with one ICBM, that is, Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.
Perhaps nonsense.
Perhaps they want to scare the public.
Perhaps the reason Newsweek is reporting this is because they want the American people all riled up saying, we gotta stop Vladimir Putin.
Whatever, man.
Let me tell you this.
It's all grains of sand.
You do not go from one day, we are sending weapons to Ukraine, and then the next day, Russia has fired a nuclear weapon which is about to slam into civilian targets in the United States.
I really don't think that's going to happen.
It's tactically stupid, in my opinion, for a variety of reasons we'll get into.
But, understand, when we read history, it is condensed.
It's like, you read a paragraph about a particular aspect of the war, and they're years apart.
You read about the Boston Massacre, you read about the Boston Tea Party, like what are they, like three years apart?
So when all of this stuff is going down, it is just incremental, but in the history books, it's a straight line.
Now again, maybe it doesn't go anywhere.
Maybe come November, Trump gets reelected and he says, we're shutting this down!
No more war!
And then it's all over.
And that's it.
And then the war fizzles.
I think if Donald Trump gets reelected, there is a strong, strong probability war ends overnight.
Probably should say that with, like, figuratively to a degree.
Like, I don't know what speed by which war happens, but I believe that as soon as Trump gets reelected, as soon as they announce on TV Trump is the president, you'll probably hear some kind of ceasefire or calls for one of the very least.
Here's the news from Newsweek.com.
Russian state TV threatens nuclear strike on the United States.
Civilian targets, nonetheless.
A Kremlin propagandist has issued the latest nuclear threat against the West regarding the war in Ukraine, warning the U.S.
could be in danger of a Russian missile attack.
Igor Korotchenko, editor of the newspaper National Defense and a regular guest on the Russia One channel, where guests have repeatedly called for strikes against Ukraine's allies, took exception to criticism of Russia's conduct in the war.
He goes on to say that, you know, look, basically, NATO keeps saying this stuff.
The U.S.
keeps saying, oh, if Russia does this, if Russia does that.
And his response was, oh, yeah?
How do we respond?
What if the U.S.
does this?
How will we respond?
Korotchenko believed these were not just statements of a retired war hawk.
a hawk, he said, but also a concerted information campaign designed to influence both us and a
Western audience. While the US is the biggest political provider of military aid to Ukraine,
it has taken pains to avoid direct confrontation with Russia and has made no threats of attacking
the targets that Korachenko referred to. Right now, it is but a gentleman's game.
Russia knows we're at war with them, and using Ukraine as a proxy.
But it's in the best interest, strategically, to try and win before the escalation grows outside of Ukraine.
But in the event Russia begins to lose, which I don't see an offering, then it gets gnarly.
It gets crazy.
Check this out.
He said, in response to your attacks on Russian military or civilian facilities, the first strike will be a preventative, limited strike against targets on the territory of the United States of America.
The most important message we should send to the Americans is that we will not wage war with you in Europe.
And then he says, he follows up, it will be an attack on the United States of America.
That's right!
A Russian propagandist, Russian media personality, whatever you want to say.
Attention, United States!
He wrote, uh, Geraschenko, next, uh, wrote, uh, Geraschenko next to the video, Russian propagandists threatened with nuclear strikes on U.S.
territory.
In response to Korotchenko's comments, Hodges told Newsweek that the U.S.
administration was finally realizing that the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons is extremely small.
Russia has been threatening nuclear strikes since the beginning.
I take them seriously because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons, and because they clearly don't care how many innocent people may die.
But I think they realize that their nukes are actually most effective when they don't use them.
They see how we self-deter.
Crimea is the decisive terrain for this war, says Hodges of the Peninsula.
I do not believe Russia is likely to nuke the United States.
I think it's a possibility, but I just don't see it really happening.
Why?
Mutually assured destruction, as they describe it, is, in my opinion, exaggerated.
Russia occupies Crimea.
I do not believe Russia is likely to nuke the United States.
I think it's a possibility, but I just don't see it really happening.
Why?
Mutually assured destruction, as they describe it, is, in my opinion, exaggerated.
And I would go as far as to hyperbolically say nonsense.
Now here's what I mean to say.
If Russia, for some reason, fires a Satan 2 rocket, which they recently deployed, at, I don't know, D.C.
or New York City, which makes literally no tactical sense, economic sense, military sense, then sure, the U.S.
will fire back.
But why, in the event that Russia launches one missile, would anyone else launch missiles?
Right?
So, take a look at these.
These videos are pretty cool.
This is what, uh, footage shows Russia's new superweapon, Sarmat.
It's scary.
It's scary stuff.
Intercontinental ballistic missile.
I believe the Sarmat has a range of 11,000 miles.
Carries, uh, what is it?
10 thermonuclear warheads?
Very interesting.
A three-stage liquid-fueled rocket.
And that's what we think we know about it.
Why would Russia tell us?
Well, perhaps the argument is right.
They are better off saber-rattling than actually using their weapons.
I'd be willing to bet Russia's got other capabilities we don't know about.
I would not be surprised if we've already been hit by Russian and Chinese military-grade cyber attacks.
But let's go back to the missile question.
For what purpose does Russia have to fire a missile on New York or Omaha or, I don't know, Dayton, Ohio?
Literally none.
What advantage do they gain?
