Machine DECLARES WAR On Russell Brand, Shows CANCELED, Agency Dumps Him Over Me Too Allegations
HANG OUT LIVE IN MIAMI WITH TIMCAST - https://timcast.com/timcast-irl-x-miami/
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
Machine DECLARES WAR On Russell Brand, Shows CANCELED, Agency Dumps Him Over Me Too Allegations
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Okay, maybe not the only explanation, but I think that's what Andrew Tait called it, a Matrix attack.
Here's what's happening.
Russell Brand has been accused of impropriety, and that's putting it kind of lightly based on the accusations, and now he's losing all of his shows.
They're being pulled from the BBC.
His talent agency has dropped him, and I will say outright, Something does not smell right here.
I think it's likely highly BS, to be completely honest.
Russell Brand came out with a video this past week saying he categorically denies all allegations of impropriety against him and that there may be some other agenda at play.
And I gotta be honest, when you look at how the media is reacting to what's going on with Russell Brand, how the companies, I just gotta say, it's not normal.
You look at Harvey Weinstein, a man who was protected for decades.
And then we get Russell Brand.
And what does Russell Brand do?
Well, Russell Brand's a bit different.
There's no big investigation into who this guy is.
Russell Brand is not some powerful media mogul who controls industry.
He's a dude who started podcasting about politics recently, who used to be in big movies.
I don't know if he's still doing movies.
I don't know.
No disrespect.
But he's in a bunch of movies.
He's got this character.
Who cares about Russell Brand and why pull his shows?
Well, he's not been convicted of any crimes, and these accusations against him, they... Sure, whatever.
First, I want to say...
How are we immediately shutting him down and cancelling his businesses before there's any proof of anything?
That's the first reason I find this to be suspect.
You now have a conspiracy theory being pushed by the likes of the Krasensteins, claiming that Russell Brand knew 15 years ago that his malicious deeds would come back to haunt him.
So the conspiracy theory states that Russell Brand knew this was coming 15 years ago, I'm not kidding, and started building a political base knowing that he needed an army of people who distrust the media so that when they finally do levy these things against him, he will be able to defend himself or something like that.
Okay, to be fair, they're actually arguing that since the Me Too movement started, which was what?
Like, was that 10 years ago or something?
I don't know, whatever.
Russell Brand was like, uh-oh, They're coming for me next.
Better build an army of anti-establishment people to defend me, which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
I can only say, when you look at all the newspapers, when you look at the immediate reaction from the TV networks, something doesn't feel right.
I mean, look at Epstein, right?
Epstein's a guy who's got a private island and a plane, and they don't do nothing about him.
In fact, when Amy Rohrbach got this interview, and she's like, we got him.
What do they do?
They bury it.
But oh no!
Russell Brand had four... There's four accusers from 20 years ago or 15 years ago.
Now it's all coming out of the... Oh, get out of here, dude.
I'm sorry.
There's that meme tweet, and I hate to bring it up because it's such a stupid drama stuff, but it's big news.
So I, you know... You got this meme tweet, and it says...
We got high-definition video of Lauren Boebert getting groped in the dark, but we don't know who put the pipe bombs on January 6th.
This country is so full of ish.
And, uh, I hate to bring it up, but it makes a very, very good political point.
And I'm sorry, because I don't bring it up because I don't care about Lauren Boebert having a private- I mean, you don't do that stuff in a theater, but I'm not gonna talk about it.
My point is, that's the kind of stuff that gets massive attention.
Lauren Boebert did something stupid, and they got her on camera.
Because she's effective politically, they go after her, and they have these videos.
They're filming everyone all the time.
They probably film me when I go to the grocery store, like, what's he buying?
Doing weird, creepy stuff.
What they're gonna find is that when I'm not working, I'm at the Charlestown poker room, just sitting there all day playing poker.
But anyway, I bring this up because you have Russell Brand.
And for what reason do we have all these explosive allegations coming out that warrant massive media attention, yet Epstein was overlooked for so long?
Because the dude's effective politically.
So, first, let me just say, yeah, you know, maybe he's got some allegations against him.
Innocent until proven guilty and all that stuff, but look, I'm not gonna give anybody a free pass.
However, Just because there's four allegations now, he's getting dropped from every network?
Something doesn't make sense there.
That's kind of weird.
Again, Epstein?
Weinstein?
What's going on with that?
Here's a story from NBC News.
Russell Brand's management agency terminates ties following sexual assault allegations.
Tavistock Wood Management Agency said it believed it was horribly misled by him.
I think, uh, I think Russell's gotta sue for defamation.
Because being dropped by these brands for saying they were misled by him, or this agency, simply because of an accusation, that's not a definitive statement of fact, and in the UK, their defamation laws are a bit more strict than ours.
But I do think I know what's up.
I really do.
We have this tweet.
Simon Atiba tweeted, many are now saying that this clip might be why Russell Brand is being attacked.
Watch.
Okay, well, to be fair, I don't think this clip is why he's being attacked.
I do think Russell Brand is under fire because of, in large part, things he says like this, and you should, ladies and gentlemen, listen to what Russell Brand has to say.
If Russell Brand is in his 20s dating a 16-year-old, inappropriate, wrong, I think that's a bad thing.
However, it is the age of consent in the UK, so it's legal there, I guess?
Whatever.
Here's what they often don't tell you with these things.
What if this story is about Russell Brand being 19 years old?
I don't know.
I'm not saying he was.
I believe the allegations are that he was much older than that.
But I'm just warning you, when you see stories like this, to be careful.
Because they'll say things like, did you know that Donald Trump once dated a 16-year-old?
And people go, oh, what?
It's like, when he was 16.
It's like, oh, wait, huh?
When he was 16?
Right.
The age of both of the individuals matters, because you can make things sound really, really bad.
You know, if you said something like... Again, I'm not gonna... I'm not gonna... I was thinking of throwing out some names and accusing them of dating 16 and 17 year olds because everybody dated somebody when they were a teenager.
Oh, not everybody.
British comedian and actor Russell Brand is denying allegations of assault against him following a joint investigation published Saturday by the Times of London, the Sunday Times, and Channel 4 Dispatches.
My question, ladies and gentlemen, is why is Russell Brand being investigated?
He does not run a network.
He does not fly people to private islands.
He does not schmooze with politicians and billionaires.
For what accountability are they seeking to hold him to?
To be fair, he's a famous guy.
If he did bad things, well, then he should be held accountable.
But I'm just curious why all of these massive media organizations, why three different major newspapers are like, we better investigate Russell Brand.
Are you kidding?
Come on.
Look, I'm going to say this.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
I mean, look, you know, it's the Daily Mail, it's UK.
I suppose Russell Brand must be the most famous man in all of the UK, because there's nothing else to write about.
Not only has he been pulled from his agency, but they're pulling his BBC shows.
Look at this one from Daily Mail.
More women come forward to accuse Russell Brand after sex allegations as BBC launches urgent probe and pulls shows featuring the comedian with Netflix urged to follow.
Well, you know, I gotta be honest.
I don't have Netflix.
But, you know, there are people here who do, so it's not like it doesn't get watched.
It is what it is.
I always tell people, like, try and sign up for alternatives.
I don't have Disney Plus anymore.
I got rid of my Netflix.
But you do what you can.
You know, I don't think it's reasonable to tell everyone to stop subscribing to their entertainment platform because we like shows and it's culture and stuff like that.
Let's read.
Daily Mail says, after Russell Brand was hit with accusations of rape and sexual assault, more women have come forward with allegations about how he's treated them.
The Times and Sunday Times claim several and blah blah blah.
We get it, we get it.
The BBC is now also facing urgent questions after it was claimed that Brand 48 used his company provided car services to pick up the girl from school.
Okay, you see what they're doing here?
That Brand 48, he's 48 now!
Okay?
When did this take place?
To be fair, okay, if this was 15 years ago, and who's the, I don't know, maybe the girls, you know, who was in his 30s?
Inappropriate in my opinion, but was it legal?
And if it's, and if, and if, and if you got a problem with it, y'all gotta change your laws.
That's totally fine.
And there's a difference between legal and socially acceptable.
Agreed.
Channel 4 has since removed all programs linked to a brand from its website, including episodes of The Great British Bake Off and Big Brother's Big Mouth.
Wow.
In which he was featured.
Netflix has since been urged to remove his comedy special titled Rebirth.
This is insane.
I'm sorry, man.
When you come out and try to categorically remove everything about Russell Brand from everywhere, it does not seem legitimate.
It is suspect.
Now, I'm not saying that Russell Brand coming out and saying all this stuff about perpetual crisis economy is the reason.
I don't know.
I'm just saying.
A little weird that This guy's been accused and now, snap of a finger, they remove everything about him.
All of his specials coming out.
He's not been guilty of anything.
That's crazy.
But you know what?
I absolutely love the crackpot, conspiracy theory, fractured mind of Brian Krasenstein.
You know, come on.
These people live in this craziest world.
Look, here's what I'm saying.
I am saying there is, it is suspect that instantly all these media companies pull Russell Brand.
It's suspect.
I'm not saying there's a conspiracy.
Okay, let's make sure that's clear.
Russell Brand has been accused by several women.
