YouTube SHUT DOWN Russell Brand, DISABLES Monetization, BBC PULLS Shows As Brand Is WIPED From Media
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
YouTube SHUT DOWN Russell Brand, DISABLES Monetization, BBC PULLS Shows As Brand Is WIPED From Media
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Cast IRL will be live in Miami with Patrick Bett David, Donald Trump Jr., Matt Gaetz and
Luke Rydkowski.
Join us there.
Get your tickets by clicking the link in the description below or by going to Timcast dot
com.
Conspiracy theories erupted over the past few days regarding Russell Brand, with many
on the left arguing that Russell knew that he had committed these crimes and began to
build an anti-establishment base to defend himself from the media and the government
claims should charges ever arise.
That's insane and nonsensical.
While Russell Brand has been active in politics for a very long time, well before the MeToo movement, but this is the claim that they're pushing forward.
On the opposite side of things, you have other conspiracy theories that Russell Brand is being targeted in a quote-unquote matrix attack.
That's what Andrew Tait calls it.
Basically that the machine, the establishment, is going after Russell Brand with these allegations.
I would lean more towards everything we're seeing suggests some kind of effort to take down Russell Brand, and here's the latest story.
YouTube suspends Russell Brand from making money off his channel.
The BBC also pulled some of the British star's shows from its streaming services following rape and sexual assault allegations against the comedian, who has developed into a wellness and conspiracy influencer.
Okay, I just gotta say it.
I said it yesterday, I said it last night.
When Epstein gets away with everything that he does for as long as he did without any repercussions, I have questions.
When you have public, let's just say teachers, Engaging in certain activities where the police are actually called and the limits to what we see.
We don't see any harsh action.
There's a debate over it.
I have questions.
When Russell Brand is accused of, I kid you not, 20 years ago engaging in impropriety or potentially criminal activities, The entirety of the corporate media shuts down his shows, cancels him, pulls him off of network television, and now YouTube has demonetized his channel?
Russell Brand did not break any rules!
So, forgive me.
If a guy who is anti-Ukraine war, anti-intervention, anti-Big Pharma, anti-establishment, anti-corporate, forgive me if this guy with 12 million followers, I think he has 12 million on Twitter or something like that, forgive me if this guy with 6 million subscribers to his podcast all of a sudden is excised from public discourse.
And in what way?
20-year-old allegations.
There's a lot to this morning's segment.
I don't think people realize what dark really means when we say the night is always darkest before the dawn.
But I would only refer you to Michael Malice, who is much more learned than I. And he wrote, I think, more than one book about the subject.
But in the event that we actually face an existential crisis in this country, or in the West, depending on the perspective of the individual facing the crisis, I don't think people truly understand how dark things can be.
And I do think it's fair to say, culturally, we are winning.
And strategy is ever so important, but there will always be dirty tactics.
Now I look at this story with Russell Brand and I think you need to understand two individuals.
One I'm less knowledgeable on and one more knowledgeable on.
The first is John Lennon.
The second is Julian Assange.
And you take a look at what happened to John Lennon.
Well, this guy was anti-Vietnam War.
He was a lefty, anti-war activist, and you can make arguments about whether that's good, bad, or whatever.
But at a certain point, his life was ended.
And the conspiracy theories are that he had to be removed because he was too influential.
He was a major celebrity that everyone loved.
And when he came out against U.S.
efforts against communism in the East, that was a problem for public sentiment.
And his protests with Yoko contributed to... I'm not as learned on this, but I have a cursory understanding, and many of you who are older probably know better than I.
But it led to sentiment opposing the Vietnam War, and eventually the U.S.
had no choice but to exit in defeat, depending on who you ask.
But I think it's fair to say our efforts to push back the Communists during the Cold War in this area didn't go over so well.
But you know what?
When it comes to so many prominent individuals who speak out against the machine, Well, many of them lose their lives.
Enemies of this country still tend to lose their lives.
And, you know, sometimes for good reason, sometimes for not so good reason.
I mean, if we're talking about, say, ISIS, Donald Trump and arguably Barack Obama, depending on your perspective, took actions against ISIS.
Now, there are questions about CIA support for certain groups, which, you know, bled over into ISIS, but Donald Trump certainly decimated the rogue state.
And we say, yeah, those people were really, really awful.
Evil.
What ISIS had been doing to people.
But there are questions about U.S.
interests, whether or not we truly understand the efforts carried by the United States, whether or not we truly agree with them, and what happens to you when you stand defiantly in front of the machine's operation.
Russell Brand is too famous.
He's too famous.
This reeks of character assassination.
The fact that all of these corporations, snap, took him down without question.
It's like Alex Jones.
This is not due process.
It is not in the public interest.
And you've got even people like Joe Walsh coming out, never-Trumper, saying, how could you do this to Russell Brand?
He's been accused.
He's not convicted of anything.
And the claims are 20 years old.
It's fascinating.
Ben Shapiro had a really good take.
He said, when Russell Brand was this promiscuous, flamboyant rock star type in all of the shows and medias making awful jokes, the media loved it and laughed about it, said, this is exactly what you want to hear.
But now that Russell Brand has changed his life and is more so about wellness and challenging the establishment, now he must absolutely be removed on 20-year-old allegations.
But I'll talk to you about the second individual, Julian Assange.
You see...
Whatever your view of the world may be, conspiracies, assassinations, etc.
There is one thing that is true.
Assassinations occur.
End of story.
Many people in the United States, political leaders, cultural influencers, have been assassinated.
Now, whether or not certain individuals, like John Lennon, or, you know, whether he was targeted by the government specifically, and that Mark David Chapman actually was targeting him because of some kind of MKUltra brainwashing, well, I don't know about all that.
Maybe some people believe that.
I can certainly say that John Lennon was a thorn in the side of the machine that was seeking to accomplish a goal.
And I gotta tell you, they're utilitarian.
They don't care about John Lennon.
So if someone of massive influence starts speaking out and causing problems for those that control the monopoly on violence, then I hate to say it, you stand in the way, you get steamrolled.
But there's a problem.
You see, back in the day, and I'm not saying I know that John Lennon was targeted with a political assassination or anything like that.
We have Ron Paul and many saying that John F. Kennedy, of course, was targeted for his efforts to, what did he want to do?
Splinter the CIA, the intelligence agencies, into a million pieces and scatter them to the wind?
And then he lost his life!
Certainly there are many prominent individuals who outright say that Kennedy was assassinated by our own government.
And if that's the case, and with many prominent people saying as such, it seems like they are losing narrative control.
But there is a problem.
Assuming that these people who are believed to have been assassinated by the government are, or actually whether they are or aren't, the assassination of key individuals turned them into martyrs and entrenched their ideas and their visions in our culture indefinitely.
What you basically do when you target someone Let me clarify.
When a government targets someone for assassination and carries this out, you have a roach with a bunch of eggs and you step on it and splatter that and the eggs go flying.
And now, you have mashed those eggs into the carpet, and you can never get them out.
Eventually, they will hatch.
And you take a look at someone like Ron Paul.
The Liberty Movement today is not the same as it was in 2008.
We're talking 15 years ago.
But there are many individuals deeply inspired by the words of Ron Paul, which led to this anti-establishment wave.
Many of the people who backed Ron Paul are now very libertarian-esque and voting for Donald Trump, not because they view him as a savior or a smart guy or anything like that, but because he's a bull charging the machine.
Many of these individuals would much prefer populist, more libertarian-leaning candidates.
Of course, those in the Libertarian Party outright love Ron Paul.
Which brings us to Julian Assange.
I know, right?
It's taken me a long time to get there.
He was falsely accused of sexual impropriety.
The media reported over and over again that he was accused of rape.
He wasn't.
That's never been the case.
Ultimately, the charges were dropped because they were not real.
But he was imprisoned because of these charges.
The UK was potentially going to extradite him to Sweden.
Where he would then be extradited to the U.S.
Now, I'm not so sure that I accept that whole argument because, I mean, the U.K.
could have just extradited him, I don't know, whatever.
But ultimately what happens is Julian Assange, a major thorn in the side of the world machine, who published Collateral Murder, a video showing U.S.
unidentified
armed forces killing journalists, Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms4America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty,
and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience
with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows,
access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet and photo with
America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson. Visit Moms4America.us
today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets. See you on
Do you martyr this man who is nothing but a journalist?
Julian Assange, I'll repeat it again, nothing but a journalist.
What does he do?
He would receive information and publish it.
In fact, he would even editorialize it!
He appeared on many shows.
And eventually, they said, Well, you know what?
He's accused of sexual impropriety.
The media then reported far and wide that he was accused of rape.
Why?
You must destroy the memory and image of the individual.
That is the most important thing to do.
Lest this individual die and become a martyr or have their views be inspirational and canonized.
So, Julian Assange is arrested on these dubious charges, fearing that he'll be extradited to the U.S.
to face charges of espionage.
He was correct, by the way, because he is now.
He flees to the Ecuadorian embassy where he spends nearly a decade of his life, locked up, and they won't drop the charges.
