Elon Musk REFUSES To Shut Russell Brand Down As UK GOV CAUGHT Proving Conspiracy Against Brand TRUE
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
Elon Musk REFUSES To Shut Russell Brand Down As UK GOV CAUGHT Proving Conspiracy Against Brand TRUE
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.
It is now confirmed.
There is a government agenda to remove Russell Brand from polite conversation, to take away his livelihood and silence him.
It's a fact.
It is not a conspiracy theory.
I will say it once more.
It's proven.
From the Postmillennial.
UK Parliament sends letters to social media platforms demanding demonetization of Russell Brand.
We covered this last night on Timcast IRL, but we do have some new developments.
Now Elon Musk is being targeted with activists, and yes, even political activists, and yes, government officials demanding Russell Brand be demonetized.
Why?
Has he been convicted of a crime?
Has he violated any of the policies of these platforms?
No.
He was simply accused in a, I believe it was the Sunday Times.
Several news articles have come out talking about impropriety, allegations of abuse and assault against Russell Brand, and that's just it.
Allegations.
But more importantly, there's the more serious question.
Even if Russell Brand is guilty, should he not be allowed to do his job?
Let's frame this in another way.
If a man is an auto mechanic, and he robs a liquor store and is caught, should he be fired from his shop?
Why?
He'll go to jail, and maybe do some time?
Maybe if he's found guilty of robbing a liquor store, there will be penalties?
Then he goes back to work.
Is the boss gonna say, I can't have someone here who robbed a liquor store?
But we have to think about what this means, and what they're proposing.
First, There's an outright government agenda against Russell Brand, and I want to tell you guys about the worst-timed article in the history of the media.
Okay, it's not really true, but just as of right now, I want to gloat and mock the Daily Beast.
It's almost too perfect, really.
You see, they're trying to reframe the narrative.
What is actually happening?
Russell Brand is accused and a member of the UK Parliament admits to contacting various networks to get Russell Brand's content removed and reaching out to social media platforms to take away his income.
TikTok and Rumble, I'm not sure about TikTok but I know Rumble said pound sand to the UK government.
Now here's the fun part.
This article from the Daily Beast.
The deep state didn't frame Russell Brand, you idiots.
And there it is.
The reframing of the conspiracy theory.
Perhaps it's not the worst timed article.
It's the most perfectly timed article.
Why?
The article was published September 20th, 2023 at 3.31 p.m.
20th, 2023 at 3 31 p.m. reframing the conspiracy theory from there is an agenda to silence
Russell Brand into they made up fake allegations against Russell Brand to silence him.
You see what I'm saying?
The theory, Russell Brand comes out and says there may be a greater agenda here.
And maybe a component of this is that Russell Brand is being framed I don't think that was the core of the allegation.
However, when people were talking about an agenda against Russell Brand, it's surfacing decades-old allegations, which may be out of context or otherwise, at a time when the media was celebrating and supporting Russell Brand.
All of a sudden, now, they have a problem with him.
You see, let me show you this story from the Post Millennial.
Two tweets.
Mario Noffle comes out at 3.38pm.
Wow, you mean 7 minutes after the publishing of this Daily Beast article, emails were leaked from the UK government to TikTok, and Rumble posted 3.54pm their letter from the UK Parliament as well?
So we're talking about within a few minutes to about a half an hour before the release of these emails proving definitively that the UK government, for which Russell Brand is a citizen, is targeting him to silence him.
Shortly after or shortly before this definitive proof comes out, The Daily Beast published an article saying they did not frame him, which reframes the conspiracy theory.
You see, it's probably the worst timed article or the best.
Why?
Now that we know that there is a government agenda against Russell Brand, Daily Beast now changes the narrative to argue that it's the Deep State, in fact, framing him.
Whoa, whoa, that's a more extreme interpretation of the original question that was asked about what was going on with Russell Brand and his content and this story.
The initial question is, is there an agenda to silence him, to shut him down over what he said about Big Pharma, the war in Ukraine, the military-industrial complex?
Is there?
Now, all of a sudden, the conspiracy theory is being reframed by the Daily Beast to, the Deep State didn't frame him.
Because, you know, when I see this story, I can just say one thing.
It doesn't matter what the Daily Beast is saying about trying to reframe the narrative.
The conspiracy theory was proven true in less than a week.
Now, for those that didn't see it, I'll give you the quick breakdown of what's happening with Russell Brand, but we do have more developments.
We have this from 21 minutes ago.
Elon Musk faces questions over comedian's Twitter status after coming to his defense.
And Elon Musk also said, pound sand.
We are winning, my friends.
Simply put, they shut down Alex Jones.
They shut down Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, all at the same time, basically.
Why?
Well, I think when you look at this story about Elon Musk, and thanks to our good friends over at Rumble, as well as Elon Musk, Mario Nawfal publishing this information from TikTok.
I'm not sure where he got it, but shout out to TikTok for however they got, you know, released this email.