He is innocent until proven guilty.
My point is, it seems a little over the top to react this way, considering Weinstein and Epstein.
Accusations were being made, and don't get me wrong, when the Me Too stuff happened with Weinstein, it was big, but I'm talking about how, for the longest time, they joked about it.
I mean, you have Seth McFarlane made the joke.
You had, was it Courtney Love?
I think it was Courtney Love.
The famous clips where they're like, yeah, he's gonna rape you.
And nothing!
But now, Russell Brand, at the single mention of it, they're like, take all the shows off the air.
It's like, okay, okay, all right, fine, we'll put it this way.
Entirely possible that because of the Me Too movement, all these companies are terrified.
But just, I don't know, I'm just saying, who cares?
It's just so weird, right?
But entirely plausible that he really just did this, and now these companies are scared of being involved in activist backlash.
I respect that.
I just, I don't know.
But here's what I love.
Brian Krasenstein says, I see a lot of people claiming that the media and the establishment have it out for Russell Brandt.
Well, they do.
The question is whether or not the actions taken against him are related to a political or personal agenda, or if it's because they're scared of their bottom line.
But of course they have it out for him.
I mean, what?
He insults them all the time.
Here's what he says.
Do you know what's much more likely?
That Russell Brand knew that he committed these horrible acts years ago and decided that his best defense was to start a show where he attacks the media and the establishment.
The show would also push conspiracy theories related to the narrative that the globalists are coming after us all, so that when these allegations finally do surface, he is able to use his cult following of people who don't trust the media nor government Okay, you know, I'm gonna... I'm just gonna pause right here.
Critical thinking points?
A letter?
him pretend to be innocent? Did four separate women come out with false allegations about Brand
because he is against the media and the globalists? Or did Russell Brand come out against the media
and the globalists because he knew that they would eventually report on his alleged crimes?
Critical thinking points to the latter. Okay, you know, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna pause
right here. Critical thinking points to the latter. So you're telling me that you think
it's plausible that 15 years ago, Russell Brand was like, you know, I'm doing all these things
I better go join Occupy Wall Street.
So this is 11 years ago, 15 years ago, because they have this story about Kristen Stewart warning him in 2008.
So my point is, he's doing these things, and he starts to realize... Let's just say, fine, 11 years ago, I'd better go down to Occupy Wall Street and support all these leftist activists, otherwise, in 10 years, when they start arresting rapists, they'll come for him?
Like, is that the argument?
I love base reality.
Isn't this... I don't know, we must be in a simulation, because this is laughably absurd.
Hope that we can change the world.
Russell Brand visits Occupy Wall Street.
He's done it several times.
It was big.
I'm pretty sure he was down there in 2011, 12 years ago.
When I was there, I thought, I'm pretty sure he showed up and it was a big deal.
So you have this, you have this video.
Let me play this video for you.
Man, I, I, these people are just incorrigible.
unidentified
He's known, since Me Too started, that there are women out there who have stuff on him and that it's only a matter of time before they come forward and expose him for what he is.
He's not an idiot!
He has known that this day was coming and so he's had the incentive over the last few years to cultivate a following of people who distrust the media, who think that the media are out to get Russell Brand and that they'll do anything that they can to do that.
And that's what he's been doing since Me Too started.
That's the only way that he avoids being cancelled.
That's the only way that this guy with a God complex stays relevant, is if he cultivates this following of people who will disbelieve anything the media put out about him because they don't trust the media.
He has everything to gain from doing that and that's exactly what he's done successfully.
This idea that, you know, the United States is not at war for oil.
Donald Trump has soldiers, uh, has troops in Syria during his presidency.
He says, we're getting them out, but we're going to leave some in for the oil to protect the oil.
And this woman's like, Russell Brand only got political because he knew one day.
Oh, get out of here.
Are you nuts?
Russell Brand was at Occupy Wall Street.
This was well before the MeToo movement.
This dude's been political forever.
We all know he's been political forever.
And he's a lefty.
Anti-establishment, anti-war guy.
Pro-Julian Assange, and here it all comes.
So this is what I gotta say.
You wanna go to war over conspiracy?
Let me add this real quick.
To Brian Krasenstein.
I love how both of his scenarios are basically the same scenario, that Russell Brand knows they're coming for him, so he creates this machine of building support, or...
He knew the media was coming for him.
I think... Was Brian trying to argue that what the real thing is that Russell Brand didn't commit these acts and it's going to the machine so they came after him?
This is the stupidest thing you've ever posted, bro.
Russell Brand only got political because he knew one day they'd come for him.
What?!
That's insane!
Look, in the scale of conspiracy theories, let me start by saying, first, my position is, I got no idea.
Occam's Razor suggests that Russell Brand had bad relationships with these women, and the allegations could potentially be true, potentially be false.
The simple solution is, there's some bad blood, and this has to be litigated.
Well, I shouldn't say litigated, but because it's a criminal proceeding, I guess.
I don't know if it's the right word.
But adjudicated is probably the better word for it.
In which case, that's all you can say.
The likelihood here is that Russell Brand viewed his relationships entirely contentual, and these women viewed them negatively.
The question is, do they rise to criminal acts?
With this 16-year-old, apparently it was all legal.
And so, what are we gonna hear?
Are they gonna say, he was grooming me?
Okay, well, what does that mean?
Are they arguing that they didn't like how the relationship went?
There's a big difference between Russell Brand forcing a woman to do something, and a woman not enjoying herself.
Right?
And I'm not saying that to downplay any actual crimes that may have been committed.
If Russell Brand actually did coercive whatever, we'll answer those questions.
But the simple solution here is really just this happens between people.
Now let's entertain conspiracies.
If a conspiracy theory were to be true, what's the most likely?
That Russell Brand is very powerful, famous, anti-establishment, with a large show and celebrity status, and he's been attacking the machine, defending Julian Assange, calling out Big Pharma.
And then, all of a sudden, every media outlet comes out against him with these major allegations front page, and he gets dropped from the BBC, or not from the BBC, from Channel 4, and he gets dropped from his talent agency, and then it's just, um, well, okay.
That's kind of weird, right?
That is more likely, then.
Russell Brand, at least 11 years ago, foresaw the MeToo movement coming.
You see, right before Occupy Wall Street, Russell Brand was like, you know, I think they're gonna start getting us rapists.
That Russell Brand predicted the MeToo movement well before it happened and decided to build a political anti-establishment following is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Critical thinking points for the latter?
Russell Brand came out against the media and the globalists because he knew that they would eventually report him as alleged crimes?
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.
The small island of Lampedusa in Italy is being invaded by an outside force.
And this brings up the question of what does it mean to actually have an invasion.
Right now in the United States we are dealing with our own migrant crisis.
One of the largest influxes of migrants illegally entering the country has just occurred.
And many on the right say this is an invasion.
Now, of course, the left debates this or mostly ignores it because they don't want to get into the question about what's really going on with illegal immigration.
It's leading to major problems in big cities like New York, where AOC, a Democrat, just shouted down over protests that they are working to give these illegal immigrants work rights and the ability to stay in their city.
And effectively displace the residents who are already there.
Now, the issue with this debate is that, well, look, if a million people come into a country of 300 million, those who pay attention to economics have concerns and say, hey, we can't sustain this.
Okay, you can't just have people flooding in illegally and going to random places.
How do we track these people?
How do we make sure they're actually able to work and thrive?
And with the economic crises we're already dealing with, San Francisco, homelessness, etc., can we really provide for a million more people every year?
More than that, perhaps?
Well, now we're dealing with a story out of Italy, which is a bit more, well, it's simpler.
7,000 people arrive on Italian island of 6,000 as migrant crisis overwhelms Lampedusa.
That's right.
This is the story of abject invasion by any basic definition.
Now, of course, there may be more specific definitions of invasion, like you're talking about warring forces and an armed group declaring war and then seizing land, like you can say Russia invaded Ukraine.
OK, acceptable.
But invasion as a general term means a large group of people coming into another place, an invading force.
And there are other ways you can describe invasion.
It also refers to cultures and ideas.
But in this instance, when you have over 10,000 people who are not citizens coming to your island, at this point, it becomes simple.
Your way of life will be destroyed.
Your resources will be constrained.
And I fear that conflict will be inevitable.
In this island of 6,500 or so people, how do they accommodate such a massive influx of non-citizens?
And what do these non-citizens do when they don't get what they need?
I mean, it's really simple.
We're already starting to see videos of conflict.
One video purports to show migrants in Lampedusa setting up barricades and seizing territory.
Uh-oh.
There is a video going around allegedly showing fighting between these migrants and police.
It's an old video.
And this one's been fact-checked, so I want to make sure.
I tweeted in response to it.
Just a general retweet.
A simple quote tweet.
I didn't say much other than LOL.
But there is a fact-check on it I think is important for people to see.
But you need to ask yourself, as we in the United States are dealing with a migrant crisis on a smaller scale than these people, you have to ask yourself, what are your rights?
What are you entitled to, if anything at all?
When I see a story like this, I say to you, You have a right to your home.
You set up and establish a place where you generate resources, where you build, maintain resources that you need for your survival, and so that your family, your friends, can flourish.