Eventually, under Donald Trump, they arrest him.
And of course, the charges against him, stemming from Sweden, are dropped.
Sweden says, yeah, we got nothing on him.
We got nothing.
This is just bunk.
But the UK refuses to back down.
Eventually, he is arrested, and now he does face these charges.
Why?
Well, this is an assassination, in modern terms.
Destroy the image of the individual, inhibit their ability to do their work, but don't give the media or the people a big enough splash.
Here we are with Russell Brand.
I am not suggesting that it is definitive that Russell Brand is being targeted by the machine, by the Matrix!
Because of his opinions or anything like that.
It may very well just be, guys, for real, that 20 years ago, a guy who has built a persona on being lewd and lascivious, and made jokes about doing awful things, potentially did awful things, and is a celebrity.
So when the tabloids come after him, it creates this wave, and there is a very real possibility that, you know, it could be the case.
I don't buy it, because it's a little bit too heavy-handed.
Why care so much?
Epstein was doing worse things around this time, and was actually convicted.
And then they let him go with a slap on the wrist.
Then you have repeated reports over and over and over again over the past two decades about what Epstein had been doing, and about who had been flying on his planes.
You had witnesses, and they ignore all of it.
And now I'm supposed to believe all of a sudden YouTube cares that Russell Brand was accused of a crime that happened 20 years ago?
Wow.
That is crazy.
When the media starts excising Russell Brand from BBC, from YouTube, etc., Channel 4, it reeks more of stripping him of his influence.
Which brings me to the bigger picture here.
What is currently happening in Ukraine?
Now, some people have suggested, we played the video yesterday, that the reason Russell Brand is being targeted is because he has spoken out against Pfizer and Moderna.
I don't know.
Some people have said, this is the clip that explains exactly why they're going after him.
And I'm like, I don't know about that to be, you know, look.
Russell Brand certainly said some very powerful things there, calling out the corporate machine and the crisis mongers.
And he says that if you have pharmaceutical companies, the military-industrial complex, making money off crises, you will live in a state of perpetual crises.
He's right.
But perhaps the bigger picture is the war in Ukraine.
And that may be the bigger threat to everyone.
Obviously, the West is heavily invested in what is going on in Ukraine, and they want to defeat Russia.
It does not appear that the West is doing very well.
I don't think it's fair to outright say it's just over for Western forces in Ukraine.
I don't think it's fair to say Ukrainian forces, let's be honest.
But Russia seems to have secured the Donbass region into Crimea already, if you look at the latest territorial maps.
I believe if there was a reason to target Russell Brand and shut him down, it's more likely because he has like 20 million followers and he keeps saying, no war, no war, no war.
And we know.
What happens to those who oppose the war machine?
Well, this is a light sentence if you were to ask me.
I mean, maybe he gets criminally charged or something, he's being investigated, but just taking away his career, wow.
Stripping him of his revenue.
Well, I gotta be honest, the dude's rich and will probably remain rich for the rest of his life.
But this is excising him from popular and polite culture.
Mainstream conversations.
He will still remain active in his spaces.
He will still remain influential in his own right.
But they're taking away his revenue stream, which empowers him.
I believe it's entirely possible that the real issue here is Ukraine.
And there is something to be said as it pertains to foreign influence, war, and Western powers.
I oppose the U.S.
involvement in Ukraine.
I think it's a bad thing.
I don't think that a government of, for, and by the people has appropriately explained our position in supporting Ukrainians in a territorial dispute with Russia.
I do not like Russia.
I think Russia is our adversary.
I don't think they are our biggest threat.
I believe China likely is.
But as Vivek Ramaswamy accurately points out, the alliance between Russia and China together Could be our biggest threat.
And so, of course, I'm a fan of Ukraine.
I really am.
I have friends that are there.
I visited there.
I documented the beginnings of the ousting of Yanukovych.
I've covered it quite a great deal, especially as it pertains to Joe Biden.
I would like to see Ukraine retain its territorial sovereignty and repel the Russian invasion.
However, I don't know that it is an issue worthy of U.S.
involvement.
I understand that Russia's expansion into the area, it's bad for our interests, but I don't know that World War III is worth it.
It has not been justified to us.
Here's the challenge I see when it pertains to issues of war.
I don't know.
I really don't.
What I can tell you is, the intelligence agencies, in my opinion, are abject evil.
They are the lawful evil to the most extreme degree.
And I know there's probably many people who work in intelligence who are watching this, shaking their head and saying, man, if only you knew.
No, it's true.
If only I did know.
Fine.
But I'm not saying that lawful evil is never carried out for a purpose which seeks to benefit certain individuals.
I can only say that perhaps the way of the world is always going to be that liars, cheaters, stealers, the most devious of predators, are rewarded in what the world is.
A video I saw of hyenas disemboweling a gazelle or something, I don't know, I think it was wildebeest, whatever animal is in the hyena territory.
The prey struggled to escape as it was eaten alive.
And the tweet said that in this world, the most aggressive predators who cause the most suffering are not punished for the actions they take.
They are rewarded.
And the true nature of this world may just be that dark, devious, and evil deeds are all that will ever be in terms of what we are as a species.
It may be the law of the universe.
We have to apply that to how we view humanity.
We want to rise above.
We want a better world.
We want justice.
We want courts.
We want fair elections.
We want innocence until proven guilty.
But they don't give us that.
Russell Brand is being excised from polite society over allegations that occurred 20 years ago.
Where's his day in court?
Where's his due process?
I think the sad reality is that we try to build this world, and I think it's a good thing.
And I think we should maintain this effort.
But the sad reality is that the nature of the world is not such.
Those who cheat win.
I know.
Nobody wants to hear it.
But it's true.
Cheaters win.
Unless they get caught.
And then sometimes when it comes to politics, they get caught and nothing happens anyway.
Cheaters like members of Congress who engage in insider trading.
They get away with it.
The question I have when it comes to all this war stuff and what's going on is, are we so naive we just don't know?
We don't know.
I really don't.
I think that the intelligence agencies do things that benefit us.
They are the hyenas disemboweling the prey that sought only to live its life.
And are we the predators or are we the prey?
If the intelligence agencies are willing to commit atrocities, but it strengthens our way of life and improves our way of life, is it worth it?
It's a difficult question.
In nature, there are some species that mill about and seem not to have any problems with predators or prey, but for the most part, everyone is subject to the whims of humanity.
No matter how powerful you are as an animal, be it a lion or otherwise, You are subjected to the whims of rival species.
So the challenge I see in all of this is I'm not so naive to ignore the fact that we have real threats internationally.
That Russia poses a real threat to us.
They do.
I don't think it's as bad as many of the propagandists want to claim.
But when it pertains to the border conflict in Ukraine, the invasion, which may bubble into World War III, now I'm pretty concerned about bombs being dropped.
That's scary.
And then you have China, of course, and Taiwan.
We want stability.
But, my view is, typically, there has to be a legitimate justification, honesty, and integrity, but we don't get that.
Because maybe, it's just a naive thing to believe, that in this world, you can expect to be an honorable animal in a violent confrontation.
You can choose to be the noble Aslan, what's his name?
The lion, you have all the power and you can say, I'm not going to cause you harm, you're gonna listen to what I have to say.
But only when you're the most powerful and no one can step on you.
My fear is that while we look at this video of the hyena gutting and disemboweling the animal, we feel for the animal and we say, it should be stopped.
Really?
The hyena's gotta eat.
And that's the nature of reality.
Do we recognize that?
And I don't have all the answers.
I don't.
We want to avoid being evil.
We want goodness.
But can we truly be good in an evil world?
Or a world that is beset on all sides by those who are evil succeeding?
So when it comes to the issues of war in Ukraine, this is the dilemma.
Do you allow, in your name, atrocities to be done, horrible things to be done, if it means that you will live safely, securely, and well?
Or, do you say no, seek to intervene, prevent this, and use your influence to say no to the war in Ukraine, if it means Russia and China will expand their military control, offset the petrodollar, and supplant the United States as the dominant economic power in the world?
What does that mean for the rest of us?
I certainly wouldn't want to live in a Chinese Communist world with a unipolar Chinese Communist Party.
I'd rather have the United States on top.
Unfortunately for us within the United States, there is active conflict as well, where corrupt ideologies are seeking to take over.
You see this video of this trans individual in Ukraine, threatening to hunt down Russian propagandists.
Fascinating.
What does it mean to be a Russian propagandist?
Well, you know, they claim a lot of people who oppose the war in Ukraine are supporting Russia or Russian propagandists or something like that.
I don't know.
This individual comes out and says, we're coming for you, and then Russell Brand, who's very anti-war, gets targeted so heavily.
Look, man.
I don't have all the answers.
Good and evil is a hard thing to break down.
I do not like war.
I don't like our involvement in it.
I don't think the world is so black and white and so simple that you can certainly just say one way or another that we know what we must do.
The intelligence agencies that I so heavily criticize, I will also give... I will also give them this.
And I say this a lot.