Look, if we had centralized manufacturing in the Rust Belt, okay, maybe that makes sense.
Take out our manufacturing capabilities.
But manufacturing for this is all over the place now and barely in the United States.
What does a nuke accomplish?
A threat?
Maybe Russia launches a small Smaller yield nuke at a civilian target for some reason.
I don't see what they gain from it.
I don't.
Now, if they use a nuke in Europe, that makes sense, especially in Ukraine.
They could damage or destroy weapons and they could irradiate certain areas and make no man's land.
That makes sense.
Russia might say in order to stop the advancement of NATO forces, which they consider Ukraine to be, They use smaller yield nukes near their border, which creates no man's territory, and so it stops the advance.
That makes sense.
Nuclear artillery.
If Russia fires any nukes at the United States, the U.S.
supposedly fires a bunch of nukes back.
So here are the questions I have.
What is the gain of the United States or any nation to retaliate by firing its nukes back at the other country?
A deterrent?
The threat that you nuke us, we nuke you back prevents you from nuking us.
Don't know if I believe it.
There's that famous story, I don't know how true it is, where the guy in the submarine gets the warning saying that the U.S.
fired a nuke and he doesn't push the button because he's like, I'm not sure.
They called him a hero.
The story's more complicated than that, I don't know.
I'm probably missing some of the details.
But stories like that say to me that this idea that we just all launch nukes at each other makes no sense.
We saw this with the G.I.
Joe movie.
Yeah, I know movies aren't real life.
My point is, this is the trope, right?
The bad guy comes in and he's like, we're firing a nuke.
So they all start firing nukes at each other.
Why?
If Russia nukes the United States, does that trigger NATO Article 5?
So then NATO countries nuke Russia.
So then China intervenes and nukes Europe.
Is that supposedly what's going to happen?
You know what I think's really more likely to happen?
Russia fires a nuke at the United States, the U.S.
institutes some kind of air defense dome system with firing counter missiles to take it out in the sky, or laser systems along the coast, probably have some capabilities to do so, and in the event a nuke does touch down and cause massive damage to the U.S., the U.S.
then calls upon the international community to immediately seize and sanction everything within Russia to remove them from power to prevent World War III.
I don't see anybody nuking civilian targets.
Just doesn't make any sense to me.
But more importantly, I think the main issue is there's nothing to be gained from doing it.
If this guy's telling the truth, we will nuke U.S.
territory.
Why?
What does Russia win?
You don't win anything!
You don't gain any strategic control, you don't disrupt our military in any meaningful way.
It's nonsense.
Now, if they were to fire a Sarmat 2 and take out, say, like, a Hawaiian base, which could disrupt our ability to—or Guam or something—it could disrupt our ability to respond to, say, China, maybe that makes more sense.
But that is a military target.
I don't see why civilian targets ever make sense.
Not to mention, the capabilities of war are probably well beyond what we think we know.
They're deploying the Satan 2 missile?
Bah!
I bet they've got more strategic weapons that can be more devastating.
Russia could cyber attack industrial control systems and disrupt the U.S.
economy.
The best bet for Russia right now is to disrupt the U.S.
economy and our culture.
And it seems like that's happening with social media, with young people's brains being rotten and destroyed.
To be fair, you take a look at the entirety of the United States system as itself, and it seems to be in serious trouble.
The culture war is ripping the country apart, corrupt Democrats seeking to win a re-election are burning the system to the ground, and Republicans are going, slow down there Democrats, and that's about all we get.
So for Russia, they need only say, look, all we got to do is wait and the U.S.
system will rip itself to shreds.
If Donald Trump gets reelected, I think this war wraps up really quickly because Trump's not going to stand for it.
And there's no benefit for the U.S.
other than maintaining some kind of international petrodollar supremacy.
There's an alternative to that.
It's called a U.S.
manufacturing base, secure borders and enforcing our law and weeding out corruption, having a shared national identity.
Shout out to Vivek Ramaswamy.
This idea that the United States is some multicultural world police is psychotic and cannot be maintained.
So we'll see how this plays out.
I think their threats are meaningless for the most part, but take them seriously.
Now on Twitter, I said, you are not prepared.
And it's funny because most people respond with like, oh boy, this is scary.
unidentified
And then you get a handful of people like, well, you're not prepared either, Tim.
tim pool
Yo, when I said you're not prepared, I didn't say I was.
No one knows what would really happen or how it would go down.
We can speculate.
I will say, I think it's fair to say that I'm more prepared than the average person, and I'm not going to explain how because that compromises security for our emergency operations.
But, uh, yeah, I don't think anyone's fully prepared for what total nuclear annihilation will look like.
Where do they strike if they do?
Is it going to be in D.C.?
Maybe, maybe not.
D.C.
is probably one of the most secure areas in the country when it comes to air defense.
I bet they got a bunch of laser turret systems and air dome systems we don't even know about.
Plus you got Mount Weather and Raven Rock.
Yeah.
When, uh, started playing Fallout 3 again recently.
Real places!
And we know the U.S.
has been, um... What are they doing?
They're renovations on, uh, Mount Weather and I think Raven Rock.
These are emergency bunkers, but come on.
You think we actually know about the emergency bunkers they really have?
Sure.
Some of them.
But there's a reason there's classified information.