Thanks to individuals at these organizations, we now know what they're doing.
Thanks to lawsuits and the work of diligent activists and lawyers, we know that Twitter was colluding with the federal government.
These things are all proven.
Thus, Alex Jones removal, how much do you want to bet, it was orchestrated by U.S.
intelligence agencies or government officials.
It's probably a fact.
Alex Berenson, journalist, we know because he won a lawsuit that he did not break any Twitter rules.
Or I think it's fair to say, like, he broke a couple, but they told him outright, like, just don't do it again, we won't ban you, but then banned him anyway.
Because the government said, government agents, officials said, why aren't you removing this man?
And they said, you got a boss.
It's a fact.
It's confirmed.
And it's proven.
I love this.
Over on the good old Tim Pool Wikipedia page, they entertain this, they express the idea as though it's a conspiracy theory.
When I said that conservatives face disproportionate penalties and censorship on these platforms, and I've been saying that for a long time, why?
Because Gizmodo reported it as definitive fact.
And all of a sudden, they act like it's a conspiracy theory.
This is the weirdest thing about the modern media.
Gizmodo in 2016 says, Facebook was censoring conservative news sources.
I go, whoa!
Facebook was censoring conservative news sources!
And say, Timple is a conspiracy theorist.
What?
Whatever, man.
A large component of this really does seem like the goal of the International World Economic Forum, Davos-types, elitist, American Uniparty, whatever this powerful group of individuals, CFR, Trilateral Commission, whatever, you name the group.
It seems like a large component is, as Alex Jones described, they will lay bear traps, tell you the bear traps are there, and then say it's your fault for stepping in them.
Let me break this down for those that haven't seen it.
I know I'm already getting too much into the weeds without showing you the important context for those that missed it.
Rumble issued a statement saying that although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values and mission.
We emphatically reject the UK Parliament's demands.
This is what they said.
They said, we are looking at, Russell Brand, use of social media, including on Rumble, where he issued his preemptive response to the accusations made against him by the Sunday Times and Channel 4's dispatches.
While we recognize that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr. Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.
You know what that is.
That's called a shakedown.
We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand is able to monetize his content, including his videos, relating to the serious accusations against him.
If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr. Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.
We also would like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behavior.
Incredible.
They're losing.
They are abject evil.
They are corrupt.
I will say it again.
There is no question in my mind these people are evil.
This, this is lawful evil.
It is malicious evil.
Evil people seek, so it depends on how you want to break down your view of evil, but my view of it tends to relate to destruction and it tends to relate to personal benefit.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Recognizing that you will face hardships, but you will do what you can to maximize goodness and creation.
Now I'm sure these people are making the argument that for the greater good, we must take immoral actions against Russell Brand.
No, that's degradation, chaos.
And it leads to hatred, animosity, instability in governance.
And with the exposure of this, it only increases the rate at which the narrative machine will continue to break and confidence in our institutions will shatter.
They say, over at the Independent, Elon Musk is facing questions from a senior MP over at Russell Brand's Twitter status, over Russell Brand's Twitter status, in the wake of a slew of allegations.
Culture, Media, and Sports Committee Chairwoman Dame Carolyn Dinnage Dinanetch asked Mr. Musk, who recently changed Twitter name
to X, if he has personally intervened in any decisions on Russell Brand's status on the platform.
The question comes after Mr. Musk was quick to respond to Brand's video Friday, in which
the comedian stenuously denied various allegations.
In the communication to its chief executive, Linda Iaccarino, Carolyn also asked if X would
be suspending Mr. Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.
There it is.
It's not just Rumble, TikTok.
We know from this letter, let me show you, that they said they've reached out to other networks as well.
Let me pull this one up.
Let's pull up the full tweet from Rumble.
This is where they basically admit it.
They say, The Culture, Media, and Sport Committee is raising questions with the broadcasters and production companies who previously employed Mr. Brand to examine both the culture of the industry in the past and whether that culture still prevails today.
Simply put, the UK government has contacted broadcasters.
So when Russell Brand's content is being removed from networks, you now know.
Why did YouTube ban Russell Brand?
Because they work at the behest of Western government.
Now, I think Russell Brand should sue YouTube for defamation, and I certainly hope he does.
I don't know, maybe he doesn't win, and to be fair, look, I've been on the back end of allegations, smears, lies, etc.
It is really, really difficult to sue, and a lot of lawyers outright just say, there's no point, you won't win, have a nice day.
And, you know, I reject that.
Some people have told me that I should sue Insert Company for various reasons, and you can't.
But I wonder, and I don't know for sure, if Russell Brand has a defamation per se argument against YouTube.
Because YouTube said they're demonetizing Russell Brand because they take off-platform behavior into account.
Really?
That is to imply YouTube has said Russell Brandt is a rapist.
That's defamation per se.
Defamation per se is separate from standard defamation in that it doesn't require the Times v. Sullivan actual malice standard nor damages.