I have no idea what's happening around the world.
Neither do you.
We read the news reports.
We know the news reports are bunk.
We know that's propaganda.
We don't know the truth.
We had three incidents in the past month of aircraft being downed or some accidents occurring.
What if they were hacked? Fair point. Do you think that Russia is doing nothing to target us?
Oh, that would be absurd. Of course, they want to disrupt our efforts in supporting the the efforts in Ukraine
I'm not so sure the US or or NATO will be successful in Ukraine unless NATO directly intervenes.
World War III, baby.
And do we really want it?
No, we don't.
I don't know what's really going on around the world.
Neither do you.
And it's very easy for us to sit here, read the news reports, know that the media's lying to us because they're really bad at their jobs and manipulation.
Man, it's kind of sad, really.
The propagandists at the corporate press are just really bad at propagandizing.
Or maybe we're naive and they're actually really good and what we think we know is completely wrong.
I don't have the answers.
And that's what gives me pause.
I know that the world is darker than we realize.
I know that our adversaries would disembowel us like the hyenas in the field if we were to let them.
And so therein lies the big challenge.
I guess my point in all of this is...
You try to know what you can know.
You try and read and understand what you can read.
Do what you can to support and protect yourself.
Stand up for what you believe in and demand accountability.
Recognize you don't have all the answers.
Recognize that sometimes the villains are the heroes and the heroes are the villains.
We just don't know everything, but we try to.
based on what we know and what we think we know, we try to be good people and we demand a
justification for the actions that result in the death of our friends, our family members, and even
our enemies. The most darkest of individuals, when they die, we need to know why it happened. What is
being carried out in our name? Right now, as it pertains to war, it may be naive to say that if
they really came out and told us what was actually going on in the international conflict theater,
could compromise our security.
It's a reality that I understand.
As it pertains to what happens here at the castle, for instance, you think I'm going to come out every single time there's a security breach and just tell you exactly what happened?
No.
And thus it sows distrust.
And it becomes very difficult to maintain this system.
So I guess the question is this.
The evil deeds done in our name Do we recognize that we want to be the hyena and not the wildebeest?
There are many apex predators, but the reality is humans.
Humans are the apex predator.
And unfortunately for us, other humans prey on humans too.
There is no world in which we can escape this.
So then the question becomes, who do you trust?
What do you determine?
I don't know, man.
I really don't.
These are tough questions.
They're very, very difficult.
What I can say is, there are probably better ways of dealing with dissent if you choose to engage in war and conflict than, say, destroying the life of Julian Assange or other personalities who speak out against you.
I'm not saying I know for sure that Russell Brand is being targeted because he's anti-war.
That would be as, in my opinion, absurd as claiming definitively he's being targeted for calling out Big Pharma.
I think it is reasonable to suggest that Russell Brand is being targeted because he is proudly, prominently anti-establishment, anti-corporate, anti-war, and he's very famous.
And that's a thorn in the side of those who seek to control the machine.
Perhaps there is no simple good and evil.
There is chaotic evil, there is lawful evil.
And I look at the US military apparatus and the intelligence agencies as lawful evil.
They work within the system towards the gain of themselves and not for the greater good.
But maybe the truth is the greater good is a naive thing to think you can get.
I don't believe that China, the Chinese Communist Party, I don't think they're good.
I think they're lawful evil, as lawful evil can be.
I don't think Russia is good.
And in fact, as many people may not like to hear it, I actually think the U.S.
is substantially more good than those nations.
That means sometimes I hope that I can give these individuals the benefit of the doubt that they are effectively the snarling jaws for us that would seek to prey upon the beasts for which we can live comfortably and our way of life can persist.
Unfortunately for all of us there is another problem and that is the culture war and the evil of these corporations, their global interests, and they stand in defiance to our way of life.
So, in fact, I don't believe that they actually have our best interests at heart.
I believe that they actually defy the ideas of truth, justice, and the American way.
Many of these intel agencies are actually just, they want a communist party, just not the Chinese Communist Party.
They want to implement Chinese communist state-like controls here in the United States.
And so, we're presented on all sides by evil, with their own interests.
And what does that mean?
The world's a tough place, my friends, and we don't have all the answers.
And while I spent a half an hour talking about the philosophy around this stuff, I didn't actually get into the core of the issues, but there are a lot more stories that I have for you.
A journalist on January 6th, sentenced to prison.
Seriously.
Just a journalist.
And definitively a journalist.
He was there with recording equipment.
He produced a documentary.
He was wearing a helmet with a camera in it.
He had documented other things before, it's my understanding.
And they convicted him.
As if he was a rioter.
You have a man who was working as security, now in solitary confinement.
It's been reported, given three years on a simple trespass charge.
20 times a sentence of the doctor that he was protecting as a hired security guard.
The stories?
They're dark.
And these are dark days, my friends.
But I suppose when it all breaks down, it's easy for us to say these things are wrong.
It's hard for us to know the truth.
And if you don't know the truth, you can only act on what you think you know, and make guesses based on the probability of the likelihood of outcomes.
Ultimately, the big philosophical question I have outside of all of this is, for all of you, to comment below.
Would you allow evil to be done in your name if it secured the safety of your daughters, your sons, your prosperity?
Would you allow evil to be done if it prevented the spread of, say, the Chinese Communist Party, even if it meant your country eventually became akin to what the Chinese Communist Party is?
Difficult choices, my friends.
Difficult choices.
We can choose to secure our borders, bolster our labor, bring back the manufacturing base, and become a strong nation internally.
That, in many ways, withdraws from international conflict.
But does this create a power vacuum that gives rise to our enemies, who would then eventually take over?
How would you feel living in a safe and secure United States with strong borders, a massive nuclear arsenal, a strong military with strong American values, surrounded on all sides in every nation by the Soviet Union?
I don't have all the answers, that's all I can say.
I look at these stories about Russell Brand and many people make these suggestions, that's why he's being removed, and I think it's reasonable to suggest.
The machine's not going to allow influential individuals to upset its plans, and they will nip it in the bud before Russell Brand can become too influential.
Or maybe he is too influential.
Or maybe it's all much more simpler than that.
Russell Brand abused some women and now they're calling him out.
And the media loves a salacious story when it's not targeting the establishment.
And the reason Epstein was let go is because he was protected by powerful individuals.
And the reason Russell Brand is being targeted is because he is not protected by powerful individuals.
There's a million and one reasons.
We look out the window and we see a mess.
A Jackson Pollock painting of variables that are hard to decipher.
But we try to do our best.
So the only thing I can really say is with all these things in mind, protect yourself, protect your family, work hard, become successful, make money, and do what you can in the immediate for the things you can observe.
Can you make your home better?
Can you protect your family from negative influences?
And can you speak out against injustice?
Do that.
And then we'll all try our best to be the best people we can be and stand up for justice.
In the meantime, In the political realm, conflict.
And it's hard to know who is right, but history will be written by the winners.
So, I hope you win.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Ray Epps, a man seen on camera on numerous occasions telling people to go into the Capitol building, has been charged by the DOJ on one misdemeanor count.
Let that sink in.
One misdemeanor count.
The man who is on camera telling people to do this.
The man who privately said to a family member that he orchestrated the event.
This man has been charged with one misdemeanor count.
Now he's been charged, and I wonder what's the point?
Because all this does is it raises more questions about why this guy is being protected.
Now, Here's a conspiracy theory for you.
There's actually a whole bunch.
I love all the conspiracy theories.
First, Ray Epps is a Fed.
That's what they say, subject of Tucker Carlson's January 6th conspiracy theories.
That Ray Epps is a federal agent orchestrating the events of January 6th, and that's why he was never charged.
I don't know if I believe that.
Others say that he was a plant, you know, that he wasn't actually working with any federal agency, but he was cooperating with or taking instruction from, that he may have been a criminal informant, that maybe he became a criminal informant after the fact.
My understanding, I could be wrong, is that initially after January 6th, his face was included in some wanted posters, but then quickly removed, which suggests maybe he became a cooperating witness immediately and started handing over information.
There's that conspiracy theory.
How about this conspiracy theory?
Ooh, I love them all.
That Ray Epps actually is just some random Trump supporter who was there, who wanted to storm the Capitol, and the Feds are like, hey, let's not charge this guy so they think he's a Fed.
Have you guys seen the film Sound of Freedom?
In the film, which I'm sure most of you have seen, there's a scene where there are a bunch of traffickers meeting with the agents.
Before the raid, the agents say, this guy, don't handcuff him and walk him away.
So what happens?
When the raid happens, and the undercover agents, including Tim Ballard, are detained by law enforcement and cuffed, the one guy, the Don or whatever they called him, is walked away as the cops pat him on the back, and then Ballard can say, hey, that was the guy who set us up!
My point here is, I don't know.
I really don't.
I can tell you something is off about this story.
We can clearly see it.
That this guy who was on camera orchestrating, as he described it, the events of January 6th, is only getting one misdemeanor charge?
No incitement?