So when it comes to actual full-scale nuclear war, maybe things do get out of hand and the bombs go flying.
No one's going to be prepared for what comes next, because we just don't know.
Where will your food come from?
How long will your food last?
Most people have prepped for probably only a handful of months, if they did.
How many preppers have 35 years worth of food?
Probably don't, because you need a lot.
But there are some areas that are prepared.
We've had the gentleman from Fortitude Ranch on the show.
They're a disaster preparedness, and it's, you know, it's disaster preparedness, like they've got underground, you know, protective bunkers and things like that, that can withstand serious attacks.
But, you know, they're more so like man's retreats where it's like you go chop lumber and hunt or something.
unidentified
I don't know.
tim pool
I think they're really cool.
For which I am an investor.
I'm not gonna say that's exactly how we're prepared or anything like that.
But it's hard to know exactly how things go down if they do.
And whether or not you'll be prepared for whatever it is.
Where will you get your food?
Have you thought about it?
What if it's not a nuclear strike?
Let's be more realistic.
What if it is something more like disruption in trade lines?
What if it is strategic insurgent strikes in the United States?
Not a nuke, but just one guy who sneaks into the southern border and then massively destroys one highway.
Here's the crazy thing.
Imagine a handful of highways in the middle of the night are attacked.
How much damage that causes economically.
A lot truckers are not going to be able to get through.
Railroads.
Think about that.
You could have a dozen guys.
I talk about this all the time.
It doesn't take a lot to throw a wrench in the spokes of a machine.
It can take you years to build.
Think about it this way.
Look at a newspaper printing press, whatever they call it, the printing machine.
You got all these papers, they're being mass printed super quick.
A machine like that is very complicated.
Imagine what happens if you throw a pebble into the gears.
That's it.
Grinds to a halt, breaks, you don't know where the break is.
It's easy to disrupt the machine, it is hard to build.
So when it comes to what's happening internationally with war, I'm not super concerned about watching a nuke explode in the sky or drop a bunch of warheads and just pepper the eastern seaboard.
That's bad for Russia.
They rely on trade.
These economic bonds are important.
It's not the worst, mind you, if they're facing an existential threat.
But the real targets are going to be military bases.
They're gonna target, what you wanna look for is areas that have strategic military operations.
And, I won't go off just naming a bunch, there's a handful of very strategic ones.
I'll give you one example though, San Pedro.
In, uh, just south of Los Angeles.
It's, I believe it's the biggest, it could be the biggest port of entry for the United States.
At least for, like, transporting from Asia, and there's many ports.
You disrupt that, supplies in the U.S.
are in serious trouble.
You've got the North Dakota, I'll give you another one.
North Dakota frack fields, where we produce a ton of energy.
There are things like that.
Now if a bomb went off there, I'm not super worried outside of D.C.
But, D.C.
is also a major political hub where operations are taking place.
Let me just say, you can trust politicians to make sure they are protected.
And nobody in Congress or the executive branch wants to be exposed.
With things like Mount Weather and Raven Rock, you know, we have the forward-facing emergency, uh, uh, bunkers.
But I'm willing to bet that when it comes to spending money to defend American soil, the ultra-wealthy revolving-door political elites have spent a disproportionate amount on themselves and not on critical infrastructure.
And thus, critical infrastructure is likely going to be the key target.
Severing lines of trade.
More importantly, communication is everything.
The internet goes down, radio goes down, jamming, whatever you want to call it.
That is the quickest and fastest way to disrupt the U.S.
So let me put it this way.
Will a nuke be falling on your town anytime soon?
Yeah, probably not.
But I don't know where this goes.
Because we're facing an economic slowdown, crisis if you would.
A political crisis, a cultural crisis, an international crisis.
You've got bubbling war with China.
We've got U.S.
military operations in Australia.
That ain't for no reason.
China wants to move on Taiwan.
North Korea has been issuing threats.
But to be fair, they've been issuing threats forever.
Russia deploying its new Sarmat Satan 2 missile, they call it.
Things are getting spicy out there.
But I want you all to understand.
You know, I was born during the Cold War, and I don't remember much of it at all.
I think I, like, vaguely remember something on TV about the fall of the Berlin Wall or something.
I don't know.
When did the Berlin Wall come down?
Let me just double-check.
Because, like, I can't remember.
19... It was demolished in 1990... What was it? 1984?
Yeah, wait, what was it?
Oh, from 89 to 94.
I remember when I was a real little kid, there was something about it, but it's like a vague flash of a memory.
I don't- I don't even know.
During the Cold War, people actually thought they were gonna get blown up, and that the end was nigh.
But just realize this.
Back to the Future?
That was made during the Cold War.
Uh, the BG, Stayin' Alive, written during the Cold War.
The Beatles popping out tons of music during the Cold War.
So while all of this stuff was happening with the Cuban Missile Crisis, with the expansion of communist territory, with Vietnam and all of this stuff, with what was going on with the Korean War, we had a whole bunch of cultural endeavors and life was carried on in the United States.
And then ultimately, thankfully, it did not reach nuclear annihilation levels.
That doesn't mean it won't.
It just means that this talk of war was a lot worse a long time ago.
But then again, as things go internationally, and nationally, when I ask older people, and for those of you that are older, reading this comment, have you ever seen it this bad?
I have every answer I've gotten.