If an outside group comes in and starts occupying your space and your land, which you require to flourish, you have displacement, you have an invasion.
It's only a matter of time before these people outvote the residents of this island.
Now, many on the left would be saying, oh, that's ridiculous!
They're using it as a temporary base for these people to enter in their refugees blo- They're not refugees.
They're economic migrants, hands down.
That's a UN report that said that years ago.
These individuals are coming to Europe for opportunity, not because they fear persecution or death.
These individuals, you may- The left will say, we're not gonna vote anyway!
They're not part of the gover- That's not how the real world works.
If you've got 10,000 people and you've got 6,000 of another group of people and the 6,000 say you don't have authority here, uh, what do you think's going to happen?
Yeah, 10,000 is more than 6,000.
And so, you can try and maintain control over this island, but you are overrun.
Your way of life will end.
Your resources will be taken from you, and that's just how it goes.
That's the normal way that all life has operated when it comes to this stuff.
Take a look at any element of nature, any circumstance with predators and prey, and then you take a look at humans, and how humans differ and are similar.
If 7,000 people arrive, joining another 3,000, and there's more of them than there are of you, it's not necessarily an issue of race.
It's an issue of, what do we have, what can we take?
Let me break down for you what's going on.
And I think this story is extremely important when you look at what's happening in New York City, with AOC telling the protesters in her own district, in New York City, I don't want to be specific, I don't know exactly what district she was in when she said this, But in New York City, as people are yelling at her saying, no, we can't handle this.
There's too many migrants.
Our resources are strained.
She goes, we're going to make sure they stay.
We're going to give them access to your stuff.
You have no rights.
That's your leadership selling you out to people who don't foot the bill.
And this is where we are.
Lampedusa, CNN reports, has seen an influx of migrants with 7,000 people arriving in two days, prompting its mayor and the UN Refugee Agency to warn the Italian island is becoming overwhelmed.
Is becoming?
Oof, is.
The island, whose population is under 7,000, has long been a first port of call for people crossing from North Africa and has been a flashpoint in Europe's migration crisis.
Mayor Felipe Menino on Thursday said the migrant crisis has reached a point of no return.
In the past 48 hours, around 7,000 people have arrived on my island, an island that has always welcomed and saved in its arms.
Now we have reached a point of no return where the role played by this small rock in the middle of the Mediterranean has been put into crisis by the dramatic nature of this phenomenon.
The UNHCR representative for Italy, the Holy See and San Marino, Chiara Cordelletti said Friday the situation in Lampedusa is critical, and moving people off the island is an absolute priority.
Here's what I fear.
I fear, when you see a video, let me play this video for you guys.
Watch for yourselves.
Let's zoom in so you can see it better.
End Wokeness has 10,000 military-age men storm an island in a span of three days, outnumbering the 6,000 who live there.
This is happening all across the West, but on a more subtle scale.
Western civilization, as we note, will be gone within a generation.
Well, it's a little bit heavy, okay?
I don't know about a generation.
I actually think that while the left is sterilizing their children and aborting their children or just not having kids in general, the right is having more and more kids.
They should.
There is mass immigration coming into this country, which is a risk to any person who believes in their way of life.
I'll show some clarifications.
I believe it's not 10,000 military-age men right now.
It's around 10,000 that are currently there.
This has long been a port of entry for economic migrants coming into Europe illegally under the guise of being refugees.
That is, again, I am referencing a UN report, okay?
And it really blows my mind when I'm like, the UN said these are economic migrants under the mask masquerading as refugees.
And then the left is like, how dare you say that they're refugees?
It's like, whatever, dude.
Anyway.
There's about 7,000 that came.
Here's the video.
Take a look at this.
You can see just a large crowd trying to enter all at once.
Another video where they're pushing against a fence trying to break in.
Take a look at this video.
This one I have not confirmed, but I am seeing reported widely.
Wall Street Silver tweets, migrants on Lampedusa, Italy are setting up barricades and establishing territorial control over certain areas of the island.
Italy's sovereign control of their territory is being lost.
Will Prime Minister Georgia Maloney sit by as the island is taken?
More boats will probably soon be launching from Tunisia, sending reinforcements.
Take a look at this video.
I don't know exactly what this is, and I want to clarify, I don't know if this is correct.
There is another video that is out of context.
What we can see here is there appears to be many men of African descent setting up barricades, and we are told that it is being reported as Lampedusa.
Now, I've seen several reports stating this is the case, but I want to make sure I'm being very clear.
I have not confirmed this beyond... So, let me put it this way.
The video appears to be genuine.
You've got local team here.
I don't know what local team is.
It appears to be a real news video.
The thing you got to be worried about is whether or not the video is actually of what it claims to be.
In this tweet, Sprinter puts out, in Italy, direct clashes between migrants and police began on the island of Lampedusa.
Illegal immigrants throw stones at the Carabinieri and demand that they be sent to Europe.
Now, a fact check has popped up here on Community Notes.
This is X saying, it's a video from 2021 in Marotta, Italy, where two cops would be injured.
Several were arrested, one Senegalese, one Colombian, two Albanians, and one other.
So it may be Similar context, but the wrong location, the wrong time, and it's important to point that out.
This is from two years ago.
That's what I'm saying about this barricade video.
We don't know for sure.
What we do know is it is widely reported that you do have these thousands of people coming to Lampedusa.
Now, I want to show you where this is to give you some context.
This right here, I have the map.
Let's shrink this here.
You can see there's the island of Malta, here's Tunisia, and you can see the island of Lampedusa actually is closer to mainland North Africa, it appears.
I don't know if it's fair to say because of where Tunis is and then where the island is, but it appears to be relatively closer.
To Tunisia, then it is actually to Italy, but it is an Italian island, and we'll zoom in here, you can see it's actually very small.
It's an Italian island, it's got an airport and everything, and so what's happening is these economic migrants are kicking off from Tunisia, and then they're being brought into Lampedusa.
This is being done intentionally, and it has been going on for years.
Europe's a big place.
It's got a dense population.
I think the population of Europe may be around, well, like 650 or so million.
But the people in Lampedusa cannot withstand this massive wave.
Let's bring it up.
Let's make the argument.
Invasion is defined by Oxford as an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
The Allied invasion of Normandy.
Now I'm going to pause there and just say I reject that definition for one reason.
It uses the word in its own definition.
Come on.
The instance of invading a country or region with an armed force?
Okay.
But that's... that's circuitous.
What is the actual definition then?
Okay, if an instance of invading a country, then what does it mean to be invading?
We're looking for a definition of the word invade!
Come on, don't give me that.
To be fair, invasion is the noun version of the verb to invade.
It says an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity, an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
By those definitions, What we are seeing now in Lampedusa is an invasion, no question.
What we can see on the southern border is an invasion, no question.
Worse still, my friends, it is outright colonization.
I bring this one up because the left likes to lament the colonizers, these colonizers who come to indigenous land and take Okay.
Yeah, I don't disagree.
I am no fan of displacing indigenous populations, and you can make the argument about the colonial settlers from Europe and what they did, and okay, fine.
Let's make the argument that we should protect people's rights to their property.
North America was taken by conquest.
Conquest happens.
If your argument is that conquest is bad, I will completely agree with you, and say, we don't want to repeat what we did in the past, we want to protect individual rights, and tell everybody, like, you know, you gotta do your thing, you gotta do it by the book.
You wanna come to a place, you gotta fill out the paperwork, you gotta come in by which they allow you to come in.
You don't get to go to any country in the world you want, they have passports, they have borders.
Colonization is defined as the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous population of an area.
If these barricade videos are true and correct, then colonization is currently taking place in Lampedusa.
But you also need to understand that the U.S.
is being actively colonized by China.
China is engaged in active colonization around the world.
One example is birth tourism.
Chinese women will fly to the United States to give birth to a child, or, and this is where it gets crazier, Chinese couples will hire a surrogate to carry their baby in the United States.
That baby is then born in America and granted citizenship, and then brought back to be raised in China, where at any point, that individual can come back to America with full citizenship.
This means that over a long enough period of time, there will be economic and physical displacement of the indigenous population of the United States.
No, no, I know, I know.
You've heard a lot about people claiming great replacement and all that, and I'm not a fan of that idea.
Here's what I can tell you.
Some people believe, to varying degrees of race... Probably, that's the best way to put it, that there is a replacement of the white... Some people believe there's a replacement of the white population in the United States.
Typically, when the media references a great replacement, they're using the most extreme interpretation.
That is, there are people who believe white people are being displaced by non-white people.
However, then there's the lighter form of the Great Replacement Theory, which is that political elements in this country are trying to bring in migrants to displace the American ideals, regardless of race.
OK, well, I don't know.
I mean, both of those to me come off as a little far end.
What I can say is we have video from Benny Johnson.
Joe Biden did secure some parts of the border, so I'm not sure exactly why or what they're working on.
I can tell you that the Democrats are not dealing with the issue.
In fact, exacerbating it.
I don't think it's as grand and conspiratorial as people want to believe.
I believe that there are competing interests of varying agendas that ultimately appreciate and want more illegal immigrants coming into the United States.