They came after Owen Schroyer for bullhorning in his sentencing documents, or when the prosecutor was requesting a sentence, even though he wasn't even charged with incitement.
And then you have the dude who quite literally told people to commit the crime, not being charged with it.
Yeah, perhaps the Ray Epps thing is an attempt to obfuscate who was really there and what was really going on.
And I don't know, but look man, if y'all are going to entertain some conspiracy theories, you can make up a million and one.
We got a bunch of news pertaining to January 6 and who the government is targeting.
And let's do this.
A journalist Who was objectively there as a journalist with camera equipment producing a documentary has been convicted on four counts.
Guy with a camera.
A guy with a camera who explicitly stated he was there with the intention of filming has been charged.
A man who is not a Trump supporter, who is a conservative but doesn't like Trump.
They convicted him.
But Ray Epps.
I wonder why.
No, seriously, I mean, for everybody who comes out and says this proves he was a Fed or something, I'm like, it doesn't.
Because you gotta consider, they want to sow discord, and any good operation is going to have patsies and misdirection.
One thing that intelligence agencies are very good at, in the event they actually do orchestrate something, my point is this, if you really think the Feds were involved in January 6th in orchestrating it, they're going to throw a distraction your way, so you don't track down who was actually there and who was actually organizing anything.
Ramps could be a distraction.
Or he could be involved, I don't know.
But it is funny how the media lies to defend him, and the feds didn't want to charge him.
Here's a story from NBC News.
Ray Epps, subject of Tucker Carlson's January 6th conspiracy theories, charged by DOJ.
Epps entered the Capitol grounds on January 6th as a supporter of former President Donald Trump.
He told the January 6th committee that the conspiracy theories about him ruined his life.
Interesting.
They say, Epps, a January 6th participant whose removal from the FBI's Capitol violence webpage sparked conspiracy theories that he was a federal informant, was charged in connection with the Capitol attack on Tuesday.
Epps is charged with one misdemeanor count, disorderly or disruptive conduct on restricted grounds.
He was charged by information which suggests that he plans to enter a plea deal, which means he's probably going to get a month Seriously, there are a lot of people who were charged with trespass or being on restricted grounds or disorderly conduct.
They all took plea agreements and they got a very short amount of time.
There's currently a security guard who was sentenced to three years because he pleaded not guilty, even though other people charged with similar things received only a couple months when they did plead guilty.
This is called the jury tax or the trial tax, which I believe is unconstitutional, but we'll get into.
In an interview with the January 6th Committee last year, Epps said that he'd gone to Washington, D.C.
in January to support a former President Trump, but that the conspiracy theories that followed had torn his life apart.
He said, It's not in my DNA, I've never.
I'm sure you've looked up my record, I don't break the law.
Epps filed a defamation suit against Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former host Tucker Carlson for spreading the conspiracy theories, blah blah blah.
That's like, it's really stupid.
I don't see how that, uh, you win a defamation case like that.
Because Tucker Carlson of course understands the law, but you know, biased judges.
Here are the documents from Court Listener.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
United States vs. James Ray Epps Sr., defendant.
Information!
The United States Attorney charges that, on or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, James Ray Epps Sr.
did knowingly and with intent to impede and disrupt the disorderly conduct of government business and official functions, engage in disorderly and disruptive conduct in and within such proximity to a restricted building and grounds.
That is, any posted, cordoned off, and otherwise restricted area within the U.S.
Capitol and its grounds, where the Vice President was and would be temporarily visiting.
When, and so that, such conduct did in fact impede and disrupt the orderly conduct of government business and official functions, and attempted and conspired to do so.
Disorderly or disruptive conduct of a restricted building on grounds in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1752A, Section 2, Matthew M. Graves.
And there it is.
Out of Tampa, it would seem.
No, I love this.
NBC News says January 6 rioter who wielded police shield invokes Ray Epps conspiracy theory at Proud Boys trial, arguing that he was a suspected government operative.
What's funny here is they moved, prosecutors moved to strike that claim, and they did.
Which is weird.
But whatever, I guess.
This is what you need to be careful of.
There are many people who did bad things.
Stole police, don't steal a police shield, what are you doing?
Come on.
Smashing windows, fighting with cops, nah, not okay.
And now, in court, invoking Ray Epps.
There's one thing I think it is fair to say in reference to invoking Ray Epps, and that's the light charges and light sentencing.
In which case, you can say, there is inequality under the law.
That Ray Epps has been charged two and a half years later, with one count, despite the fact that he's on camera inciting people to commit this crime.
And the government previously recommended, recently, Owen Schroer, this is September 5th, They recommended Owen Schroer go to jail for 120 days even though he was only charged with being on restricted grounds because of his speech before, during, and after.
If that is the case, Ray Epps should also get a very lengthy prison sentence because while they argued that Owen Schroer didn't tell people to go inside, his words resulted in them doing it.
Okay, while Ray Epps directly incited people.
So don't you think there should be some more serious charges?
Now look, There were a lot of people on January 6th, and this is important information that they're trying to obfuscate.
Many bad people tore down barricades and rushed to the Capitol, storming in and fighting with cops.
They should be criminally charged.
To what degree?
I don't know.
I think 20 years is a little excessive.
I think time served at this point considering it's been two and a half years.
That's fair.
One guy's getting three years and he's a security guard who wasn't even doing anything violent.
He's there for a couple minutes.
That's nuts.
A lot of people showed up to the Capitol after the barricades had been torn down.
That means there's no signs, there's nothing, there's no warning to anybody walking by that the grounds are restricted.
There's no police, there's no broken glass.
Now, this is what I find fascinating, because the Young Turks took me out of context, specifically, to defend the government.
And it's weird, because I was correct.
I think this was back in January.
Or it might have been even January of 2020.
2022, I'm sorry.
When it came to many people who were charged with trespass, I said, there will be many people acquitted because you cannot charge trespass without warning.
Sure enough, there were two individuals at the time within the following months.
One, completely acquitted of all charges, because there is video of the police fanning people in.
There's no barricades, there's no broken glass.
That was only one side of the building.
The Young Turks insulted me, called me stupid, and then made the argument that if you're walking over broken glass, you know you're trespassing, which is still not legally the case, and wasn't the case for the people on the other side of the building.
I wonder why they would defend the government in that way.
I want to read for you something from CBS News that matters.
Let me read for you this interview.
Bill Whitaker interviewing Ray Epps.
Whitaker says, as closely as you can remember, what exactly did you say to him?
On the front line, he whispers, says, dude, we're not here for that.
The police aren't the enemy.
Or something like that.
Did anyone from the federal government direct you to be here at the Peace Circuses?
No.
No one from the FBI?
No.
Your old comrades in the Oath Keepers?
No.
Whitaker says, I think what is so damning about the videos is that there's a barrier there.
The barrier gets knocked down and a police officer, a female officer, gets knocked down and the mob, including you, walk over the barrier and march on toward the Capitol.
Why didn't you stop to help this officer who was knocked over?
Epps says, when she was knocked down and I started to go towards her to help her up and I saw a billy
club over here in the corner of my eye and I thought, you know, they're going to think I'm
part of this so I backed off. Whitaker says, you were part of it. To which Epps responds, I was
there. I wasn't a part of that knocking her down. Robin Epps says, and he wasn't part of the
violence that's a big difference.
Is that you there?
asks Whitaker.
Epps was never seen committing an act of violence that day or entering the Capitol.
Epps told us when he saw the violence, his fervor under the building became a desire to play peacemaker.
And police body cam backs him up.
I thought I could stop it, so I went back and forth.
I talked people down.
And I just worked the line back and forth.
step down, step down, we're good here.
That kind of thing.
And I kept it that way for some time.
Epps says he left the Capitol grounds to help evacuate an injured man.
The time?
2.45 p.m.
I looked back at the Capitol, and there was people crawling up the Capitol walls, and it looked like it looked terrible.
I mean, I was kind of ashamed of what was going on at that point, so I started to walk out.
He told us that's when he sent this text to his nephew.
Conspiracists saw it as the true confession of an agent provocateur.
I was in the front with a few others.
I also orchestrated it.
Explain this to me.
He says, I was boasting to my nephew.
I helped get people there.
I was directing people to the Capitol that morning.
You know how this sounds?
I know exactly how it sounds.
I've been scolded by my wife for using that word.
Whitaker says, when you add up all these things, as your critics have done, you've given them a lot of ammunition to paint you as the instigator.
There was an effort to make me a scapegoat.
Full stop.
Seriously?
Tom Jocelyn says, if Ray Epps is a covert plant, he is the worst covert plant of all time.
If you're part of some elaborate conspiracy against thousands of people in Washington, D.C., I don't know why you'd want to stand out from the crowd in the way Epps did.
But did he really?
Did Ray Epps stand out from the crowd?
I would argue, no, he didn't.
Ray Epps Did not stand out in any way.
The only thing is, cameras are watching.
And if Ray Epps wasn't on camera, and was paying attention to those who were filming him when he was telling people to go in the Capitol, there would not be this conversation.
He would not be charged, he would disappear, and no one would say anything.