You know?
I'm in an antique store, a guy's in his mid-sixties.
I say, have you ever seen it this bad?
He goes, never.
And I'm like, what about the weather underground?
And he was like, no.
Never seen it this bad.
And that's crazy.
People like to cite the weather underground as if it was like, but they were bombing stuff.
And it's like, yeah, shock and awe campaigns.
But we had Antifa ransack, and BLM ransacking the entire country in the worst riots in 50 years.
We had far-leftists firebombing a federal building over, like, for three months straight.
Crazy!
So, I mean, what do you think is crazier?
Shock and awe campaigns?
No, don't get me wrong, the Weather Underground, I think they were robbing a bank.
They did kill, uh, there was one, a security guard, I think it was.
You guys correct me on that one, and fell in the blanks.
But it's hard to know.
How do you compare it?
Honestly, I don't have the answers for you.
Where we go from here?
I don't know.
I just think that you guys should prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and don't vote for the warmongers.
unidentified
Yeah.
tim pool
Donald Trump may not be perfect, but if you take a look at his foreign policy, it was slightly better.
I suppose you can make the argument that with Trump, we lose the petrodollar and the standard of living in the United States crumbles.
Yeah, maybe.
But I've never been one to subscribe to the belief that the U.S.
should maintain a strong economy by pointing weapons at other nations and being world police.
In which case, the idea that we, I don't know, shore up our defenses, bring our manufacturing base back, secure our borders, is the appropriate way to handle the international conflict.
Be responsible for ourselves.
There's a fear in Chinese expansion and the communist state, for sure.
I don't have all the answers, and maybe I'm naive.
I guess we'll see.
Next segment's coming up at 6pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
A woman made a TikTok video where she explained what she did on her Saturday morning when
she is single and has no kids.
And she explained how she keeps thinking, I need to wake up, but I don't because I have
nothing to do.
And then she watched documentaries and looked up recipes and how, you know, you can lead
a life doing what you want to do, blah, blah, blah.
Matt Walsh criticized her basically talking about how she's single and life is good.
I also responded.
Now, she has responded to Matt.
It's turned into a big story.
I think it's kind of funny, but it brings up a lot of culturally interesting questions around being single, not having a family, but more importantly, not having purpose.
Here's my quick view, and then we'll jump into all this.
I'll play the video for you.
This woman is coping.
She put out a video coping with the fact that she has no meaning or purpose, whether that's family or otherwise.
I don't think you need to have a family and kids to be fulfilled, but certainly you should have a mission or drive in life.
And I don't bring this up as some kind of personal opinion.
In fact, we see this quite a bit.
The woman actually talks about how she watches a documentary on Blue Zones, and one of the most important things about Blue Zones is purpose.
Blue Zones are parts of the world where they have a disproportionate amount of centigenarians, people who live to be over a hundred years old.
One of the driving forces is that you have a mission and purpose in life.
But if you find yourself struggling to wake up because you have nothing to do, you are at risk in this situation.
Now, in my view, no one who feels fulfilled and has a life to carry on needs to make a video justifying why it's okay and why they feel good.
Typically, it's called coping, a coping mechanism.
When you are suffering from something, you go to someone else Say, actually it's okay that I wake up at 11 a.m.
and have no family or mission or drive and I'm just watching documentaries and making random food dishes.
Because you're hoping they validate you and tell you it's all gonna be okay.
Because deep down you feel something isn't right.
We now have, why so much hate?
Mark Cuban eviscerates Stephen Miller and Matt Walsh for attack on single women.
Yeah, look, it's not even about single women.
It's not even about being single.
It's not about kids.
Who am I to talk?
I don't got kids.
And a lot of people are like, you should have kids.
No, no.
To a certain degree, I do think people should have children, and spare me working on it.
My point is, you should have purpose in life.
It's good for you.
You should have passion and drive.
Well, here's the video.
Let me play for you the video in question.
It's only about a minute and a half long, and then we will discuss.
unidentified
It's 10.45 AM on a Saturday.
I'm 29 and single and I don't have kids yet.
Here's what your Saturday morning looks like when you're single at 29 and you don't have a kid running around the house.
I didn't rise from my bed until 10.15.
Every time I thought, I should probably get up and do something, I thought, why?
Nobody's making me and I'm not missing out on anything.
I went to Beyonce last night and I didn't get home until 1am and I danced and drank my little heart out and I didn't pay a babysitter to watch my kids as I did that.
And I woke up a tad hungover this morning, which is probably why I was in bed for so long, and I was just scrolling on my phone and I saw a picture of Shakshuka and I thought, you know what sounds really good?
Maybe I'm gonna learn how to make shakshuka today.
Because I have no plans and I don't have kids and I don't have a husband and I don't have errands to run, I can go to the grocery store and learn how to make shakshuka.
So that's on my agenda today.
Also on my agenda, probably a rewatch of some Real Housewives of New York.
I'm also doing a rewatch of Normal People on Hulu, which is really spicy and I highly recommend.
Weirdly, I'm into this documentary on Netflix about blue zone countries, so I've got a pretty stacked day.
Anyway, I say all this to say, whenever I'm hard on myself about why I'm not married and I don't have kids and I should be further along at 29, almost 30, I wouldn't want to do anything else this Saturday.