In this video, which we talked about this last week, but I think it's important in this context, AOC is giving a press conference and she outright tells the people who are saying no to these illegal immigrants, she says, no, no, no, we're going to give them work rights.
Listen to this.
unidentified
It's important in getting a solution to this issue.
The first is that there is consensus here across geography and states on increased federal
resources to cities and municipalities dealing with this issue.
To hear the people who live here, who work here, who pay the taxes, to hear her say, we are going to displace you economically, we are going to take from you and give to them, with a smile on her face!
So again, I know it's quiet, but you can hear people screaming at her.
The rage.
And then she says, lastly, we will extend protected status to these people.
That's right.
They will have legal protections over you.
They get access to your money.
And then we're going to let them displace you in work.
Absolutely incredible.
You know, you had the fight for 15 in New York.
You have these people who think about the minimum wage and they don't understand how it works.
And they're insane.
And they're evil.
Now, there's the banality of the evil, as I often mention, and the malicious evil, but I believe AOC is malicious.
I believe she intends to destroy.
I believe she... I'll put it this way.
I would say it's like, you know, chaotic evil for those that are D&D fans.
She wants to make gain for herself by gutting and ripping apart everything else.
I mean, I don't know.
It's hard to say.
I mean, she may be lawful evil because she operates within the system in such a way that causes harm to others.
Maybe that's a better way to put it.
But it's not that she... Yeah, you know what?
I think it's fair.
It's lawful evil, not chaotic evil.
I know I was wrong about that.
Yeah, lawful.
Fight for 15 was an effort to get fast food workers, and everybody's fighting for this, $15 minimum wage.
Let me break down for you how this works.
You have 100 people who live in an area with 10 jobs available.
There's a fast food restaurant.
They're offering up 10 jobs.
That's it.
Available.
Well, let's say there's 40 employees there, right?
40 employees out of 100 people with 10 new positions available.
The 40 people who work there are getting paid $10 an hour.
The business then says, we're going to hire 10 more people.
And it says, 10 people were willing to pay, excuse me, $10 an hour.
50 people apply.
Or I should say 60 people apply.
The business then goes through and goes to each and every one of them and then says, look, we got 60 people who need jobs.
Let's just put it this way.
Let's say, let's say 10% unemployment.
So let's say only 50 people actually want jobs.
They say, we got 50 applications and only 10 positions.
One guy then says, I'll do it for nine bucks an hour.
And the business goes nine bucks an hour.
Well, if we pay you guys, uh, so look, if we've got a hundred bucks an hour to give out, And we want to hire 10 people at $10 an hour.
If we cut this down to $7 an hour, I mean, that's going to free up a decent amount of money.
We could probably hire four or five more people.
Which means it alleviates the workload across the board, gets us more jobs.
But in reality, I don't think they would do that.
They would just be like, okay, we'll pay you less.
We'll pay you less because you asked for it, because you want this job.
Here's what matters more.
Let's say the business says, no we got a $10 minimum wage, you're getting $10 an hour.
There's now 50 unemployed people.
These unemployed people can't afford to buy food from the restaurant.
So what does the restaurant do?
They say, okay look, to sell a burger at this rate, to pay you at this rate, we've got to have fixed costs, right?
$10 an hour guaranteed no matter what government says so.
Burgers have to cost $2.
Now don't get me wrong, you can talk about corporate greed all day and night, that's fine.
But let's say, let's hard numbers.
Those 50 people who are not working, they're not buying your burgers.
So now you're not making any money.
Eventually you shut down. It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense. You cannot have
50 unemployed people flooding into an area with only 50 jobs. I should say you can't you can't
have 100 people, right? And I'm oversimplifying it. The point is this scale that up in New York
and you have people struggling to find work already as businesses have been permanently
shuttered by covid and the economy is in a weird place.
They're now bringing in, what did they bring in?
$10,000?
$15,000 last month?
So what's going to happen to the businesses?
You end up with homeless camps.
You end up with decreased property taxes.
You end up with people fleeing.
Property values collapse.
The businesses start going under.
Don't take my word for it.
Go look at what's happening in Oakland.
I might have this story pulled up.
I don't think I do, actually.
No, I don't.
You take a look at what's happening in Oakland and San Francisco.
They can't handle it.
And it's not even a migrant issue.
It's an economic issue.
For Ocasio-Cortez to come out and say, we're going to extract from you and your city to give to them, it's shocking evil.
But this is what we're dealing with.
Now, I don't know that we lose, right?
There are some people who say we're in trouble.
I'm like, I'm not so convinced.
But here's the ultimate point, and I don't want to bring it up right away because it's brutal.
Ian was talking about this on Timcast IRL.
At a certain point, when you have 10,000 people come into your little island home, people are going to start fighting.
If these videos are true, that they're setting up barricades and taking territory, if the people of Lampedusa do nothing, then eventually, that's it, they're over.
You will be overrun.
People will come into your homes.
This is it.
The government of Italy and the UN and Eurozone, they need to dispatch military and get these people off the island.
And they should be sent back to North Africa.
They likely won't be though.
And as they do nothing to contain this, maybe because of impotence or it's intentional, my fear is that eventually, people are gonna get- it's gonna get bloody.
I look to the United States as we're dealing with- take a look at this.
One of the largest mass illegal crossings we have ever seen took place in Eagle Pass this morning.
Sooner or later, you're going to get someone who just says, I don't want to lose my land.
Hey, look, when the European colonials came to North America and the Bahamas and South America, they had better weapons and disease.
And it was disease that mostly wiped out many of the indigenous.
But it was also cannons, warships.
They had better technology.
And so they said, get out.
What's happening right now with these migrants coming in these places?
They don't have better technology.
The people in the United States have access to weapons.
And that's what scares me.
What scares me is that sooner or later someone's gonna say no.
Donald Trump needs to get elected.
He needs to send the National Guard down to the border.
These people should be turned right around.
There's some scary questions.
Scary, scary questions.
Do you let Non-citizens enter your country, displacing everything just in mass.
Or do you say no?
If you go back in time, and think about how things used to be, we didn't have borders.
We had borders, but they were just lines.
Demarcation!
And if someone was not a citizen of your country, they just didn't have access to goods, and they were just not a citizen of your country.
But, here's the crazy thing, you go to the 1800s, people from Mexico came to the United States all the time.
Back and forth, and they'd work here too.
Today, Our economy is strained to a great degree, and we are struggling to create a future for the people who are working in this country and want to have kids.
And they're bringing people who aren't citizens to reap the benefits of the mechanisms we built for welfare.
This is going to spell disaster, cultural and economic displacement, and my fear is that in the United States, it could get violent.
I don't know what to tell you, my friends.
It's happening before our very eyes.
And as the people of New York experience this, with AOC spitting on them and laughing about it, I have to wonder about 2024 and the election and what happens.
Donald Trump victory?
Who knows?
A lot could happen between now and then.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The dress code has been changed in the Senate for one man, John Fetterman.
And should the rules have been changed so this one man can slovenly hobble about in his hoodie and shorts?
No.
They should not have been changed this way.
And I oppose dress codes to a certain degree.
This one's gotten a lot of attention, and I've gotten over a thousand responses on Twitter, so I thought, let's talk about the Senate dress code, formality, decorum, etc., and why I oppose dress codes, think that John Fetterman should not be wearing shorts, but this idea that you have to wear a formal suit or something like this, no.
I'm opposed to all that.
But let's break it down.
It's a great discussion.
I see a lot of people are telling me that I'm wrong.
They're commenting saying, you know, people must wear suits.
This is high office.
You must be presenting yourself in a professional manner.
Well, I agree.
I just don't agree on a formal dress code.
But I'll explain.
There can be a dress code.
I just said formal one.
Which means, you can say something like, you have to wear a shirt, you have to wear pants, you cannot be stained, you cannot be gross, you cannot be filthy, you cannot be dirty, blah blah blah.
What I don't appreciate is, everyone must wear some suit, or something, or a tie, and this seems vague, and illogical.
But let's break down John Fetterman, and then I want to talk to you about the issues I take with formality, and what I love about this country.
Here's the story from the Philly Enquirer.
John Fetterman can now wear shorts on the Senate floor thanks to dress code rule change.
The new rule, or lack of a rule, takes effect this week.
It will allow Fetterman to wear his signature outfit in the Senate chambers.
That's right, his signature outfit of jogging shorts, sneakers, and a hoodie.
Okay, whatever, man.
I mean, dude, at least wear pants.
The hoodie is, I don't know, whatever, but at least wear pants, come on.
You can put on some slacks, dude.
John Fetterman can now wear his signature shorts and hoodie.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer quietly directed the Chamber of Sergeant-at-Arms to no longer enforce the Senate's already informal dress code, Axios reported on Sunday.
Senators are able to choose what they want to wear on the Senate floor.
I will continue to wear a suit, Schumer told Axios.
The new rule, or lack of a rule, takes effect this week.
We get it.
We know about his clothing and how he dresses, whatever.
The old rule requiring business attire, which typically means coat and tie for men, still applies to Senate staffers according to Axios.
I do not care to play this game of pretense.
First, the rules shouldn't be changed for one guy because he wants to wear jogging shorts.