But the story's not being let go.
People like Tucker Carlson, people like me, many others, have consistently reported on and questioned the role Ray Epps played in the January 6th riots.
And the question is, why has this man been defended by the media so much?
Take a look at this from the article about the Proud Boys.
They say.
They struck suspected government operative from the record and they're going to say far-right conspirators have alleged that Epps was working with the federal government and sought to provoke violence during the 2021 attack in the Capitol.
Let's stop there.
He did seek to provoke violence.
He is on camera telling people to go inside the Capitol.
He is on camera saying you have to go inside, right?
That would require acts of violence.
Epps, who has said conspiracy theories had a significant impact on his life, told the House committee that the crazies started coming out of the woodwork.
They said on the eve of the insurrection, Epps had called for protesters to enter the Capitol!
The next day, he was seen on video trying to calm protesters and maintain a line between police and the pro-Trump mob.
That is not correct.
On the next day, he is seen on video engaging with protesters and police, but with the crowd that storms the barricades.
So, what is the argument you're making that he was calming things down when he whispers in a guy's ear, something, we don't know what, then the guy tears the barricades down and Ray Epps storms in with him?
I do not believe he went in the building, but certainly when you have a guy on camera telling people to engage in an act of violence, seen at the front line right when the violence starts, you can't make that argument.
Why have they defended him so?
In the meantime, we have this story.
Take a look at this for contrast.
DOJ secures conviction against a journalist over reporting on January 6.
Well, let's make sure we're very, very clear on what this is.
Stephen Horne was found guilty on entering or remaining in a restricted area, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, parading, demonstrating, or picketing in the Capitol building.
Stephen Horne He did, according to several accounts, chant USA as he was in the building.
I don't know if chanting USA is indicative of involvement in a criminal activity or being part of a mob or something like that.
Well, dude, you're not getting a fair trial in Washington, D.C.
It's not happening.
Far-left extremists, you're not getting a fair trial either.
You're getting a biased trial in your favor.
Conservatives?
Yeah, you're going down.
Stephen Horne was wearing a camera in his helmet that he uses to document.
This is evidence, in my opinion, that he was there as a journalist.
He produced a documentary on what was going on.
He is not a Trump supporter, his tweets do not indicate that he's a Trump supporter, and it seems that he was there documenting.
However, he's independent.
He has no institution backing him up, so they're going to determine he's not a journalist, despite the fact he was clearly there committing acts of journalism.
He's been charged.
Four counts.
Now, okay, hold on.
One was for being in the Capitol.
Another was for being in the Capitol.
Entering a restricted area and disorderly conduct.
Two charges right there.
Let's dismiss, as it pertains to Ray Epps, the charges that Stephen Horn is facing over being in the Capitol, because Ray Epps was not in the building.
Why is Ray Epps not charged with at least two counts?
Entering or remaining in a restricted area, which he did.
Disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted area.
Those two charges at the very least.
Perhaps, like I said, the government wants to trick you and make you believe that Ray Epps is being protected.
I don't know.
Seems a bit convoluted.
Maybe Ray Epps just turned informant.
The moment they saw him, they said, you're a former Oath Keeper.
You're going to give us information on the Oath Keepers.
We'll take them down.
We'll keep you out of jail.
I think that's probably the real scenario here.
They probably went to Ray Epps and said, we have you dead to rights, and you will go to prison for the rest of your life.
And so Ray Epps then said, whoops.
They then said, as a former member, I think leader in the Oath Keepers, They probably came to him and said, tell us everything you know, and we will ask you questions as we need.
Cooperate with us, and we will keep you out of jail.
That's probably what happened.
His name is then removed from the wanted list.
He then starts providing information on Oath Keepers.
You may ask, how come they didn't give these offers to anyone else?
Proud Boys or whatever?
Well, they already had informants in the Proud Boys, I'm fairly certain.
Many of them.
And they probably wanted specific information on the Oath Keepers going back quite some time.
There were not as many people to choose.
But look, it really comes down to this.
He's the guy they got.
I believe it is probable that he turned informant after the fact.
And this is why he is protected.
That's why we're seeing this weird media play.
The media is protecting him because they march in lockstep with the machine.
And the reason they're only charging him now with one count, likely because they have to.
With the media pressure, they probably went to him and said, look man, people want to see charges and we have no reasonable justification for why there won't be a charge.
Here's what I think is likely to occur.
They probably went to him and said, look, we'll give you one charge, take the plea deal, and you'll get, you know, court supervision or something.
We have to do it.
That's how I imagine it played out.
I don't know for sure.
I don't think the guy was a Fed before.
I think it's likely he was a Fed after.
If he was a Fed before, they never would have put his face on the wanted posters.
So what makes sense is the dude legitimately was trying to orchestrate something, legitimately stormed the barricades, and then went, crap.
They got you, buddy!
And then he just said, look man, I think it's reasonable he says, yeah, this got out of hand, I'm sorry, I will do whatever you say, just let me know what you need and we'll cooperate fully.
And he's got information on all the Oath Keepers.
Or enough information.
Look what they did to Stuart Rhodes.
They locked him up.
How much information provided by Ray Epps, after the fact, probably helped them.
in targeting and arresting oath keepers and bringing about more serious charges like seditious conspiracy.
He provides testimony.
They can then use it and say, ah, now we have evidence of seditious conspiracy.
There have been several people who have made the claim that they were approached.
In fact, Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys said this.
The prosecutors said, like, effectively tried to pressure him to connect their actions with Donald Trump.
Thus, they could say Trump orchestrated it or something to that effect.
Tarrio wasn't even there, and they gave him two decades, because that's the game that's being played.
These people are abject evil.
Abject evil in that you don't matter.
Your life doesn't matter.
Individually doesn't matter.
They want you to be a cog in the machine or they will make you suffer.
Enjoy your life, man.
There's a piña colada down the street at your local shopping mall.
A smile on your face.
You've got everything you've ever wanted.
Don't fight the violence, Monopoly.
Just give in.
So many people take the deal.
Why not?
The machine would crush you under its boot because you don't matter to them.
Man, it's a scary thought.
You are simply a taxpayer, a subscriber to their machine to fund their conquest.
And here we are.
Now, I'm not the biggest fan of Gateway because they often put out information that is, you know, they take a morsel of truth and then they frame it or put it into context.
I'm not a big fan of.
We have the story.
J6 prisoner John Strand, who was sentenced to prison 32 months for walking inside the Capitol, is now being tortured in isolation.
Yes.
John Strand, a hired security guard, was with Simone Gold.
They were on the other side of the building, it's my understanding.
They walked around, the event they were supposed to speak at was cancelled, and then Simone Gold spoke, and then they left.
Simone was given, I believe, a month or two, she pleaded guilty.
John Strand refused, saying he was innocent, he was simply a security guard who didn't participate in any protest or anything, just keeping someone safe, and they said, doesn't matter.
Because he did not plead guilty, they gave him three years.
Nearly three years.
And now he's allegedly, reportedly, in solitary confinement for speaking out.
Three years for trespass?
That's crazy, isn't it?
But this is the trial tax, or the jury tax, depending on who you ask, what it's phrased.
And this means that the government seeks to punish you for wasting its time.
When you plead guilty, you make the machine run smoothly.
There's too many people, there's too many criminal trials, there's too many J6 defendants.
If every J6 defendant pleaded not guilty, the system would be jammed up and busted for a long time.
But maybe that's what they want.
Long, protracted trials to bleed into the 2024 election.
This is it.
John Strand and Simone Gould did literally the same thing.
She gets a slap on the wrist a couple months.
I shouldn't say that's a slap on the wrist.
That's very serious considering what she did, which is almost nothing.
And John Strand gets three years because he refused to bend the knee.
This is the corruption of the modern judicial system.
It's how it operates.
I believe it's unconstitutional and should be... John should sue for this?
I don't think it should be allowed.
And I don't know how you change this, but I believe, you know, maybe I should go to the Supreme Court.
Not that they'd agree.
The government is not going to allow a system change that makes them do more work.
And therein lies the problem.
What is reasonable for what John and Simone Gould did?
Entering Richard de Grounds.
Um, petty, petty offense.
A fine.
Seriously.
You walk down to the Capitol.
You issue a fine.
350 bucks.
It's like, okay, you weren't supposed to be there.
Leave.
You left.
Okay.
You gotta pay a fine because you were trespassing.
I think that's reasonable.
Fine.
It's like, you roll your eyes and it's like, okay, well, you know, we can- we can compromise on that.
I'd make the argument that there was no trespassing because nobody was warned and the police let them in the building, but sure.
Let's compromise and say a petty offense.
Fine.
I wonder if John Strand can make the argument that his charge is excessive, solitary confinement is cruel and unusual, because he's literally charged with trespass.
It's crazy.
I don't know his exact charges, but I believe it was, uh, it was, it was trespass.
It was similar to what John Strand, uh, I'm sorry, what, uh, Stephen Horne was charged with.
Welcome to the modern machine, my friends, and it's not even 2024.