I know that you can do all these things when you have kids and you're married and I understand, but the effortlessness and ease of my life just kind of focusing on myself and the shakshuka I want to make or The Beyonce concert I want to go to really pays off when I'm hard on myself for not being where society tells me I should be in life.
tim pool
Full stop.
It's a cope.
I'm not— I think most of you would agree.
I mean no disrespect to this woman.
I hope she finds a husband and she has a family.
I hope she finds purpose.
But her video is her quite literally saying, I'm wondering why I'm not further along.
Why are- How come I'm not at this point in my life?
And then she gets to this point where she's like, I have to find a way to be happy and justify I am not where- How- Why I'm not where I want to be.
Matt Walsh says, Her life doesn't revolve around her family and kids, so instead it revolves around TV shows and pop stars.
Worst of all, she's too stupid to realize how depressing this is.
I actually disagree with Matt Walsh, and I don't think you should be hating on her.
She's outright saying in the video, I want to be further along in life.
I'm almost 30.
Man, I feel for her.
I think we've got serious social and cultural problems that are resulting in this circumstance, but that's my response to her.
It's clearly a coping mechanism.
And I don't mean it to be mean, I mean it to be honest.
She's outright saying, I want to be further along in life, but you know what?
I'm not going to be hard on myself, because at least I get to just relax all day and do these things, and I'm like, wow.
Look, I'm working on the family thing.
Kind of personal, so I don't get too much into it.
But I wake up every day and I work just about 16 hours.
I love it.
There was this media smear attempt on me, and they were like, you claim to work 16 hours, but people have said that's a lie.
And I'm like, dude, my first video goes live in the morning at 10am, and my last video goes live at like 11pm.
And they're like, Okay Clearly, you know, I'm working a lot longer than just that because I have to record the video.
I have to do the reading But it's my day every day.
I wake up.
I have obligations.
I have duties.
I have responsibilities There is no point at which I'm laying in bed being like maybe I should just lay here I just that is not how I operate And I feel physical pain.
You know what's funny?
People have nightmares where it's like they're being chased by a murderer.
I have nightmares that I miss business deadlines.
That I missed a meeting, or didn't do a transfer, or forgot to file some government requirements or whatever.
Because this is my purpose.
I wake up and I work every single day.
And to varying degrees, I have time off on the weekends.
But even the weekends we're still working, doing meetings, and planning.
So here's the latest development.
Why so much hate?
Mark Cuban, Eviscerates.
Well, to be fair, I would say to Matt Walsh, why would you tell this woman she's too stupid to realize how depressing this is?
It's not that she's too stupid.
It's she knows it's depressing and she's desperately trying to find some happiness.
She knows something is wrong in her heart of hearts.
But what should she do?
Wallow in self-pity?
That's not going to help solve her problem.
She wants to be married and have kids.
It is kind of sad.
You know, look.
Kids are awesome.
Teaching them how to play games.
You know, explaining concepts.
The thing about... Let me tell you about skateboarding.
When, uh, if you're, if you're new to skateboarding and you go to a skate park or if you have kids that are into skateboarding, other skateboarders would love to teach you or your kid some new tricks, how to kick flip, how to tray flip, how to pop shove it, how to do nose grinds, whatever.
People love sharing knowledge.
It feels great.
And you can do that when you have kids.
She knows it.
She gets it.
But what is she supposed to do?
Wallow in self-pity?
She made a video where she was like basically, she's basically saying to this woman who feels similarly, you don't have to be super angry and upset that you're not where you want to be.
I think there's a better message.
That's why I say it's a coping mechanism.
Her message should be, Don't be depressed.
Don't be angry.
It's not easy, and there are a lot of problems that we face.
Find happiness and joy in your day where you can.
But, the only way you change your circumstances is if you do wake up at 9 a.m.
9's late!
I wake up at 7!
Come on!
Even on weekends!
And I go to bed around, like, 1.
I try to sleep more, but, you know, I wake up when I wake up.
I fall asleep when I fall asleep.
If this lady is saying, I shouldn't wake up.
Ma'am, if you really are wondering why you're not further along in life, it's because you sleep too much.
You're, you're, you're getting drunk out with Beyonce one in the morning and then going to bed, waking up hungover.
That is, that is, that is, that's not conducive to starting a family.
Perhaps this is the cultural problem we face.
Young men are becoming incels or MGTOW or whatever.
And like, you know, there's a lot of people who embrace MGTOW as men going their own way.
Do whatever you want to do, man.
But I'm telling you, it takes hard work.
You want to be a better person?
Exercise.
Eat right.
Learn a skill.
There are too many lost young men and lost women.
And I think this is dangerous.
Cuban replied to Wall says the guy whose life revolves around Twitter and X. At this point, former Trump administration official Stephen Miller jumped in.
He says, you have a large following.
People listen to your advice.
What would you say is a more fulfilling path for adults starting a family or sleeping late and watching TV?
What advice would you give someone who suggests they wish to be childless so they can stream more shows?
No, no.
The woman wants kids.
He said, I wouldn't give her advice unless she asked.
No.
Uh, sorry.
That's the stupidest thing ever.
It's like, it's like a weird feminist thing where it's like, did she ask for your advice?
Bro, I'm going to tell people what I think.
I have opinions.
If we're going to talk, this, this lady puts out a public declaration.