Second, if you change the rules, it must apply to everyone.
That means staffers shouldn't be forced to dress up if you're gonna allow Fetterman to do this.
But you see, my issue with all of this is always the rules.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
That's why I also oppose formal dress codes.
I don't oppose dress codes.
I oppose formal dress codes.
I'll explain that in a second, but please, by all means, comment below and give me your arguments.
You might want to hear what my position is in full, but I want to read the story for you and give you a bit more context.
They says, but there isn't actually a formal dress code written down anywhere.
The Inquirer learned earlier this year when Fetterman took office.
That makes the dress code more of a custom enforced at the discretion of the sergeant at arms.
Ross Baker, a Senate historian and political science professor at Rutgers University, noted around Fetterman's inauguration, the lack of an official dress code has meant plenty of senators have been able to show off their style.
Western Senators in cowboy boots and string ties.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in Puma sneakers.
When he's not in D.C., Fetterman has also exclusively gone casual.
I couldn't have gone to the Senate without Bob's support in 2022.
And Bob won't win in 2024 without help from us.
Whether you're team hoodies or team suits, a fundraising email read.
Here's Fetterman wearing a suit and sneakers.
Or sneakers of some sort.
I don't know.
Whatever.
The guy next to him is wearing similar shoes or something like that.
Whatever.
Some Republicans immediately lambasted the rule change, calling it disrespectful to the decorum of the Senate.
The Senate no longer enforcing a dress code for senators to appease Fetterman is disgraceful.
Full stop.
I agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene.
It should not be that they're dropping this because one guy wants to wear jogging shorts.
That's stupid.
However, there should not be a requirement that you wear specific clothing like a coat and a tie.
This results in stupid nonsense.
Some people wear coats and bolo ties, or string ties, as they mentioned.
But let's break this down.
Marjorie Taylor Greene says dress code is one of society's standards that set etiquette and respect for our institutions stop lowering the bar.
Justin Amash, a longtime Republican who became a libertarian, said, awful, the Senate chamber isn't your home, a gym, or an outdoor park.
If you can't dress professionally for work on the floor of the Senate of the United States, then do us all a favor and get a different job.
I agree.
I agree.
Where I disagree.
Fetterman should be allowed to dress as he wants.
However, my statement is as such.
What did I say on Twitter, actually?
I don't know if I have the tweet.
Here's what I said.
I oppose dress codes based on some kind of formality.
Dress codes for decency are fine, such as requiring a shirt, pants, shoes, etc.
Fetterman should be allowed to whatever he wants within reason.
Now, the immediate response, I'm assuming this is just a strawman bad take, Ian Miles-Strong saying, Fetterman should be allowed to wear a Speedo at the budget hearing.
Sure.
Nobody made that argument.
My argument is that if Fetterman wants to wear, like, blue jeans and a t-shirt, he should be allowed to do it.
You should be allowed to wear whatever you want within a more relaxed set of guidelines.
Meaning, I do believe there should be a dress code.
I don't believe it should be coat and tie.
The idea that everyone has to wear a suit.
It's pretentious.
This idea that we're better men when we get elected.
No, I don't care.
I've never cared for that.
I won't start caring for that.
And just because Fetterman is the guy that people don't like, I'm not gonna just come out and be like, no, it's bad, he should be wearing a suit.
That's stupid.
I'm the dude, and everyone's pointing this out, who showed up to the White House wearing a hoodie and a beanie.
And they're like, I can't believe you would do that.
What do you mean you can't believe?
Of course I would do that.
Why?
Listen.
I believe you should look well, okay?
If you've got a shirt that's ripped and stained and it's got mustard on it, okay, that's the line for me, right?
You gotta do better than that.
But here's my problem across the board.
Do we want a nation ruled by elites of means and wealth, or do we want a government for, of, and by the people?
And this is where I come on this one.
This is where I stand.
When you have people who are wealthy, millionaires, getting elected, it's very easy for them to say, I'll go get a new suit.
Some people can say, look, man, you can get a cheap suit.
It's not that hard.
You can get a suit jacket from a thrift store.
You can do something like that.
And I'm like, okay, fine.
Okay, fine.
But they have to pay for it.
Uh oh, now we run into this problem.
They means you!
If the Senate Chamber wants you to dress a certain way, meaning you have to physically acquire something that you may not have, I don't like that idea.
In which case, the solution is, okay, fine, but you pay for the suit.
That means the taxpayers pay for the suit.
If that's y'all's compromise, I'm good.
If the argument is, you want to go to the Senate, and you gotta wear a suit, fine.
But it should come out of the budget for the Senate to do so.
To make sure that we are not telling someone, you can't be in here voting because you don't have the right clothes.
And now people can come to me and say, oh come on, they get paid $174,000 a year, they can afford to buy a suit.
That's not the point.
The point is, you want to be able to represent your people.
You do want to have some standards.
That's why I said pants.
No shorts, Federman.
I don't agree with that.
A Speedo?
Come on, that's a straw man.
But you need to understand one thing.
Donald Trump, well done steak with ketchup.
That's right.
And everybody cheered for it.
All the Trump supporters laughed and cheered for it.
Is that decorum?
Trump going to a fancy restaurant and saying, I want my steak well done with schlop ketchup all over it.
I'm a little, I'm exaggerating, right?
But he said he ordered a well done steak with ketchup and he got made fun of.
Made fun of.
And I laughed and I said, you don't get it.
Regular working class people, they're not going to, to Capitol Grill and ordering the filet mignon Oscar style.
They're going to Walmart, buying the steak they can afford, cooking it the only way they know how, and they put ketchup on it.
Yeah, no, probably a filet mignon, you know, tenderloin.
And I do prefer my tenderloin Oscar-style, for those that are familiar.
It's basically like a crab thing they put on top or whatever.
I'm in Maryland.
We're in Maryland, West Virginia.
So when you go out to the steakhouses here, they got the Oscar-style and everything.
But I'm not gonna sit here and pretend like the average person is living this life of luxury.
So when Donald Trump does wear a suit, goes to a restaurant and orders something that regular folk can understand and relate to, he's championed for it.
I think you need to understand that embrace.
John Fetterman wanting to wear a hoodie and gym shorts is a step too far for me.
Okay?
And changing the rules for one guy because it's also a step too far for me.
Understanding there is no formal dress code?
Well, okay, fine.
Here's what I think.
Dude can at least wear some khakis and a polo or something like that, right?
Like, business casual.
I hate these terms anyway.
I've got no problem with a t-shirt and jeans.
If you want to argue it's got to be tucked in, fine.
If you want to argue it's got to be clean, fine.
Just understand, there is a line.
The line that I'm trying to navigate here with this story is, are we creating a separation between the people who represent us and the people?
Are we putting things out of reach for the average person?
AOC was a bartender.
She gets made fun of for that.
I celebrate that.
I think she's evil.
Okay?
Telling people that migrants will come and displace their homes and take work away from them with a smile on their face as they're yelling at her.
She's evil.
But coming from being a bartender is a good thing.
I don't believe that the Senate should be elected by the public.
I believe the 17th Amendment should be rescinded.
The general idea from the Founding Fathers was that we must have better men.
I don't necessarily agree with that.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think we gotta be careful.
What that means.
The general concepts we have in this country are that it's a government of, for, and by the people.
Then recognize that the average working class person, the populace, those who would challenge the corporations are not going to be of the same means.
That it is the Pelosi's worth 200 million dollars who get access to these systems and control it to their own benefit.
You think they're going to ban stock trading for themselves?
It's not going to happen.
So, it is perfect for AOC coming from being a bartender.
Yeah, she's propped up for sure.
But I want to see more regular people.
And you know what?
Fetterman's embracing it.
And that's the angle they're going for.
Despite the fact the dude's got a brain injury and he suffers from it, makes it difficult for him to do his job.
There's a lot of reasons I don't think Fetterman should do this job.
I think he's terrible at what he does.
I don't think he's very smart.
But, the angle they are taking politically is to go down the route of Look at him, he's just a regular working guy!
Why?
The Democrats are losing regular working class people up in Pennsylvania.
They need that for 2024.
And I would say this.
A lot of these guys, Democrat voters, probably should be voting Republican based on today's politics.
These are just union guys.
They probably believe in traditional family values, they probably got guns.
But they work in factories and they're concerned about getting steamrolled by manufacturing.
At this point, I think Trump's your guy.
They're going to move your factory overseas.
Just give it.
Give it time.
You don't want that.
Fetterman is their path towards getting this voter base.
I am not saying he's going to be convincing them, but they are trying.
Don't give them freebies by being like, he's slovenly and gross!
That's what they're saying.
Now imagine what you're doing when you say this, and you're falling for their tricks.
How many dudes up in, you know, Western PA, or just PA in general, and Trump needs to win these states.
I don't know if he's gonna.
How many of these guys like to just wear jogging shorts and a hoodie?
I mean, I don't know why I don't understand the hoodie and shorts.
It's like kind of paradoxical in a sense.
Some people do it, you know, it's whatever.
But how many of these guys feel insulted now that Republicans are coming out and saying it's slovenly?
Don't fall into the same trap that Trump set for them.