Defamation per se is defamation so egregious that in and of itself it is viewed as damaging to the person's reputation.
When it comes to defamation, For public figures, if they say Russell Brand, you know, did X. They said that, you know, he sold off his company.
Russell Brand broke the trust of his business associates, selling a company and effectively hurting them in the process.
That's not defamation per se.
You'd say, hey, that's not true.
That never happened.
My business associates were well compensated.
You can't accuse me of that.
They'll say, what damages did you face?
This is the actual malice standard.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, prove that the person who said this knew they were lying and show us what your damages were.
Otherwise, they're allowed to lie about you.
No kidding.
You can lie about someone in the press so long as no one can prove you knew you were lying and they don't suffer damages from it.
So if you said that someone like kicked the dog...
That's not defamation per se.
And then, what's the damages from accusing someone of that?
So, for instance, you have one organization accusing me of spreading election misinformation.
How do you prove damages from that?
Well, the reality is the defamation does hurt.
They will use that as a pretext to take away sponsors and try and shut you down.
But you can't prove the connection, so the courts throw you out.
Plus, how do you prove the individual knew they were lying?
Of course we know they know they're lying.
Prove it.
For defamation per se, accusing Russell Brand of offline behavior that warrants suspension of his monetization, they're flat out saying he's a rapist.
Well, okay.
Now that's defamation per se.
Now, Russell Brand should sue.
Here's the reframing, I love this stuff.
The Deep State didn't frame Russell Brand, you idiots.
They say there are some things that are unknowable, but without a skintone of evidence, should not be entertained as serious.
One of those is the notion that a conspiracy of institutions, the mainstream media, pharmaceutical companies, center-left politicians, and other monsters of the cathedral, I love that they use the cathedral, shout out to Michael Malice, has manufactured, I wonder if they actually cite him in their, what is this, the cathedral?
Pushing total BS misinformation, blah blah blah.
This is from November of 2022.
Where do they mention the cathedral?
Yeah, here we go.
Curtis Yarvin credits himself for quoting the phrase, which he defines as, the cathedral is just a short way of saying journalism plus academia.
Ah, very interesting.
Anyway, he says, Brand has been accused by four women, etc.
etc.
This is stupid, full stop, and anyone pushing this idea has revealed themselves as a deeply unserious person.
Okay, he says, let me clarify.
He says a narrative has immediately formed, not only among professional liars like Alex Jones and other trolls, but also from the mouths of mainstream right-wing commentators, that Brand is being persecuted by a vast conspiracy because of his anti-establishment commentary.
Let's, uh, put a pause on there, uh, good sir, Anthony L. Fisher.
Ooh, do you have egg on your face, because only a few minutes after you posted this, it was proven definitively that UK government elements are admitting to contacting networks and social media platforms to have
Russell Brand shut down.
Oh, now hold on. Don't play the game where you're like, no, they simply inquired as to whether or not any action would
be taken against them.
Yeah, okay, dude.
Sad, really.
When someone comes to your business with a baseball bat and they say, hey, you know, it'd be a shame if someone came in here and roughed up your business and stole from you, but don't worry, we're gonna protect you.
Cost a little bit of the green, you're gonna pay it, right?
Would be, uh, would be unfortunate if you didn't, if you know what I mean.
Hey, I got a story for you.
I got mugged once.
Hilarious, because I was broke as broke can be.
I had an empty wallet.
Seriously, I had a wallet.
Literally just an ID in it.
And I have credit cards, and I have a debit card.
Had no money.
And, uh, I didn't even know I had it, but I was like, not gonna put my ID in my pocket, I guess.
And a guy, so as I'm crossing the street, this is in, uh, uh, where was this?
Lincoln Park in Chicago.
Tall guy, he's probably like 6'4", 6'5".
Says, hey man, I need some money right now.
Can you give me some money?
I'm trying to do the right thing and just ask you to help me out.
And I was like, sorry man, I'm broke.
I don't have any money.
And he goes, no, I know you got money.
I know you got money and you're gonna do the right thing.
I don't want things to get bad if you know what I'm saying, so why don't you help me out and give me some money?
And then I laughed, pulled out my wallet, and I was like, brother, I have no money.
And he goes, you think I'm stupid?
I know you got money in your shoe.
And I'm telling you, I got a knife.
And I'm just saying, why don't you give me some money?
Uh huh.
Oh, he had a knife on him.
What happened?
He got arrested.
Crazy story.
A cop came out of nowhere, grabbed the guy, slammed him up against a fence, and screamed, not in my town.
The guy had, I forgot what it's called, but a guy was following behind in case things went bad.
But bro, I'm like, I started laughing.
As it turns out, and I've told this story before, when they were taking his information down and arresting him, They asked me if I would sign the complaint, and I did.
And I saw the guy's address, and he lived a few blocks away from me.
No joke.