Next year, they're going to ramp up more charges, more smears, more attacks, and the media machine will become... Well, it is vicious, but it's going to get dark.
You look at what's going on with Russell Brand and there are a lot of questions.
Many people are saying, Tim, you were right, they are going after media personalities.
I didn't say it Russell Brand.
I said they're gonna go after media personalities that supported January 6th.
It's very specific.
And I'd say they get them on incitement.
I didn't think they were gonna go after Russell Brand, certainly not with these kind of allocations.
But you know what?
Fair point.
They likely will.
Alex Jones was taken down by every platform overnight.
We know what their intentions are.
You do not get a reasonable scenario where every major network and social media platform starts targeting an individual over 20-year-old allegations.
What's going on with Russell Brand is highly suspect, but guess what?
Whether you believe it or not doesn't matter.
Next year, it'll get way more fun.
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.
Of all the things there are to disagree with Joe Biden on, to disagree with Democrats on and the media, this one I completely agree with him on.
The Daily Mail reports Biden 80 is worried he might die before his son Hunter's legal issues are resolved and think they will get worse.
Biden is worried he's going to die before Hunter's legal issues are resolved?
He was just indicted.
They almost had a plea agreement.
Hold on, I mean, this is Biden saying, heaven forbid, that he could lose his life in the next few months.
Hunter Biden was already about to get a plea agreement.
It was about to resolve.
Okay, all right, all right, hold on.
Maybe what he's saying is that Hunter's legal issues are only just beginning, and even if he took the plea agreement, they would not be resolved.
Okay, fine.
In which case, maybe he's saying relatively soon.
But let's be honest and real.
Biden knows he's 80 years old.
That's what he's saying.
This should be a shock to no one that Biden is like, look man, I'm really old and bad stuff is gonna happen to my kid.
And I'm not gonna be around for it.
I get it.
I don't think, I think it's a perfectly normal position for someone who's 80 to be like, I'm 80!
You know, the average life expectancy for the U.S.
average U.S.
males of what, 79?
Here's the story.
President Joe Biden fears he may die before his son Hunter's legal issues are resolved, as the family fears situation may become worse before it gets better.
A new report out Tuesday revealed Biden, 80, has spoken about his fear of death behind closed doors.
Sources close to the Bidens told ABC, I'm sorry, NBC News.
It's a contrast to Biden's public persona, where he has joked about being the oldest president in American history.
At a fundraiser in New York on Monday night, Biden cast his age as experience.
Quote, a lot of people seem focused on my age.
Believe me, I know better than anyone, he said.
When this nation was flat on its back, I knew what to do.
Come on, dude.
What, get a facelift, plastic surgery, and a hair transplant?
I can respect jokes and humor.
I can respect it.
I do want to point out, I just love all the conspiracy theories about Fetterman being a different person.
If Biden wins the second term in this next year's election, he would be 86 when he leaves office.
And polls show voters are concerned Biden is too old for four more years in the White House.
It's true.
This is why I said, especially when they came after Hunter, especially after they announced the impeachment inquiry, I'm like, Biden will drop out.
It's tough.
I don't like making bold predictions, right?
Even when I didn't make bold predictions, I get all these people pulling clips claiming I did make bold predictions.
But this one, I think, is a fair assessment that if you're going to put down chips on, you know, one bed or the other, Biden stays, Biden leaves.
Biden leaves has my bet.
But again, you know, I could be wrong.
I'm totally accepting that.
I just believe, because of impeachment, because of Hunter Biden, and his health, and his muttering and sputtering, there's a strong likelihood that for some reason or another, Biden drops out.
I think everyone views that as the most probable course of action, but we just don't know how it's going to come to be.
They want to say, Additionally, some Democrats are worried that the president who defeated Donald Trump, 77, in the 2020 election may not have the energy to do it again next year.
He didn't have the energy to do it the first time!
He was in his basement the whole time!
He's in a period of his life where passing and death is... Holy crap!
Alright, alright.
Here we go.
He is in a period of his life where passing and death is imminent!
Sharon Sueda, the leader of the Democratic Party in Lorain County in Ohio, told the Washington Post.
We are all on a ticking clock.
But when you're at his age or at Trump's age, that clock is ticking a little faster.
And that's a concern for voters.
It's not ticking faster.
It's just only 30 seconds to midnight.
You know what we need?
You know the doomsday clock?
We are five minutes to midnight.
Now it's like 15 seconds or something.
We need one of that for Joe Biden.
And to be fair, Trump's old too.
But look, Trump doesn't sputter and mumble the way Biden does.
Trump seems to be a bit more spry.
Compounding the age issue, some aides are worried Hunter's legal troubles could divide the president's attention when he needs to focus on running the country and campaigning for re-election.
Aides say both he and First Lady Jill Biden are reluctant to hear about any political implications about the matter and have accepted the fact that Hunter's legal problem will probably get worse in the months ahead, NBC News reported.
A source told the News Network, the topic of Hunter is so sensitive that everybody walks around on eggshells in the West Wing and don't like to raise the matter.
They found, what did they find?
Cocaine in the White House?
And they're like, we have no idea where it came from.
It only could have come from someone with security clearance to bypass security, likely Hunter Biden.
But sure.
Hunter Biden, meanwhile, is going on the offensive.
After being hit with three federal charges related to his 2018 purchase of a handgun, and facing an investigation into his taxes, he has sued the IRS for releasing his tax information, which he claims should have remained confidential.
I agree with Hunter Biden on that one.
I do not like the idea that they're going to put out your tax information.
That's private information.
You know, look, it's bad enough.
The IRS violates the Constitution by its sheer existence.
Yeah, I know, and people are going to be like, what was it, the 13th Amendment?
Or was it 16?
I don't know, whatever.
The one that says income tax.
The fact that you have to testify against yourself to the IRS or else is shockingly insane.
You have to incriminate yourself.
The IRS says, how much money did you make?
And you, legally obligated, tell them if you don't, they'll come after you.
Criminal charges even.
That's insane to me.
But, uh, yeah, I digress.
They should not be releasing your private information.
President Biden has not publicly addressed his son's latest legal woes, but he did tell MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle earlier this year he was proud of Hunter's recovery from his drug addiction and alcohol addiction.
Yeah, and then they found coke in the White House, so I'm not so sure about that one, dude.
It impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him, he said.
Great.
Look, my friends, I can respect Biden coming out and saying he's old.
I can respect that Democrat coming out and being like, his death is imminent.
Yikes!
A little bold statement there, but sure.
That's a crazy thing for a Democrat to say.
Wow.
But come on.
Ain't nobody thinks otherwise, right?
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 6pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
An FDA panel will meet today to discuss the ethics of growing human babies in artificial wombs after success in animals.
And I feel that this is an inevitability.
I watched a movie recently about a woman who has a pod baby.
In this movie, it actually wasn't very good.
Like, it had no story.
The general story, I guess, was... if it had one, you could call it that.
This woman is, she's working, and so she doesn't want to get pregnant herself.
She signs up for this company where they're like, well, she works for this company.
They sign her up for this program where it says, look, you want to have a baby, but we don't want you to leave work.
So we're going to put your baby in this egg pod that will grow artificially for you.
It's a creepy film.
It has no real ending, so it kind of sucked, but one of the concepts, spoiler alert I guess, is that the babies can't dream.
And you think the story's going somewhere, but it doesn't.
Ultimately, it's just kind of a window into this life of people who choose to grow their babies in artificial wombs, and it is nightmarish and dystopian.
I want to give a quick shout-out to this short film, Capital of Conformity.
On YouTube by Aze Evora.
It was shared with me by Ian.
Ian said it was shared to him by someone else.
And I tweeted it out because it's absolutely incredible.
It's a retro-futurist, AI-generated view of the nightmare dystopia.
And, considering it was AI-generated, I really do recommend checking out this video.
I'll put the link in the description below.
Seriously, check it out.
Shoutout to, uh, I think it's pronounced Aze.
Aze Evora.
It's really good.
And I've watched it, like, five times.
Because it's so freaky.
It's gross, and it's trippy.
But when I see a story like this, I can't help but be reminded of that video.
And I think maybe they missed this.
In this short film, they talk about the nightmare dystopia of instant gratification.
And I wonder if there could be a component, or perhaps another view like this, of a world in which babies are grown in boxes.
Here's the story from the Daily Mail.
A panel of government health advisors will meet today to discuss the ethics of growing babies in artificial wombs.
The technology has successfully developed several animals in recent years, prompting the FDA to consider whether it should be trialed in humans.
Many experts believe it could be a game-changer if used to mimic the conditions of a womb and help treat health complications in a growing number of premature babies in the U.S.
Fair point.
I can say a lot of bad things about this.
There are some good things to be said.
have to show that the device helps infants grow and develop with lower chances of health
issues than with existing technology.
I can say a lot of bad things about this, there are some good things to be said.
First, let's read what they say.
The Pediatric Advisory Committee, an independent panel of health experts, are meeting today
and Wednesday via teleconference.