She puts out a video to the world for which people can see.
We respond to that public speech.
We're allowed.
unidentified
Sure.
Sure.
tim pool
I would tell her to do whatever she thinks is best for her.
It's none of my effing business.
That's stupid.
her to engage and have a conversation. Sure. Thanks for asking, Stephen. He says,
okay, from a business perspective, I would tell her that the wellness space is crowded,
but if she does this in addition to her job, she might be able to build a nice business.
As far as family, I would tell her to do whatever she thinks is best for her. It's none of my effing
business. That's stupid. I would say, ma'am, in your video, you explained that you want to be
married and have kids, and you're wondering why you're not further along. I am going to state my
opinion, and I don't care if you listen, tell me I'm dumb or tell me, thank you for the feedback.
I'm gonna say this to anyone else who might hear this.
You are not going to find a life partner laying in bed late and making shakshuka.
You will find a life partner by doing something you enjoy in public where other people are.
There you go.
Go to a laundromat.
You might meet somebody there.
Go to a restaurant or a grocery store.
Try and meet... You know, you're probably better off finding some hobby.
For women, I think it's a lot easier because men are out doing hobbies all the time.
And, you know, figure out what it is you like.
Do you like cooking?
Why don't you go to a cooking class?
Where they teach making shakshuka or whatever.
I think shakshuka is food.
And there will be some guys there.
And you can introduce yourself.
Maybe you click, maybe you don't.
But you have to put in the effort.
That's all I'm gonna say.
Maybe she does, and it's not directed at you.
But the message that goes out there, it looks like, like, I lay in bed saying, like, what's the point of getting up?
I don't know.
You could get up early and go to the library and you might meet somebody.
You can go to a park and, uh, maybe get a dog.
And this is the advice I give guys.
It's like...
You get a little dog, you know, you get some kind of poodle mix.
Everybody loves poodle mixes.
Get a golden doodle, and you walk your dog, or, you know, like a shepherd of some sort.
I don't know, border collies are good.
Border collies are real good because they're high energy.
And you, I don't know, go for a walk on the beach with your dog, and then guess what?
Everyone's gonna be talking to you like, oh, can we pet your dog?
Easiest conversation starter in the world, and people open up to you.
I see nowadays you've got these videos.
There's one viral video where a guy walks up to a girl, and he introduces himself, they talk, he gets her phone number.
And they're like, this is how you do it, guys.
And there are women being like, that's so creepy, don't talk to women like that.
Okay, if you're worried about that, you get a dog.
unidentified
Alright?
tim pool
You gotta work.
You gotta eat healthy.
You gotta exercise.
You have to be responsible for your self-improvement.
Get a dog.
Ma'am, you can do this too.
Women can do this.
Men can do this.
And you go walk on the beach, and you are gonna see people be like, Oh, can I pet your dog?
What's your dog's name?
Oh, my dog is this.
unidentified
Bang!
tim pool
Conversation starts.
Now you gotta avoid, you get to avoid all of that, Oh, are you being creepy or not creepy?
Some people don't have the social skills.
You gotta work on it.
You gotta work on it.
You know what's funny to me is, like, the hatred for, like, the red pill community stuff.
If you're a dude who doesn't know how to socialize, you would greatly benefit from learning any kind of social behaviors, and getting training from someone who probably does understand how to communicate effectively, and getting feedback on what is or isn't appropriate.
Not gonna be easy.
Life is not easy.
Some people naturally go through these periods where they develop these skills, and some people don't.
I see these posts online where it's like, I'm scared to go outside, I've never properly socialized with people, it's like, well you gotta start somewhere.
And you've gotta relax.
And maybe you're a weirdo.
Maybe people won't like you.
Then find the place where people do.
Find the place where you do fit in.
Miller shoots back, saying, in the interest of time, I'll respond with two points.
No society can succeed where the constant message from our elites and leaders is to do whatever you want and don't worry about children.
Children are simply the most important thing in the world and the foundation of civilization and all human flourishing.
Right, like making more people.
Eh, they're gonna argue and I'm not super interested, but she did respond.
And, you know, she responded similarly to what Mark was saying, and the criticisms of her was that she shakes her head the whole time she talks, and I'm like, whatever, man.
The internet is the internet.
Fine.
So be it.
I think I made my point, and I feel bad for this lady.
She doesn't have to accept that I feel bad for her.
It doesn't matter how she thinks about me or anyone else.
It doesn't matter what she thinks about Matt or anyone.
The idea that people are sending her nasty messages is the stupidest thing ever.
And I don't... I don't... People shouldn't do it.
People shouldn't do that.
The answer in the response to this is simple.
Ma'am, you should make yourself get up early.
You should go out and get exercise.
You should go for a run.
You should join a group of people that do... Maybe you don't like running, maybe that's not your thing.
But I think the answer is simple.
If you want to be further along in life, you must take the effort.
And that means, you want to make food?
Go make food.
In a cooking class.
Where you can meet people.
As for the stupid social media stuff.
Now, Stephen Miller's right.
Mark Cuban is just arguing for no apparent reason.
Whatever.
But I hope everybody finds their happiness and realizes it's gonna come down to you being responsible for yourself.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and we will see you all then.
A female downhill skateboarder has called out the issue of males in female sports, and for this, she's facing threats.