He lived at- He was like neighbor- He was- He was next-door neighbors with one of my friends.
And so I was like- I started laughing, and I was like, Bro, I live in the same neighborhood.
He thought because I was in Lincoln Park, I must have money.
Dude accidentally tried to mug another poor Southsider.
But it's what they do.
They go to the Northside- Anyway.
I find it hilarious that what this guy is doing, he didn't come up to me and say, give me all your money or I will hurt you.
He said, I'm trying to do the right thing and you could get hurt.
Why don't you just give me some money?
One thing that muggers have started to do in a lot of cities is quote-unquote panhandle.
That's right.
Panhandle.
Because it's not illegal to panhandle.
And so here's what happens.
A guy will walk up to you and say, Hey man, I'm really hungry.
Can you give me money?
If you know what I mean?
And then what happens is, the police have instructed everybody, especially in Chicago, just to hand over your money when you're being mugged.
These uppity, well-to-do liberal types panic and they say, just take it, please.
Then they call the police, and this guy, who quote-unquote mugged the dude, doesn't think two seconds, doesn't fret any at all about it, smiles and waves and says, thank you so much, and casually walks down the street.
The police show up, and then the guy says, that's the guy who mugged me.
And the person says, I didn't mug anybody, dude, I was panhandling.
And then they're like, what happened?
And it's like, the guy will even just stand there.
The person doing the mugging knows.
They don't have to run.
Why?
This has happened.
I don't know how common it is, but the guy committing the mugging says, I asked the dude if he could spare some cash.
The dude said yes and handed me money.
And the cops go to the guy who got mugged and say, did he ask you?
And I'm like, yeah, he asked me if I would give him money.
And they're like, sir, that's not a mugging, he was panhandling.
But he wasn't, you know what I mean?
The implication and the way, the guy, the muggers will do something like, hey man, why don't you give me some money and help me out?
And then what was said.
You go to court.
And this dude will be on the stand.
They know it.
They'll say, I just asked the guy, hey man, can you help me out?
I just need some cash.
And the dude handed me his money.
And I was like, thank you so much.
And then the dude will be like, no, he was more menacing than that.
He said, can I have some money?
And they're like, are you kidding?
This guy was panhandling.
You see how they do it.
That's what they're doing here with Russell Brand.
We know what it means when government agents who have all this power can regulate you, can fine you, and let's keep in mind the UK, this is from TechCrunch, UK opens new chapter in digital regulation as Parliament passes online safety bill.
This is it.
They could fine these companies.
What is it?
They say up to 10% Levy fines up to 10%, up to 18 million pounds, whichever is higher, of annual turnover for violations of the regime.
Wow.
That's amazing.
So what do you think?
What do you think happens?
These companies are like, man, we can't, we can't go up against the government.
They have a monopoly on violence.
They can fine us.
They can shut us down.
What do we do?
Rumble has remained steadfast.
Hey, they're based in Florida.
They're going to say pound sand.
Elon Musk, the richest guy in the world.
Good luck.
But you know what?
They've laid it all out.
It's clear.
And thanks to the likes of Rumble and X, we now get definitively proof that the UK government is trying to shut down Russell Brand and have admitted to reaching out to other networks to get his content, let's just say, challenged.
And then conveniently it's pulled down.
So I'll simplify it for you, The Daily Beast.
We'll simplify it.
If members of a government, and this is Russell Brand's government, are contacting networks, suggesting that Russell Brand should not be monetized, saying they're concerned he's monetized, that is an outright negative implication at the idea that Russell Brand could make money off the platform, there is an agenda within the government to take away Russell Brand's ability to make money, even though he did nothing wrong on these platforms.
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.
Right now there is some more information and I haven't talked too much about this.
Elon Musk, Twitter, rarely lobbied against state laws.
Now X is suing California over one.
This is really interesting news, and I don't know how much I can say, but I can say that I, The Babylon Bee, Minds.com, were party to what is effectively the same, I would say a similar lawsuit over this bill that was passed in California, and now X is filing suit over this.
Before its acquisition by Elon Musk, Twitter privately lobbied California state lawmakers about a content moderation bill.
Renamed X, the company is now suing over it.
The move from quietly lobbying to suing over laws it disagrees with is a major shift.
Twitter is not known for spending millions of dollars trying to influence legislators or for using blah blah blah blah blah.
You get the point.
Basically, California has a law that will require certain actions to be made.
So Elon's axe is alleging First Amendment violations according to disclosure reports and people familiar with the effort.
Elon Musk is doing a lot of good work.
Neuralink is pretty scary, and there's a lot of negative stories coming out about what happened to these monkeys in these clinical trials, and, sorry man, um, I don't believe you.
I believe the media is lying.
I have real concerns over what Neuralink will do to this world, but right now, I can only assess it for what it is.
Elon Musk is no saint and he is not perfect, but he's doing a lot of good.
Nobody's perfect.