Though the two-day meeting will help guide the agency, the FDA will make its own decisions and is not required to follow the advisor's guidance.
At this stage, artificial wombs aren't designed to grow a baby from scratch, although advances in the field have led some to believe that is on the horizon.
I also want to point out recent news that they created a human embryo or zygote?
I don't know.
From genetic material, not a sperm or an egg.
It's getting creepy out there.
There are a lot of very terrifying implications for what this means.
There are some good ones.
Give me a second.
They say at this stage, artificial wombs aren't designed to grow a baby from scratch.
Instead, they would be used to care for the 1 in 100 infants born before 28 weeks gestation, which is considered extremely preterm.
It could also combat the infant mortality rate in the U.S., which experts have warned is so much higher than in other developed nations.
Unlike conventional incubators in the neonatal intensive care unit, NICU, This technique uses an extra-uterine support device, which mimics the conditions of a real womb.
The infant's heart circulates blood through the umbilical cord into a machine that takes the place of the mother's placenta.
Synthetic amniotic fluid enriched with nutrients flow into and out of the temperature-controlled near-sterile bio-bag.
The aim is to provide an environment in which a tiny premature babies can safely develop their lungs and other organs during the critical period from 23 to 28 weeks after conception.
All right, let's talk about this.
The positives.
Positives are that we dramatically reduce abortion.
With this technology, it stands to reason laws could be passed preventing abortion.
Now hold on there.
I don't mean to say that women won't be able to terminate their pregnancies.
They would still be able to terminate their pregnancies.
They would just not be able to terminate the life of a child with this technology.
Babies, after around 23 weeks, you can't abort.
And we're talking about four months.
A little bit shy of.
You would abort the pregnancy, but you would not abort the baby.
It would create this distinction, which is really interesting.
And if this technology persists, and develops to the point where you can actually incubate a baby from the point of conception into a full-grown human, as much as we can say there are horrifying capitalistic implications here, it would save the lives of these children if mothers sought to terminate.
Now there's the negative.
It would actually increase the likelihood of pregnancies being terminated because now there's no risk to the baby's health.
Women would then, many, choose to have artificial biobag babies instead of biological babies.
And there are damaging repercussions to this.
How we navigate this morality?
Man, I don't have the answers, but I can only present to you some complications.
First, Baby's in the womb.
I think most women will tell you this.
I'm a dude.
I've never been pregnant and can't become pregnant.
But what I hear from many women, mothers, is that baby talks to you.
Baby tells you stuff.
I don't mean literally speak in English.
You know, women get cravings and we actually had a mother on the show recently on Culture War.
Talking about how there's absolutely a communication between the needs of the baby in the womb and the mother, and there's antibodies and other benefits that the mother provides.
That connection is extremely important.
Hence, in that movie, they said babies born in boxes can't dream.
I don't know if that's going to be true, but it's creepy nonetheless.
If you grow a baby outside the womb, it's not going to get the actual biological connection, the antibodies, the immunity the mother conveys to it during pregnancy.
I think there will be horrible complications and unforeseen consequences in bag babies.
That's scary!
Here's the ideal scenario.
People don't get abortions, right?
There are certain circumstances where we would argue a terminated pregnancy is not an abortion.
And what that is, is talking with Seamus Coghlan, for instance, of Freedom Tunes, who's staunchly pro-life, if the baby is not viable and can't survive, it's not an abortion.
Technically it could be, but let's just be clear for the purpose of argument.
For this video's purpose, I will say abortion is intentionally terminating the life of the baby, a baby that could survive.
That is wrong, and that should not be.
There will be circumstances where the baby cannot survive, and so the pregnancy is terminated for the health of the mother or otherwise.
There have been several stories, and I'm sure you've heard them, where a woman was told the baby was not viable and would not survive, and she says, well, I'm not terminating.
And the baby was born healthy and grows up.
We don't want those people to lose their lives.
With this technology, if there is an insistence among the medical staff that in their best estimation the baby cannot survive, the best news is, well, you can put the baby in an artificial womb, the pregnancy can be terminated for the health of the mother, and the baby can be given an opportunity to thrive.
In the instance that a baby is premature, you save the baby.
In the instance that a woman says there was a cause of rape or incest, and by incest we mean, like, by force on an individual, so just instances of rape, to be completely clear, you can... The woman says, I did not consent to carry this person.
There's a 14th Amendment violation to my rights.
I will not provide my body.
We say, okay, compromise.
The baby will not be harmed.
It will be raised outside of the womb.
I know a lot of people, pro-lifers, have the strong argument that even if the mother is raped, the woman, that she must carry the baby, it's her duty.
I believe that that's a constitutional and human rights violation.
I believe if a woman did not consent, then she does not have the obligation to provide her body to anyone else.
And then people argue, but it kills an innocent baby.
It doesn't matter if you're innocent or not.
You cannot place someone on someone else's body and then expect that to be legally upheld.
I just don't see that.
That's a moral question.
You may have differing morals than me.
I believe that these biobags may provide an opportunity in these circumstances where you can say, okay, well, there's a constitutional question of rights.
So when the pro-abortion activists come and say, abort the baby, you can say, no.
The baby can come to full term with the use of an artificial womb to save it.
In this case, it may end the termination of the life of the child.
The women will argue, well, we can terminate the pregnancy, and then you can argue back, well, we can keep the baby alive.
And if the argument is, if the baby is viable and can survive, then you can't terminate it, then these things create an opportunity in which every circumstances, the baby can survive.
Now, transplantation of an embryo, fetus, or otherwise into the bag is a question that I'm sure that they will entertain.
But the real scary thing here is not potential benefits in preventing abortion and saving the life of children.
That's there, to be fair.
The scary thing is that women will just not have babies.
Yeah.
I know a lot of transhumanist progressive women are probably cheering for this.
They don't want to be baby machines.
But the scary thought is that humans need that connection to their mother.
I believe it's an essential component of human life.
And they would strip that away.
There's something deeply immoral and horrifying.
And it's not so much a question of morality, although I do think a moral question exists.
It's a question of science.
What does the baby gain from the mother that cannot be artificially transplanted?
There are questions around whether or not a baby should be on breast milk or formula.
Breast milk tends to be better.
It has antibodies.
Formula is needed for babies.
Babies can't survive without proper food.
They can't just eat steak.
You know, babies getting off of liquid diets and into solid diets, it takes time.
It's part of human development.
And so, back in the day, if a woman couldn't produce milk, there would be a wet nurse, another woman who was lactating, who would provide for the baby.
Now, we have formula, which works, but I'm not a big fan of these kind of artificial substitutes.
So I think the artificial wombs, ultimately, I think they'll be a negative in the long run.
I think they'll provide us with positives, but this stuff is dystopian and terrifying.
But I'll leave it there, man.
I will recommend that you check out Capital of Conformity.
It's creepy, it's kind of gross, but it is really well done.
You want to talk about AI nightmare dystopia, check out this short film.
I'll link in this description.
I tweeted it out as well.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Yes, my friends, you read that right.
New York City Council advances bid that could yank monuments honoring Washington, Jefferson, and Columbus.
And Donald Trump warned us.
He said they'd start tearing down these statues.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
You know, people talk about where this country is headed.
I talk about civil war or civil strife, just whatever this culture war is evolving into, and I do not see how this nation can persist if they are systematically erasing this nation.
Its borders are being destroyed, the economy is in chaos, and they are trying to erase our history and destroy the Founding Fathers.
It's a scary thought.
There are many of us who refuse to let that stuff go, because these men, with their faults, came up with some pretty good ideas, and did some pretty good stuff.
But imagine you are the elite, the nobles, the landed gentry, and the rabble re- re- rebel.
What would you do?
I certainly don't believe that any monarch or autocrat in the world would appreciate something like that happening to them.
And so those of the global elites who believe that they are better men and should be in control are certainly despising of the idea that a country like the United States could exist for, of, and by the people.
And so that's why probably in like 1913 or whatever, centralized control overtook this country and since then it's been an erosion into an autocratic machine.
It's run by intelligence agencies who don't tell you what they're doing or why they're doing it.
I view this country more like a bank account.
Kind of like, or actually like a chicken coop.
You can put it that way.
The intelligence agencies, they might argue that they're doing right by you.
Sure.
Let's be honest.
Do I do right by my chickens?
I do!
They're great.
They smell pretty bad though.
But I keep them safe.
Keep the predators away.
I give them sushi.
Yes, right!
Every Friday here at Timcast, we do a company, you know, hangout.
Where we bring- we order a bunch of food for everybody.
And the leftovers, only the fresh raw fish, goes to the chickens.
Those chickens are livin' large!
Why, though?
Is it because I treat them as equals?
Of course not.
Is it because they're special?
Eh, kind of.
I mean, they're funny, they're fun to look at, but I don't think about them all that much.
No, I take their eggs from them.
Their eggs fill my belly and make me happy.
And then, we haven't eaten any yet, but eventually we will consume their flesh from their bones!
And that's how I feel this country is run by the intelligence agencies.