When they came out and said Trump was laughable that he had a well-done steak with ketchup, it was a 30-day dry-aged steak, fancy as they come, well done with ketchup, and they mocked him for it.
They were insulting the poor working class of this country, saying the way you live is silly, stupid, and laughable.
And then the regular people saw Trump.
And it's not so much about whether or not you expect Trump to eat well-done steak with ketchup.
It's about how they insulted you.
So Trump does this.
The average working-class person might be like, Come on, man!
Just get the ribeye!
Get a medium-rare ribeye!
Come on, you can afford it.
But then, the media came out and said, What a pathetic imbecile!
Well done with ketchup!
And then you get a regular guy being like, Hey, come on, man!
Why are you spitting on me?
I work hard every single day.
I do the best I can for my family.
The steaks we buy?
Maybe they're not that good.
I try my best.
We want to put ketchup on it.
Makes it taste better.
Don't insult me because you don't like Trump.
Now again, I'll say it.
I thought I mentioned wear pants.
I think it's silly.
I think you should be allowed to wear what you want to wear within reason.
That is, clean pants and a shirt.
That's all I'm saying.
Changing the rules for Federman, I get.
I get it.
They're like, this one guy comes in also, and they're like, we're gonna give it to him.
But the game they're playing is, they want you to insult a guy who dresses this way, so that in the media, all the Republicans, and they're all doing it, are saying he looks slovenly and disgusting, and it's poor, and they want Republicans to come off as hoity-toity elitist.
Many of them are.
Me, I'm not gonna do that.
Literally don't care.
If Vermin Supreme went into the Senate, I would be much happier than the average senator.
He could put the boot in his head and everything.
You get someone to go in the Senate, dressed up like Count Chocula, or Chef Boyardee, and they say, end the war machine, and cut these no liability contracts to Big Pharma, I'm gonna be like, bro, I don't care what you're wearing.
I really don't.
I understand decorum.
I've actually been critical of Trump in that regard.
My standard is just lighter than many people's, but I do agree with it.
And that agreement is, your clothes should be clean at the very least, and I don't agree with shorts.
I don't agree with shorts, you should wear pants, right?
But again, that's my point.
My point is here, don't fall into that trap.
I envision a country where you got a farmer, and he's got overalls, and they're dirty.
And he's got a straw hat and he's working.
And he shows up to a city meeting just after work.
And you know what they say?
They say, you can't come in because you're dirty.
And he says, I work to the bone every single day to make food for everyone here.
And you stab me in the back with your policies and your taxes, and they don't even let him speak.
Why?
Because he's a working-class guy.
This is what my concern is.
It is the rich elites who are gonna have the clean, well-pressed suits, not the plumber who's gonna have to take off work early, get his clothes pressed, and spend money to try and impress these people in Washington.
I'm telling you, man, this is where I can't stand.
I want a guy to walk into the Senate, and when they're like, sir, you are filthy, you've got oil on your hands, he goes, yeah, it's because I work.
It's because I fix things, I build things.
And all the people here in this chamber, you're all millionaires who make money off of our backs with insider trading, selling us out to foreign interests for money, and they can afford the nice things.
But I just want to make sure we're clear when we're talking about this stuff.
My position is more so if a dude is getting off work at 5 p.m.
and he looks at his watch and he says, the City Council meeting, the Senate hearing is going to be at 6 p.m.
I got 30 minutes to drive after I get off work.
Should he take off work?
No.
He should do his responsibilities.
He should do his duty.
But let's say this guy's an electrician, a carpenter, or otherwise.
He's got dirt or something on him.
Little dirty.
Well, you know, should he go?
You know, I wanted to go and testify at this hearing and speak about what's affecting my community, but you know what?
I gotta be honest.
I'm a little dirty.
You know, my pants are filthy and I got my shirts ripped.
So, I guess no, no, no speaking at this event for me.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about that I have concerns about.
Either way, we can make our arguments about the Senate and all that stuff and Betterman.
I'm just saying, I don't agree with wearing a coat and a tie and all that stuff.
Federman is not representing these people legitimately.
He is not a guy who just got off work and can't wear a suit.
We know, we understand, the dude can wear a suit.
He has done so in the past.
It's not a big deal for a guy who's got one who can just do it.
My point more so is twofold.
Don't let them bait you into insulting regular people who don't want to or can't afford suits.
How many people in this country are living paycheck to paycheck and I don't want to hear that like, oh come on you can find a suit maybe at a thrift store.
But I've met too many people who are hurting right now who struggle and I don't think it's appropriate to say you don't have the right outfit to come and speak and represent or whatever.
Then fine.
I would agree on the compromise of the Senate should pay for a wardrobe budget.
Meaning it's going to be two or three suits, not one.
Because you can't just have one suit.
That's the other thing.
You can't just have one.
Okay?
You wear one one day, it gets dirty.
What do you wear tomorrow?
You've got to get them cleaned.
You've got to get them pressed, dry cleaned, etc.
You're going to need more than one.
Maybe three or four?
So you get them in rotation.
Fine.
If y'all want to pay for that, as taxpayers, I have no problem whatsoever with a dress code.
100%.
I just want to make sure that we are not cutting people out because they don't fit in with the elites of K Street or Wall Street.
That's what I don't like.
And, don't get tricked into insulting these people.
into insulting regular people.
That's the angle Democrats are trying to take.
But whatever, man, I think ultimately it comes to this.
Look, make your arguments, comment, whatever.
Most people responding are telling me that I'm wrong.
Decorum is not a requirement, but humans will judge others based on their looks, says Martha Bueno.
This was my critique of Gary Johnson when he was campaigning.
I completely agree.
I completely agree.
You are wearing clothes to target your demographic.
If you're running for president, you may lose out on votes if you look like a slob or unprofessional or low status.
I'm not a fan of how that works, but it's the way it works.
That being said, John Fetterman's angle here is to try and get Pennsylvania Rust Belt working class guys to vote Democrat instead of Republican.
And you've got to be careful about what you say about these guys.
I've seen a bunch of tweets already responding to the tweets being like, hey, look, I'm up in the Western PA.
Me and all my friends, we work, we dress like Fetterman dresses.
Like, don't tell us that we're slobs.
Don't tell us that we're not worthy of our speech or our statements or things like that.
I am not saying you can't request decorum.
You just gotta be respectful when you do it.
Jennifer Zillow said Federman and I have a lot to disagree on, and his hoodie is not one of those things.
I, too, work on Capitol Hill much of the time, and it's either hot or freezing.
There's a lot of walking.
Wool suits and ties make no sense at all.
A new uniform is overdue.
I'm curious.
You know, Jay Viper says, agreed, but I will say this.
Why change the entire dress code just for him?
Can't they just accept a medical exception if there's an actual problem with his wearing tight clothes?
Linda says, wear a nice summer dress or summer suit and deal with it.
It gets hot where I live too, big deal.
Wear a coat in the winter, basketball shorts and a hoodie is not okay.
Do better than that.
Be casual but still within nice slacks, etc.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
The dude could easily pick up a polo shirt for a couple bucks and some slacks.
And I think that's not asking too much of anyone.
Of anyone.
If he wants to wear something that looks more like work attire for a working class guy, I'm also totally okay with that.
If he showed up wearing, you know, if a farmer showed up wearing overalls, I'd be like, look man, I'm not gonna tell a guy who's wearing what he wears to work he can't wear it in here when he's speaking to the American public.
But look, man, I don't know.
It is what it is.
I can't believe I got 20 minutes on this.
It's just, it's so stupid.
A thousand responses to my tweet.
That he can wear whatever he wants within reason.
It's weird that I said, I oppose dress codes based on formality, but dress codes for decency are fine, requiring shirt, pants, shoes, etc.
And then I get Ian Malmstrong being like he should be able to wear a Speedo.
I mean, I'm assuming he's being sarcastic and snarking as a straw man, but maybe he genuinely thinks he should wear a Speedo.
I don't think Fetterman should be allowed to wear a Speedo, but I certainly hope he tries to, because politically they'd be very damaging for Democrats.
Let them wear what they want to wear and show their true colors.
My point is, the dress code should be substantially more relaxed.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
How would you describe winning in the culture war?
What needs to happen for you to think we are actively winning?
I certainly think when we talk about, for the 50 billionth time, Bud Light, Target, Sound of Freedom, Richmond, North of Richmond, etc., you can say, like, hey, there are clear signs of victory.
But we got this story for you, too, from the Washington Post.
Her students reported her for a lesson on race.
Can she trust them again?
Mary Wood School reprimanded her for teaching a book by Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Now she hopes her bond with students can survive South Carolina's politics.
Now I know many on the left will outright just say they are trying to stop teachers from teaching about racism.
That's a lie.
And if you believe that, you were lied to.
And I'll prove it to you very simply.
And we'll start with this.
This is from BlackEnterprise.com.
Western Washington University implements segregated black-only student housing.
I ask you this.
Do you agree that there should be racial segregation?
If you say, we shouldn't have that, okay.
What they are teaching in these schools is why there should be.
Don't believe me?
Let's talk about critical race theory.
This one from JSTOR, Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest Convergence Dilemma, Derrick A. Bell Jr.