Sorry, it's just true, and I believe that there will be monuments built to Elon Musk in the future.
A lot of people today will scoff at the idea, sure, but there's a statue of the guy who invented air conditioning in Florida.
I am not exaggerating.
It's true.
The guy who first invented mechanical refrigeration.
Brilliant.
And he died in poverty, not realizing that his initial concepts would carry on and, you know, he did a good job.
It's really, really incredible.
Modern refrigeration.
They built a statue for the guy.
I have been to way too many Wright Brothers memorials, and I've seen way too much, too many plaques honoring the Wright Brothers to think that Elon Musk is not gonna get some kind of statue or whatever.
The dude's pioneering modern space travel.
With- with Starship?
And the plans for orbital space stations with Starlink?
Yeah, I'm sorry, dude.
There will be- there will be monuments to SpaceX.
For which- I'm not saying, in this instance, Elon will be personally in a big- maybe?
I'm saying SpaceX is going to be memorialized in some way.
Today, it's hard for us to think about anyone being memorialized, but don't be surprised if there's statues of Donald Trump, seriously.
And depending on who wins the culture, or maybe Joe Biden, I really doubt it.
But Donald Trump, for sure.
Trump's got his name already plastered all over everything, so that wouldn't be surprising.
But I don't know, our culture is different.
What Elon is doing is really fantastic with X, with challenging the censorship, with fighting for individual rights, highlighting the corruption that we're seeing in the government now on the border.
He's doing good work.
Neuralink is freaky.
Right now Neuralink is going to bring on human trials to cure or to treat people who have become paralyzed.
Incredible.
So if you have a spinal injury, Elon is saying this could be a chance for you to walk once again.
It's amazing stuff, really.
And I'm sure there are people who are begging at the opportunity to get access to these clinical trials.
And of course, now the media is attacking him.
There's weird investigations into him.
There's weird lawsuits.
And the media is smearing him, claiming that he murdered a bunch of monkeys.
Elon Musk said this is not the case.
The monkeys that were in these clinical trials were already terminal.
And therein lies the big question for all of you.
I wonder if you went to someone who is suffering paralysis and said, we are going to do research on 15 terminal monkeys.
The research may cause them suffering, and they may die.
But the information gained from this research could result in the paralyzed walking once again, the blind being able to see, and the deaf being able to hear.
Would you support it?
I know, it's a really tough question.
I'm pretty sure I know people would say, no way, never.
You know?
You can't violate the rights of life.
And some people would say, how else do we advance technology?
We have to do research on life.
It's tough.
I don't have all the answers for you.
I know there's tremendous good that will be carried out by these trials, and I think Trump was right with the right-to-try legislation, that if you are terminal, a human, you should be allowed to try experimental procedures.
It may cause you more suffering, but the research we gain from your volunteering because you're going to die anyway could not only save your life, but could save others.
I don't have all the answers, my friends.
I am no arbiter of morality and truth.
I simply call it like I see it.
And right now, try as they might, they can't cover this one up.
This may be the fastest conspiracy theory that was confirmed to date.
So there you go.
The agenda?
It's real.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
There's a growing sentiment that 2024 will be the end, with Donald Trump calling it the final battle against enemies in Washington, with Roseanne Barr saying there won't be an election.
Whether that means we won't actually go cast ballots because there will be some war declaration suspending elections or because whatever we call the election, it won't be legitimate.
Say Trump's name is removed from the ballot.
Stephen Marsh is the author of the book The Next Civil War.
We had him on TimCast IRL and it was a very interesting conversation because we agree on so much looking at the conflict in the United States and fearing we may be headed towards civil war.
Now Stephen Marsh's view is that You know, he's more of a Democrat corporate media narrative type.
He believes these stories, he lacks lots of information, and that was my main critique of him, that while you can assess the physical violence, the animosity, the rage, the anger, if your worldview is predicated upon lies from intelligence agencies and corporate media outlets that have no allegiance but to their sponsors and probably national security letters, you're going to be wrong about the greater facts of what's really happening.
Ken Paxton, the AG of Texas.
They recently tried to impeach him.
We have this from the Post Millennial.
Paxton reveals to Tucker Carlson that Biden administration lawyers were part of his impeachment investigation in Texas.
And why?
Ken Paxton filed, famously, Texas v. Pennsylvania, a lawsuit in 2020 that sought To stop the counting of electoral votes from certain states due to what he viewed as unconstitutional changes to voting law.
In an interview with Tucker Carlson, he said, quote, they needed to figure out how many real votes there were so they could figure out how many mail-in ballots to apply to the election.
It was definitely planned.
This is the attorney general of Texas outright saying 2020's election was a fraud.
The Supreme Court refused to take the case of Texas v. Pennsylvania with only Justices Thomas and Alito saying it is their duty to hear cases under what's called original jurisdiction.
And this is where we are.
2024 may be the last election, and for a lot of reasons.
2020 may have been the last election, depending on how you look at it.