They don't care about what you think, who your family is.
They might look and say, oh, he's got kids, how nice.
When I see the chickens have babies, we've had like three natural babies in the chicken coop.
Because chickens tend not to brood.
We laugh, we go, oh, look, they got babies, and then we walk away.
We don't care.
Just keep on doing your thing, producing for what we need you to produce to make my life better.
And that's the nature of chicken reality.
Yeah, they're funny.
You know, it's fun to look at.
And that's how I think that this country is run.
The powerful elites view you like a chicken.
You work.
They keep you safe.
You produce things.
They take from you.
They take your bounty.
But let's be real.
When we have a problem chicken who's causing issues, we remove them without question or thought.
Yeah.
Oh, we're sad when a chicken dies.
But that's how they view you.
Eh, you know, just another one.
Another grain of sand in the heap.
This giant pile of people working to make their lives better.
And so that means, you know, for the sake of the chickens in this coop that is the United States, it is in your interest that the people running the show are able to continue feeding you.
But to what end?
This is why they don't care to destroy your heroes.
Your founding fathers.
The history of this country means nothing.
They don't care if you care.
They care that their chicken coop is run efficiently.
And if the chickens behave problematically, then we have to alter the nature of the chickens.
And that's what they do.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk, The Chicken Analogy of the United States.
The Democratic-led Council's Cultural Affairs Committee is set to hold a public hearing Tuesday on a proposal to yank artworks from the city property dedicated to historical figures, such as Washington, Peter Stuyvesant, and Christopher Columbus, because of their controversial pasts.
Critics immediately brand the effort as cancel culture when I'm like, CANCEL CULTURE?
Ah, Communist Revolution.
More like it.
Cancel culture is when someone gets fired.
This is removing our first president!
That's insane.
Columbus was a migrant, fumed Angelo Vivolo, president of the Columbus Heritage Coalition.
Vivolo vowed to fight any attempt to remove monuments to the famous Italian explorer from City Parkland.
Parkland?
Including the most recognizable statue at Columbus Circle.
Among the council's usual major responsibilities is passing a budget.
The lawmakers approved a spending plan at the end of June, but it's already a disaster with Mayor Eric Adams ordering city agency cuts because it's potentially out of balance to the tune of billions of dollars thanks to the migrant crisis, critics note.
A general view of the Columbus statue in Columbus Circle.
Yeah, Columbus Circle is a big deal in New York.
ABC news offices are right nearby.
The 51-member council also oversees the operation of city agencies and passing of local regulations and laws that span everything from outdoor dining to zoning matters.
But now, a main focus is canceling historical figures.
It's a natal threat.
A statue of Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration of Independence, and America's third president was removed from City Hall because he was a slaveholder.
Amazing.
Take a look at this.
A statue of Peter Stuyvesant, Director General of New Netherland, 1647-1664.
There he is in New York.
The Cultural Affairs Committee's upcoming hearing involves legislation that would require the city's Public Design Commission to publish a plan to remove works of art on Big Apple property that depict a person who owned enslaved persons, or directly benefited economically from slavery, or who participated in systemic crimes against indigenous peoples or other crimes against humanity.
If the commission determines that a statue or monument honors a person who committed crimes against humanity, but votes not to remove the artwork, it would require the city to install an explanatory plaque about the misdeeds of the historical figure.
Welcome to the fall of your nation, my friends.
This is the famous statue of George Washington in Union Square Park.
Now, for those that are familiar with New York, across the street there is a big digital counter of some sort, and then there's a strange artwork with a hand emerging from a wall.
I'm assuming it's still there.
The numbers, it's a clock.
It counts, it shows the current time and the amount of time left in the day.
It's actually that simple.
The hand is actually a replica of the hand of George Washington from the statue across the street.
Now you know.
They say there are more than a half dozen monuments on city property honoring slaveholder Washington, also America's first president and a revolutionary hero, including in Washington Square Park and Union Square Park.
Peter Stuyvesant, a Dutch governor, early New York settler, and a slaveholder, has a statue in Stuyvesant Park, and prestigious Stuyvesant High School is named after him.
I'm not a fan of the Pledge of Allegiance.
who have schools in the city and every of them include John Jay and Dewitt Clinton.
Look at this. This is despicable.
The statue of Thomas Jefferson was taken out of City Hall in November 2021
and moved to the New York Historical Society.
And these... and who are these guys?
These men who would do this.
It's absolutely insane.
I'm not a fan of the Pledge of Allegiance.
I'm not.
This idea that I would pledge allegiance to the flag of this country.
It's kind of weird, pledging allegiance to the flag.
I would pledge allegiance to the Constitution.
I would pledge an oath to the Constitution.
That I can totally understand.
The flag thing is weird to me, but you know, fine, whatever.
We were at a Republican meeting and they did the Pledge of Allegiance and it makes me chuckle.
When I was a kid, I never did the pledge.
Sometimes.
I shouldn't say never.
But I'd often just be like, nah, I ain't doing it.
I just find it weird that everybody stands there and turns the flag and then puts their hand over their heart and then pledges allegiance to the flag of the country.
Because I am not saying not to have loyalty to this nation, I'm just saying that's a weird thing to do.
If they said, pledge an oath to the Constitution, every morning we said, I pledge an oath to the Constitution of this nation, to uphold the rights that it enshrines and the system of governance created for, of, and by the people.
One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I'd say, yeah, I respect that tremendously.
My point is this.
While I certainly have my qualms about standing and honoring and pledging allegiance and all that stuff, loyalty oaths or whatever, I have a bigger issue with men in this country who do not care.
Because all that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.
And more importantly, if you don't know from where you came, you are doomed to disaster.
You need to understand the past to predict the future.
And also, history doesn't repeat, it rhymes.
We should not allow the tearing down of statues.
Just because someone in the past did a thing by today's standards we think is bad, doesn't mean that we destroy their image.
We preserve the good.
Frederick Douglass.
An amazing man.
challenged this country to stand by the words that were crafted by their grandfathers and their great-grandfathers pertaining to the rights of men.
I mean human beings.
The Constitution said that all men are created equal and granted by their creator inalienable rights.
In which case, he said, does that apply to me?
Would your words stand true or do you lie?
Masterfully said.
And this was a component in the sentiment to ending slavery.
How could you claim all men are created equal with inalienable rights to free speech, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and then claim to own someone as property?
A slap in the face to the hypocrites who said they would stand by the Constitution, but then outright rejected the rights of fellow humans.
It's abhorrent.
And a war was fought over it.
The Confederates had some pretty nasty ideas.
It wasn't all evil, though.
It's just that... we did bad things.
Human beings, I mean.
Always.
And even to this day.
And we strive to do better.
So what do we have here?
Thomas Jefferson had some really good ideas.
And he didn't like slavery.
He did not do enough, in my opinion.
It's one thing to be like, I'm gonna remove this provision from the Declaration of Independence.
Oop, I can't, I guess.
It's another thing to be an abolitionist.
And he certainly was not.
He deserves criticism for that.
Many of these people do.
For them to come out and say slavery was bad, but then actually just keep their slaves?
Oh, spare me.
You could do better.
You could do a lot.
I think it's also important to understand that there is a big difference from slaves being mercilessly beaten and whipped in the fields, as many were, and the horrible crimes committed by these plantation owners, crimes against humanity, and there were slaves in cities who, like, worked in shoe repair stores.
None of it was okay.
But I think understanding the history and nuance is really important to understand the sentiments and why it was able to persist.
Because there were many people that saw slaves, such as working at a tailor shop or a shoe store, and said, there's nothing wrong with it.
There's absolutely something wrong with it.
Today, most depictions of slavery are the slave being mercilessly beaten.
But you may ask yourself, why did people allow this system to continue?
It's because a lot of the slaves were house slaves, or were not grossly mistreated, and so they justified.
Incorrectly, obviously.
They justified these rights.
But they were wrong.
And through the words of the Founding Fathers, in which they stated, all men are created equal, challenges were brought about, which brought about the end of slavery.
War, bloodshed, wasn't solely for slavery.
I know, that's oversimplification.
Slavery, of course, being a major issue.
But in the end, the Founding Fathers set forth a new nation for one of the first times in history.
A nation that was ruled not under divine providence, but by the people.
Elites can't have that.
They now seek to remove these ideas from society.
Why?
Because if you don't know that you're a slave, how could you escape slavery?
As Harriet Tubman said, I freed many slaves, I would have freed many more if only they knew they were slaves.
If they strip away the ideas of independence, liberty, life, from all instances of public life, then how will you even know the ideas of merit and personal responsibility even exist?
It's a crazy thought, right?
You know, some people might say it's inherent, but I don't believe so.
Take, for instance, the concept and philosophy of solipsism.
If you don't know what that is, just look it up.
But if you did not know that idea existed, how could you even contemplate its meaning in your life as it pertains to you?
And say nihilism.
You wouldn't.
The same goes for freedom, self-governance, and liberty.
If the idea is stripped from you, how can you pursue it?
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up today at, what are we looking at, 4pm?