Derrick Bell, for those that aren't familiar, is one of the founding fathers of critical race theory, who said, In this JSTOR article, Professor Derrick Bell suggests that no conflict of interest actually existed.
For a brief period, the interests of the races converged to make the Brown decision inevitable.
More recent Supreme Court decisions, however, suggest to Professor Bell a growing divergence of interests that make integration less feasible.
Bell suggests the interest of blacks in quality education might now be better served by concentration on improving the quality of existing schools.
That is to say, Famously, Derrick Bell, one of the leading authors, founding authors of critical race theory, believed that segregation is actually better.
And I think he's wrong.
If you believe there should be segregation, fine, so be it.
But there's a fine line between teaching children about racism and explaining to them an ideology which suggests racial segregation, that they should prefer it, which they should not.
And we have, of course, this quote from Ibram Kendi, who wrote, quote, The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination.
The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.
The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
And this is what the teacher was teaching to children.
If you agree with those things, I have no problem with it.
Just be honest.
That's what you're talking about.
The Washington Post's Hannah Natanson actually misleads and misrepresents what's actually happening, as evil people tend to.
My view is that I would like to provide to you accurate understanding of what is going on so you can tell me whether you're for or against it.
And if you're in favor of these policies, that's fine.
Just tell me.
Now, why is it Here's a story.
for The Washington Post and so many other journalists would lie about what these teachers
are actually presenting to children.
It's because they don't think you have a right to know and they want to trick you into supporting
them.
So be it.
If you support those ideas or you want to favor those tactics, that's who you are.
Just be honest about it.
It's when you lie that I get mad.
Here's a story they say.
And you know what?
I always refuse to read this garbage.
A gold sunlit filtered into her kitchen.
English teacher Mary would shoulder a worn leather bag packed with- Oh shut up, you pretentious- Jeez.
That's why I hate journalists.
You can talk about the lying all day and night, but the most despicable thing I think in journalism ever is when it's like- Teacher gets fired for teaching books.
And you open with a ghoul.
It was a dark and stormy night.
There, Jordan Peterson stood atop the lighthouse!
Shut up, just tell me what happened.
Geez.
Stupid.
Anyway, she has two peanut butter granola bars and an extra pair of socks for some reason.
Yes, everything was ready, but she wouldn't leave.
For the first time since she started teaching, she was scared to go to school.
Six months earlier, two of Wood's Advanced Placement English Language students had reported her to the school for teaching about race.
Lie!
Because she was specifically teaching Critical Race Theory, which advocates for racism and violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
That's it.
End of story.
You're not allowed to break the law.
You want to advocate for racial segregation?
You can't do it in public schools.
It violates the law.
I'm all in favor of the Civil Rights Act.
Woodhead assigned her all-white class a book from Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me.
The students wrote in emails about the book, Isn't that a good thing though?
racism, it made them ashamed to be white, violating a South Carolina proviso that forbids
teachers from making students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological
distress on account of their race. Isn't that a good thing though? You think that a teacher
should be allowed to make kids feel bad about their race?
Oh, I see.
You see, these people, these critical race theorists, they're overtly racist.
They want racial segregation.
They want race to be the subject matter.
People who oppose racism, they don't.
Anti-racism doesn't mean you oppose racism.
It means, it basically just means racism.
Reading Code's book felt like, quote, reading hate propaganda towards white people.
At least two parents complained as well.
And so they placed a formal letter of reprimand in her file, instructed her to keep teaching without discussing the issue with your students.
Wood finished out the spring semester feeling defeated and betrayed.
The high school Wood teaches at is the same one she attended.
It had been a long summer since Wood's predicament when it became public in a local paper.
Divided her town.
People were calling for a fire.
We get it.
Drew national attention.
South Carolina is one of 18 states to restrict education on race since 2021.
A lie!
Once again.
The laws we are seeing prevent indoctrination of critical race theory specifically.
Now the left has repeatedly made this lie, this claim, that they're trying to prevent people from teaching about slavery.
Not true.
1619 Project is factually inaccurate.
And when you write a book that says white people have privilege, or there's also a book that's, what was it called?
Not my idea, or something like that.
Where it depicts a whiteness contract, that's literally what it's called, with a white hand reaching out, and a devil tail, and hoofed feet!
Yeah, as if white people are evil.
And it has a whole bunch of insane racist things in it.
You should not be able, as a teacher, to insult someone based on their race, or blame a race for wrongdoings.
Sorry.
You shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Don't care.
Race should not be the predeterminate factor in whether a person is good or bad.
And that's what these schools are doing.
They say at least half the country has passed laws that limit instructions on race, history, sex, or gender identity per a Washington Post analysis.
But again, they're misleading you.
These restrictions, they're being factual but not truthful.
The restrictions are based on discrimination that violates the law.
So let me clarify for you.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act has several different titles.
In it, they describe how you cannot, or why, or in what circumstances you can't discriminate against a person.
This includes gender, It includes national origin, race, etc.
So if you're a teacher and you come in and say, hey, see that race of people?
They're bad.
Yeah, that's illegal already.
And so what's happening now is they're saying, hey, that book you have that blames white people for things?
You can't do that under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Washington Post acting like they're shocked by it.
They say a Texas principal lost his job for allegedly promoting critical race theory.
That's right.
Critical race theory calls for segregation.
That's illegal.
In Wisconsin, teacher was dismissed after criticizing her district's decision to ban the song Rainbow Land, which lauds inclusive... inclusive... inclusive... I can't say this word.
Inclusivity.
The months Wood had hoped to spend hiking, doing yoga, and vacationing carefree turned into a summer spent avoiding people's gaze at the grocery store.
Well, she should feel shame.
Her ideology is inherently evil, and I am glad that people are calling her out.
Wood believes trust is fundamental, blah blah blah, and if she couldn't trust them, how was she supposed to make them trust her?
You can't.
You believe inherently evil, racist things.
And what's happening now is the students are saying, Racists are not welcome here.
Hate has no home in this school.
And these people who are so hateful, and would blame races of people for their problems, don't understand, they're the bigots.
Of course, their immediate reaction is to say, we're just teaching about race.
They're not.
Or to try and point to the most fringe elements of, say, nationalist or white nationalist politics and to claim that all regular people who don't want racism are akin to that.
Sorry.
No, racial discrimination is wrong.
Not a fan of it.
I should probably head out, she said to her husband.
It'll be fine.
Setting his mug down across the room, she looked up at him and placed a hand on his chest.
I hate these writers.
It's just so awful.
This woman is the banality of evil.
She doesn't know what she's teaching.
She doesn't care.
She's part of a cult ideology that seeks to indoctrinate and demean people based on their race.
It must be opposed.
The first complaint didn't alarm Wood.
In early February, she was giving out copies of Between the World and Me.
A mother emailed asking to speak about an assignment.
Wood didn't see it as different from other parental objections.
Wood emailed, phoned, and left a voicemail with the mom, please call me back.
Wood thought she was on safe ground.
She had taught Coates' book and accompanying YouTube videos one year prior.
No one complained.
She also counted on the fact that AP Lange is supposed to be a high-level class.
The College Board curriculum says it can address issues that might, from particular social, historical, or cultural viewpoints, be considered controversial, including references to races.
But that's talking about, like, Huckleberry Finn.
Not talking about, or Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry.
That's not talking about you writing a book that says, hey, this group of people is bad.
You know, I can be fair.
I want to be fair.
If the purpose of the assignment is to critically assess the ideas of critical race theory and say, why are they being challenged?
Read this book and then tell me what you think.
That's one thing.
But to teach the book as something that is true and correct is the problem.
That's why I say I think critical race theory books should be allowed in schools to be taught critically, not as law.
And what's happening with these schools is they're not just giving books on critical race theory, they're integrating critical race ideology, critical race praxis, into other subjects like math and science.
That is crack pottery, and should not be allowed.
They go on to say that she was accepted, but look, I'm not going to read the whole thing here, because these are shorter segments.
Anti-racist.
Anti-racist means someone who believes that in order to fix past discrimination, there must be active policies to restrict people based on race today.
That is the definition of anti-racism.
I showed you the quote from Ibram Kendi.
They want active discrimination based on race today.
Now, I know most of you know this, but some of you may not.
Racism.
Is prejudice positive or negative based on someone's race?
It is a belief that some races are inherently better or worse than others.
There is this argument about academic or the new left view of racism that's prejudice plus power, but that doesn't actually explain how the word is used by the average person.
Anti-racist.
Never meant you opposed racism.
Anti-racism sounds like it does, but the core of the ideology is that, in order, as Kendi says, for there to remedy present discrimination, you need future discrimination.
Anti-racists argue for black-only dorms and black-only jobs and for racial segregation.
I want to make sure that's clear.
If you are a Democrat voter, and you agree with these ideas, I have no problem.
Just say that you do.
It's this weird double-dipping where they're like, I disagree with that, and I believe in Martin Luther King Jr., but also don't.
Yeah, okay, it doesn't fly.
You've got to be honest about what you believe.
But I think that's the trick.
Most Americans oppose segregation.
And so these reactionary racists masquerading as leftists who oppose racism, because they know that's the end, are tricking people into supporting overt racism.
There it is for you.