When Roseanne and Michael Malice came on TimCast IRL, Roseanne made a bunch of bold predictions.
One, that there would be military tribunals.
I really don't think that's gonna happen.
That's like a weird buzzword.
Because a tribunal is like three military officers, you know, criminally charging and presiding over criminal cases or seditious conspiracy cases or things like that.
Yeah, it's not happening.
But shit, there won't be an election.
Michael Malice made a wager with her.
But I asked, now do you mean, like, we literally will just not have an election, like they're gonna say, no, Joe Biden's president again, have a nice day?
Or do you mean, we'll go out and vote, but it will be illegitimate?
It's hard to know for sure.
I think she kind of meant that we wouldn't vote, but I don't know.
She said that could be it, and that's a fair point.
But if that's the case, 2020 may have been the last election, depending on what your views are, because of the way the rules were changed.
I am no fan of the narrative that there were ballots printed in China and buses, you know, trucks coming in, depositing ballots and whatever.
I mean, maybe, sure, fine, whatever, because we did see a bunch of crazy and weird videos, but I do just generally think Democrats, and this is definitive fact, Changed the rules in many states which gave them insane advantages in ballot harvesting, ballot chasing, etc.
And so perhaps, perhaps, Ken Paxton is right.
They needed to figure out how many mail-in votes they needed.
But they had them, and that's the issue.
Now, of course, the argument is these mail-in votes are not legitimate because they're going to nursing homes and getting people just to sign over stewardship or whatever to ballot chasers.
These are still human beings who have the right to vote, who told people, vote for me.
Now, of course, I know.
It's unjust.
It's unfair.
It's not a legitimate election.
But it's not fraudulent ballots.
It's the rules were changed to benefit Democrats.
That is to say, manipulating the legal process for gain.
And that's always how elections have been done.
It's just getting more and more egregious to the point where it's not a real election.
I mean, look, it's one thing to say we're going to discount these votes.
We're going to count these votes.
We're going to remove these people from the voter rolls and have arguments about whether or not that's fair and legitimate.
But when executive branches of states, in violation of the Constitution, changed the rules to allow them to collect ballots from individuals who probably wouldn't have voted, now we're talking about stepping over the line.
Thus, you have two principal camps as it pertains to 2020.
You have the fraudster narrative, where people are like, Chinese ballots in Venezuelan servers, and that was always nuts.
And then you have the general, more popular view of what a rigged election is, and this is to say that Democrats changed the rules.
Texas tried to stop them.
Texas wasn't unable to do so.
So here's the statement from Donald Trump as of yesterday.
Former President Donald Trump declared 2024 the final battle against an array of forces ailing the U.S.
Doubling down on a previous pronouncement, Trump raised the rhetorical stakes to the highest degree possible, going so far as to declare that a defeat in 2024 would mean the end of the country.
The 2024 presidential election will be nothing less than the final battle for the U.S., Trump told his audience at a campaign event in Iowa.
The former president declared that 2024 is our final battle.
With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state.
We will expel the warmongers from our government.
They want to go to war with everybody.
We will drive out the globalists.
We will cast out the communist Marxists and fascists.
And we will throw off the sick political class that truly hates our country.
We will rout the fake news media, we will defeat crooked Joe Biden, and we will end illegal immigration once and for all, just as we had it three years ago.
The great silent majority is rising like never before, he continued.
And under our leadership, the forgotten men and women will be forgotten no longer.
With your help, your love, and your vote, we will put America first, and we will make America great again, greater than ever before.
Now that message may resonate for a lot of you.
Many of you are saying we must stop the deep state, but there's an inverse message happening on the other side.
Stephen Marsh writes for The Guardian, here's the scary way Trump could win without the electoral or popular vote.
In a contingent election, he could lose the popular vote, electoral college, and all his legal cases, and still end up the legal U.S.
president.
Marsh recently published a book called The Last Election.
That's their view.
It's quite interesting.
But I want to talk to you about Texas v Pennsylvania to explain to you why he may be right.
Again, I don't agree with his perspective because he lacks a lot of information.
I am not saying that to be mean to him.
I think he's a very smart guy and we agree on the surface level things that we're seeing with With conflict and crisis between political factions, a refusal to back down, all of this stuff we talk about.
And surface level news is really easy to understand.
But when you dive into the deep and the esoteric, such as the Burisma scandal with Joe Biden, which is now, I would say, provable beyond a reasonable doubt to an average person.
Stephen Marsh is unfamiliar with this.
So the perspective I have is that Joe Biden is deeply corrupt.
The Democrats and the Republicans in the Uniparty are extracting and exploiting the U.S.
system for personal gain, either through trading stocks or sending money overseas to war to fund the war machine.
Because probably stocks, to be completely honest.
If they can predict war, and they can predict spending a hundred, two hundred billion dollars on weapons, well guess what?
The military-industrial complex is going to turn a pretty profit from that.