The Postmillennial reports, female skateboarder faces threats after advocating for fairness in women's sports while upholding concept that transgender women are women.
Interesting story.
The woman in question is a downhill skateboarder, meaning she's not going to be doing any ollies or treflips.
I mean, she might, but in her principal role, she is going really, really fast downhill.
Likely racing or something.
And the funny thing about this is, the reason why this story matters, she did not outright just come out and say, we should not have males in female sports.
No, she was like, let's bring everyone together to have a conversation about this because there's some contention here, and they started threatening her and attacking her, even though she desperately tried to maintain the leftist position.
Now, what are we seeing?
I believe it's only a matter of time before this woman comes out fully red-pilled or based or whatever you want to call it, because the threats are pushing her away from this position.
As of right now, it appears she deleted the post, but I will read for you what she said.
I want to make a point, too, in reading this.
They talk about male puberty.
Male puberty, in my opinion, is a Trojan horse used by activists, and I reject it outright.
Puberty is not a factor in fairness in sports.
It was a pre-pubescent boy who landed the first 1080 on a skateboard, and we've only just seen the first fakie 720 by a female, and this was only in the past couple of months, whereas it's been a decade plus since a little boy did the first 1080.
Prenatal testosterone plays a role in this.
And so, let's read.
Anna O'Neill posted in a multipost thread.
This is the introduction to the recent women's meeting addressing transgender eligibility criteria at an elite level in downhill skateboarding.
Although people are trying to spin the narrative that I am transphobic and that I bullied transgender women, that is false.
The structure of this meeting wasn't perfect by any means.
No one who organized this is an expert in conflict resolution.
However, our intentions were to bring all relevant parties to the table and to open up communication in a respectful manner, the best way we know how, with the tools and information we have.
This isn't about myself.
This isn't about any individual athlete.
This is about fairness and safety in sport and how much we are willing to sacrifice for inclusivity.
Transgender women are women.
You can be an ally who supports trans rights, women's rights, and fair and meaningful competition simultaneously.
I never intended for anyone to agree on everything in this meeting, but I did want everyone to have a chance to be heard.
I firmly believe society will be a better place if we stop trying to intimidate others into silence and instead try to foster healthy communication when discussing polarizing topics.
A lot of people are pointing out she outright said trans women are women, which we'll address in a second.
Arguments were made for the inclusion of transgender women, or she says transgender women are women, I've never said otherwise, but sex and gender are two different things.
To say there are no physiological differences between trans women and females is false.
Arguments were made for the inclusion of trans women in the women's category with zero eligibility criteria.
Arguments were also made for trans women only being allowed to race in the women's category if they have not gone through any stage of male puberty.
I'm gonna pause right there and just say, Trojan Horse, I reject that.
If you are born male or born female, that matters in these criteria.
It is a male criteria and a female criteria, not a, I have undergone certain treatments criteria.
Perhaps the answer to this is a trans category or open category.
Many other arguments were made.
made. This was the purpose of the meeting to discuss different viewpoints, even if talking
about these possibilities hurt feelings on either side, critical thinking and the sharing
of ideas is integral to understanding nuanced issues and making informed decisions.
In many spaces in this world, there doesn't need to be any differentiation
between trans women and females, as they are both women.
But in some spaces, these differences matter and should not be ignored.
This conversation is taking place across the world in every sport.
We've taken that first step and have been viciously bullied and threatened with violence for it.
Regardless, I plan to continue to foster respectful, open, and meaningful dialogue with the aim of finding ways to honor all marginalized groups in our beautiful community and in our sport.
Blah, blah, blah.
Taylor Silverman tweets, it looks like she has now deleted this post.
I gotta tell you, I think the trajectory for this woman is going to be, uh, full redpilling.
Look, for the most part, it is a lopsided experience.
If you advocate for biological males in female sports, you will get an array of hate, and you will get a lot of arguments.
In the inverse, you will get death threats.
Now, I think it's like 80-20, or maybe it's 60-40.
Elements of the right have their threats and harassment.
And I view it mostly as more annoying kind of tweets, because the right doesn't really go out and do anything, overwhelmingly.
But the left has, like, organized what I refer to as blunt protests.
Here's how I see it.
The left is what I call widespread and blunt in their force.
And the right is... it is rare, but it is sharp.
Meaning, sometimes you get fringe weirdos that have a right-oriented political perspective, anti-leftist, and they engage in extreme acts of violence.
But rarely.
On the left, it is widespread, consistent, overwhelming, but not as devastating.
That is to say, the left will punch you in the face, and they'll punch a hundred people in the face, you know, over the span of a few months.
Nobody dies because of it, but sometimes, and thus it doesn't really end up in the news, and you don't hear about this unless you pay attention to it.
Then you have psychotic, you know, fringe right-wing individuals who engage in extreme acts.
But then there's an argument about what makes someone right, what makes someone left.
My point is this.
There are people on the right who are annoying online, who issue threats online, and that's bad and it shouldn't be.
But the left does this all the time.
Which is why I think where this goes, this woman is going to be slammed so hard by the left and attacked so brutally.
She's going to only find solace with people who identify more so on the right.
That's the meme.
That's the trope.
It's that comic of the dude standing in between the left and the right, and it says, hmm, both sides make some interesting points, and then the left shoves him as hard as possible, and the right catches him and says, are you okay?