But what's winning?
I'll wrap it up with a nice little bow.
Winning is when students complain and say our teachers are racist, and then she gets reprimanded for it.
Mm-hmm.
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 I'll see you all then.
The communist shift in Chicago is beginning, and don't be surprised if you start to see it pop up all over the place.
This tactic, implemented in Chicago.
Chicago considers creation of government-operated grocery store.
The promotion of food equity was an expressed goal in the mayor's press release.
Why am I saying food communism or communist policies?
Crime runs rampant.
People struggle to survive.
Walgreens closes.
The mall closes.
San Francisco is collapsing.
Well, what happens?
I don't know.
Problem, reaction, solution, right?
Problem.
Stores are closing due to high crime.
Let's pause for a second and just say the crime's caused by the lax Democrat policies, but I digress.
Crime runs rampant.
Stores close.
Here's one store.
Beloved Oakland Restaurant is forced to shut down with its owner blaming rampant crime.
Okay.
Now let's go back to Chicago.
As these narratives persist, and these stores begin to close because they can't keep up with the crime, people in these areas start to complain.
In San Francisco, they shut down many Walgreens stores, the malls closed, the hotels have surrendered their property, and eventually people are going to say, what do we do?
Where can I buy food anymore?
The government then steps in.
And this is what's happening in Chicago.
And they say, well, ladies and gentlemen, We know that these private businesses refuse to support you, so we will.
Here's the story.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has revealed that the city will be partnering with the Economic Security Project to explore the creation of a government-owned grocery store to assist historically underserved communities.
Oh, here it is.
All Chicagoans deserve to live near convenient, affordable, healthy grocery options.
We know access to grocery stores is already a challenge for many residents, especially on the South and West sides, said Mayor Brandon Johnson.
A better, stronger, safer future is one where our youth and our communities have access to the tools and resources they need to thrive.
My administration is committed to advancing innovative, whole-of-government approaches to address these inequities.
I am proud to work alongside partners to take the step envisioning what a municipality-owned grocery store in Chicago could look like.
Right.
So when they destroy the local business with COVID policy, when crime then runs rampant, and you can't support your business anymore, they then say, oh, gee golly, I guess we're going to have to do it.
Everyone's complaining.
Here's your solution.
Hey, we can't force private businesses to come and open up a grocery store.
And crime, oh, these poor people are just hungry.
We'll make a government-owned grocery store.
And I wonder how that'll play out.
It's gonna be like Aldi, probably, a whole bunch of generic brands that will cost the bare minimum and inevitably become deeply corrupted.
That's how things go.
You think the food's gonna be healthy and good?
No, it's gonna be garbage.
It's gonna be plastic trash.
It's gonna be, eventually, too expensive.
You see, it'll be really interesting what happens when a government-run business comes in and undercuts all the other private businesses.
You see where this is going?
Someone in a neighboring municipality will be like, the government-run store is cheaper.
So they'll go there.
Eventually, while it's not really cheaper, the government just subsidizes it, they'll make this argument.
Look, it may cost $5 for a gallon of milk, as prices go up, but the average person can't afford it.
So here's what the government store is gonna do.
We're gonna sell milk for $3 because you can't afford it.
It's a reduced option.
Now, even though it costs us five, we'll sell it for three, which means the store operates at a loss.
But don't worry, the taxpayer will pay the rest.
That's already how it operates.
They have reduced fare bus passes.
They always have.
If you are of a certain income level, you can apply for reduced fare passes and get on the bus and the trains at a lower rate than everybody else.
Subsidized, of course, by everyone else paying the bill.
What happens then when this store Johnson's release noted it aims to provide food equity, and it estimates that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture found that 63.5% of residents in the West Englewood and 52% of residents in East Garfield Park live more than a half mile from their nearest grocery store, whereas in Westtown it's less than 1% of residents.
The initiative, if completed, would mark Chicago becoming the first major U.S.
city to launch a government-owned grocery store to deal with food inequity.
Let's say they don't do direct subsidy.
Let's say they just sell the products at cost.
They say, we don't need to make profit.
It's taxpayer dollars that fund the operation of the store, so we just need the store to break even.
So there's no profit, there's no surplus.
The milk, which normally costs $5 at your local grocery store, now costs $3.50.
People are gonna be like, I'd rather just drive to the government store because the milk's $3.50.
The for-profit stores then say, we cannot maintain this, competing with a government who's selling things at cost.
And they shut down.
Now a new area has no grocery store, and then along comes the mayor to be like, well, gee, let's launch another one.
Unlimited investment opportunity for the government because you pay the bill.
What happens when you get a monopoly on grocery stores?
Yeah, then you get no food.
You know what's gonna happen?
No more fancy meals.
No more variety.
No more natural peanut butter.
Well, the natural peanut butter is too expensive.
Why are we gonna pay for that?
We've got this perfectly good hydrogenated stuff with extra high fructose corn syrup right here.
Look, we're trying to reduce the costs.
Having some food's better than having no food.
The last thing you want is a monopoly.
But how is a private business supposed to compete?
It cannot.
Now, I'm not saying there's a grand conspiracy, but I'll tell you this, the dominoes are falling in this direction.
They say, quote, The city of Chicago is reimagining the role the government can play in our lives by exploring a public option for grocery stores via a municipally owned grocery store and market.
Stated Amaya Pawar, a senior advisor at the Economic Security Project.
Not dissimilar from the way a library or the postal service operates, a public option offers economic choices and power to communities.
A city-owned grocery store in the south or west side of Chicago would be a viable way to restore access to healthy food in areas that have suffered from historic and systemic disinvestment.
The administration has reportedly kicked off a feasibility study to see how the store can succeed.
I'll tell you the story, my friends, of Pruitt-Igoe.
Pruitt-Igoe was a housing complex for low-income individuals that was launched in the St.
Louis area.
Originally the problem was homelessness and a lack of affordable housing.
Many people who lived in St.
Louis ended up leaving the city and forming smaller towns outside of St.
Louis is actually a large county of like 90 plus cities.
There were quickly housing covenants enacted and because they couldn't racially discriminate what they would do is they'd form a community and then say no to houses.
Here's the law.
What that meant, the people who lived there, lived there for a long time, and they weren't going to be selling anything to anybody else.
There would be no houses built, and thus, you've kept racial populations out of your community.
I don't agree with the general idea, but I suppose people can form whatever pact they want to form in private.
Pruitt-Igoe was partly the cause of this.
It was government-funded housing that, when it started, was like, okay, you know, the government has come in here and they've subsidized this housing, we're gonna put low-income people in it.
Predominantly the black population who are lower income.
But eventually it fell to mismanagement, became disrepaired, disheveled, dilapidated, all the words you can think of.
Crime started to run rampant and nobody wanted to live near it anymore.
A government-run store is going to be mismanaged, to say the least.
They will have no incentive to properly clean the floors or maintain the business.
Why?
They cannot fail.
Now, I know, I know, libraries aren't all disgusting.
It's not gonna be that bad.
I'm not saying it's gonna be a bunch of zombies walking around with mold everywhere.
I'm saying...
There's no economic incentive to offer premium services or to go above and beyond.
There's no complaints.
In fact, likely little refunds if you're lucky.
They're gonna say, we don't need your money.
We don't care about you as the customer.
Because we're indefinitely funded.
In which case, you will end up with a degradation of goods and services.
You need competition.
But the government has infinite money because they just take it from you by force.
How are you supposed to maintain a level of quality?
Don't believe me?
I mean, come on.
We only have 70 years of the Soviet Union to attest for what I'm saying.
69, I guess.
Their grocery store is fine.
Not filthy, but lacking products.
Why would a government-run grocery store buy 10 different kinds of peanut butter?
They'd just buy the one peanut butter and they'll slap peanut butter on it.
When I was a kid, the grocery store by me had these yellow cans, and it was just stamped with the name of what was on it.
Beans.
Black beans.
Refried beans.
Mushrooms.
No label, no brand, nothing.
Now, what they've started doing is they've created the store brand, so like, Walmart is good value and stuff, because they realized, you know, people actually like it when they're buying a branded product they can recognize, not just generic product on the wall.
The problem is, when it comes to government subsidy, they had no incentive to do that.
I mean, maybe they might for a while, but eventually they're gonna say, we gotta cut the budget.
Who's doing graphic design for our store products?
We don't need that.
If people want beans, they'll buy beans.
Just put a white label, write beans on it.
I guess these cans, they also didn't have nutrition information, so I think that was a law that changed, now they have to have it.
But ultimately, private businesses will struggle to compete with the public sector businesses.
You know, are there private libraries?
Look, libraries still exist.
Barnes & Noble's gone.
These bookstores are falling apart.
Some still exist in some places, but for the most part, they're struggling.
But libraries will be around for a good long time, so long as people keep saying we should have them.
I like libraries.
But libraries should serve a community purpose.
And I'm also telling people of this, too.
Your business, if you're a brick-and-mortar store, should be a community enterprise.
You need to figure out how you bring people in to break bread with each other and become friends with each other, and that's the real incentive.
Otherwise, you're gonna get replaced by robots.
They're gonna automate everything away, and then the government's gonna end up owning everything.