You can make accurate bets, whether it be put options, or long calls?
I don't know.
I'm not a finance guy.
You can bet on the long-term future, or short-term losses, whatever.
You know how it's going to play out.
It's an extraction of wealth.
People like Pelosi, McConnell, Biden, they don't care about you.
They don't care about the future of this country.
They refuse.
They cling to power.
They won't give it up.
They don't care about what young people are going through.
They don't care about what millennials are going through.
They care about not losing their power.
And this is where we are today.
Let me play for you this clip from Ken Paxton so you can understand just how dire the situation is as it pertains to 2024.
Oh, sorry.
I always do this.
All of you knew it was coming, that I was going to have the audio set properly.
Let's say to all the liberal individuals who catch this clip, which is probably not that many, but for those that do, and don't believe the fraud narrative, I'm not the biggest fan of it.
I do think it's kind of BS they stopped counting.
All of that stuff is highly suspect, but I believe Ken Paxton says we don't know where those ballots came from.
Yeah, I think that they had ballot harvesters and ballot chasers going out, collecting signatures and mail-in votes.
The laws were changed to allow them to do it.
In many of these states, it was legal to do.
And so, they knew that they had these stacks lying around somewhere.
But he makes an interesting point.
Now, I can't speak too much to his view on this.
I'm not going to get conspiratorial.
I don't need to.
For the liberal viewers, you need to understand only one thing.
Ken Paxton, the AG of Texas, believes it.
Have a nice day.
It doesn't matter if he's right.
It doesn't matter if he's wrong in the greater context.
And I say this all the time as it pertains to conflict in this country.
It doesn't matter if you think Antifa is factually wrong.
It doesn't matter if you think the Proud Boys are factually wrong.
What matters is you know they believe it.
Now, it's really funny that they push the grifter narrative, that they don't actually believe it, they're just saying, yeah, okay, dude, yeah, going out and fighting in the street, they certainly believe what they're saying.
And you need only understand the beliefs of an individual to predict what may happen in the future.
That is to say, if someone tells me...
If Ken Paxton believes there was fraud, what do you think Ken Paxton will do in the 2024 election?
wrong about it. Don't be surprised if they start surveilling their neighbors activities,
calling the police on them. You can predict the behavior based on the beliefs of the individual.
If Ken Paxton believes there was fraud, what do you think Ken Paxton will do in the 2024
election? I bring you back in time. Many of you may not be aware of this.
This is several years ago now.
December 11th, 2023.
Three years almost.
How many of you are younger and only just entering the political space and this culture war?
It's really interesting that we have guests.
It's just, look, I know all of you older folks really understand this because you've been through it already, but for me it's 37.
We have people on Timcast IRL who are like 15 years old when we were talking about the Battle of Berkeley.
When I went to Sweden six years ago, you have people who are like 17 or 18 and not really paying attention to politics.
And they've now been on this show talking about their body of work politically.
Right now, we are going to start seeing new people, and it happens every election cycle, of course, young people entering the voting block who will vote.
It's not in great numbers, but enough of them who are saying, what is this?
I don't know what happened three years ago.
Someone who is 20 years old today did not vote in the 2020 election.
Well, depending on what their birthday was, I know, I know.
Texas v. Pennsylvania and the relevance of Ken Paxton.
Let me remind you.
Texas v. Pennsylvania was a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump.
Filed by Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton on December 8, 2020, under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, Texas v. Pennsylvania alleged that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the U.S.
Constitution by changing election procedures through non-legislative means, thus violating the independent state legislature theory.
The suit sought to temporarily withhold the certified vote count from these four states prior to the Electoral College vote count on December 14th.
The suit was filed after about 90 lawsuits arising from disputes over the election results filed by Trump and the Republican Party had failed.
The suit had been drafted by a team of lawyers with ties to the Trump presidential campaign.
Paxton agreed to file the case after other State Attorneys General declined to do so.
The Solicitor General of Texas, Kyle D. Hawkins, objected to the suit and refused to let his name be added.
Paxton hired Lawrence J. Joseph, who had helped draft the suit, and special counsel to assist with the suit.
Within one day of Texas's filing, Trump, over 100 Republican representatives, and 18 Republican State Attorneys General filed motions to support the case.
Trump referred to this case as the big one of the election-challenging lawsuits.
Attorneys General for the Defendant States joined in briefs submitted by their counterparts from 20 other states, two territories, and D.C.
urged the court to refuse the case.
This is amazing.
Attorneys General for the Defendant States joined in briefs submitted by their counterparts from 20 other states.
urged the court to refuse. Legal experts argued the case was not likely to be heard and not likely
to succeed if it did get heard, and that it was thus a Hail Mary action. The Supreme Court issued
orders on December 11th declining to hear the case on the basis that Texas lacked standing
under Article 3 of the Constitution to challenge the results of elections held by another state.
This is one of the most consequential cases in the history of this country, and I believe the
Supreme Court hit the nail into the coffin.