And they go, why are you siding with them?
This woman says, we gotta figure this one out, people are upset, so they attack her for it.
To the point where she's even deleted the post.
This is common in the political space, and it's not gonna change.
Let's talk about sports.
Look man, I gotta tell ya, part of me doesn't care.
Most of these women accept this, and I'm just kinda like, dude, you get what you ask for, I don't care.
If women want to allow males to compete against them, so be it!
Whatever, man!
And then when the podium is just always gonna be dudes, fine, whatever, or males, you will find, typically, it's gonna be a transgender male on the top of the podium.
No question.
I skateboard.
It's just, it's absolutely, oh man, these woke skateboarders get so mad when I say this.
It's like, dude, come on!
We all know Letizia Buffoni is super good.
For a woman.
If you were to compare... Like, Letizia Buffoni is like one of the best female skateboarders in the world.
If you were to compare her level of skill...
Uh, like, if you were to remove biological sex from the charts outright, and then place everybody, based on their skill, their consistency, their style, their trick repertoire, if you were to put them all on the same skill level, Letizia Buffoni has the skill of a- of, like, your average teenage Flow-sponsored dude.
So I'll- let me slow down.
There are several degrees of skateboarding sponsorship.
It's changed quite a bit with the advent of social media.
But you've got, like, flowrider.
A flowrider, isn't that funny?
Someone who is flow, and a skater, means they get free stuff.
Typically, you're sponsored by a shop.
A local skate shop will give you a board and say you're on our team, film videos to help promote, you know, the shop and what we do.
You want to build prestige in the community so that more people shop with you.
You then have hired industry flow riders.
These are people who get free stuff from big companies.
They'll get shoes, they'll get boards, they'll get clothes.
Because they want the best skaters filming videos wearing their gear.
Advertising.
Then you have the amateur level.
And this makes no sense, but AMs get paid cash to go on tour to skate and to represent the brand.
And then you have the pros.
Signature models.
If Letizia Buffoni was a guy, would probably be sponsored by a local skate shop and get some free gear.
I am not ragging on Letizia Buffoni.
She's awesome.
One of the best skateboarders.
But she, but as a, as a woman, it's like, okay, it's really cool to see her do like a lip slide, uh, jumping down a railing for those that aren't familiar.
But if you watch dudes skate, come on, it's obvious.
There's no question.
Uh, You got Yuto Horigome doing, what did he do?
Like, nollie back 270 backside nose slide?
Down a rail?
Just absolutely nuts tricks!
Like, sugar cane down a 12 stair rail?
You got a video of a guy doing a kickflip backside nose blunt down a gap to ledge.
I know that sounds meaningless to half of you, but trust me, like, Watching these Street League skate videos, and I'm just like how is this possible this level of skating?
Watching a dude do like a nollie inward heel flip over like a 12 foot long gap from like a 6 foot ramp And I'm just like these dudes got skills, bravery, consistency, and it's crazy I'm like watching a video of a dude trying to do a frontside blunt slide down like a 10 stair hubba ledge I know more meaningless names, but it's like Imagine someone is standing on something about six feet high, and there is a ledge that goes at an angle, and he wants to jump on top of it, slide with his wheels, and I'm watching this video where the dude just, he locks on and then just jumps off and walks away like nothing even happened, and I'm like, that's crazy to watch.
A dude bashes ribs on a railing and then just get up and do it again.
The level of skill, determination, grit is unquestionable.
There's a difference between males and females.
And it's not to rag on females.
They're in a different category.
They have different cue angles, different center of gravity.
But this one, this conversation matters.
I suppose you can make the argument that, um, when it comes to downhill skating, there's less of a disadvantage, because you're just going as fast as possible, but reflexes matter.
More muscles means faster muscle movements, so, uh, to a certain degree, it's like a bell curve.
If you have bigger muscles, you can—you're more agile, you can move faster.
A lot of people thought that was the opposite, because the muscles—no, you can respond more quickly.
So when you watch stuff like this, there's no question, man.
Not to mention, more bone density, more muscle mass, more skin collagen, less prone to hip and ankle and knee injuries because of the Q angle.
This... Unless the outcome is... Women just don't win anymore.
And trans women start taking the top trophies.
There you go.
There's a handful of trans skaters.
It's just like, dude, come on.
Like, I got no beef if you're trans.
Do your thing.
But, bro, you just did like a hard flip backside 5-0 revert.
I don't think I've ever seen a woman come close to a trick like that.
You know, there are women who are good at skating.
I'm not saying they don't exist.
But it's like, that bell curve.
Look at the grip strength bell curve.
You can see it right there.
You know?
Like the strongest female grip strength is like on par with the average male grip strength.
So how do you deal with this?
We've created the female category in sports because of these differences.
If there was no concern over male or female differences, we'd have everybody compete in the same category.
Here's the truth.
NBA, NFL, whatever, like all of these sports, they have no rule saying women can't compete.
They're allowed to try out.
They just don't make it.
Tend to be shorter.
Less muscle mass.
Tend to run slower.
What do you do?
Putting males in the female category just doesn't make sense.
As I often say, we did not create female sporting categories because sometimes people wear dresses.
We created them because males and females are different.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up today at 1pm.
Export Selection