Perhaps not the final, but a nail into the coffin of the United States.
Or at least the current iteration of where we are at.
Something may change.
And I'll break it down for you as such.
The Constitution.
The Independent State Legislature Theory.
The Constitution says it.
The Constitution says that elections shall be held in accordance with the procedures that the legislature determines.
Thus, it is a fact, it's a fact, that several executive branches altered the voting rules.
They say the suit was filed 90 lawsuits, yadda yadda yadda.
Do they have that in here?
Yes.
It argued that these states violated the U.S.
Constitution by changing election procedures through non-legislative means.
It is a fact that that occurred.
And governors changed the rules.
But the Constitution says the legislature must determine.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Only two justices said that we should, and that was Thomas and Alito.
You ultimately had, I believe it was, 48 states challenging each other.
Of course, the Democrats were saying, no, you can't do this.
We won.
The Republicans were saying, you changed the rules.
And I think any reasonable person, if asked, would say Texas is correct.
What was Texas's argument?
Why they had standing?
Texas is a participant in a 50-state election.
The president is chosen by states, not by the popular vote.
The states are all submitting their electoral votes based on the elections they hold in accordance with their state legislatures, as per the Constitution.
If the rules were changed in four states, or more, outside of the constitution's authority, then Texas's votes are
being undermined.
To put it simply, if we are all getting together inside, let's say, you know, your roommates,
you, we're all going to vote on what we're going to have for lunch. And you say the rules are as
such. You're, only you can make the decision and it's gotta be that you make a certain amount of
money that you're submitting. And here are the rules that we all agree upon as to what counts
And the vote is, you're putting money in the pot.
Right?
I put in five bucks towards lunch, I get a vote.
Well, all of a sudden, Four other individuals start compromising about where they're gonna get their money from.
One guy says, hey, lend me some extra money so I can make a vote.
You go, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on, hold on, hold on, that's not fair.
You know, what we're voting on is, I work, I have money, I pay.
If someone's giving him money, hey, that changes the way these votes are happening, and now they're getting extra votes.
The votes are being changed.
It's basically erasing my vote.
It's unfair.
Simply put, if Texas abides by the Constitution and casts its votes in good faith, and these four states undermine the will of their own people, these votes are not the same.
The system is damaged.
I agree.
You are not having a legitimate vote based on the popular vote count of these states if governors and judges change the rules and the people aren't voting properly.
Now you have executives who are voting on behalf of their state, not the legislatures, undermining your vote.
Or how about this?
The individual's parents tell them, you have to vote for this, and they say, okay, fine.
For some extraneous reason.
And you're like, no, no, no, this is about us and our roommates, not an outside force telling them how they should be spending their money.
It's not fair.
The Supreme Court refused to hear it.
And for that, it seems to me that we are headed for a crisis and a disaster in 2024 because now the Constitution has been smashed, shattered, ripped to shreds.
The Supreme Court should have taken the case and they could have ruled against Texas.
The refusal to hear a case citing original jurisdiction.
I am not saying The Supreme Court should have overturned the election.
I am not saying they should have pushed a contingent election, where Trump certainly would have won.
I am saying the Supreme Court should have said, if Texas has a complaint, we hear it.
And then, the Supreme Court could have said one of two things.
We agree or disagree.
The Supreme Court could have said, We view that the changes made in these states are sound and legitimate, and that the legislature can pass laws, but currently, the system allows for governors to make these changes under laws passed by these legislatures.
In which case, you can't undermine the decision of these states.
And then Texas would have lost, but we would have had the argument played out.
Instead, what happened in 2020?
Of all of these lawsuits that were filed, including Texas v. Pennsylvania, they were almost entirely dismissed on standing, which is a BS way of saying, we're not gonna bother with it.
Standing is the idea that you are not an aggrieved party.
So if, uh, let's say I go to McDonald's, and I order food, and the food's bad, and it makes me really sick, and I say, I'm suing!
And then someone sitting at a different table says, I'm suing too.
The judge will say, you have no party in this lawsuit.
You weren't aggrieved by this action.
You're not a defendant or a plaintiff.
Get out of here.
Case dismissed.
You can't sue someone else for def... You can't... Person A can't sue Person B because Person B defamed Person C. It's only actions between Persons B and C. However, that is a ridiculous argument.
Ridiculous.
Texas, of course, is an aggrieved party.
We're all part of this election, says Texas.
We are one of the people in the election.
The rules were changed in those states, undermining our position.
Fact.
How do we know those votes are real if the states violated the Constitution?
It is garbage and BS for the Supreme Court or for anyone to say you don't have an argument about the internal workings of other states.
They submitted it.
Have a nice day.
Okay, so I'll put it this way.
For what purpose should I participate in an election where we all agree Me and my five roommates all agree it will only be that we decide, as roommates, what we order for lunch together.
And then one day, two of my roommate's parents come in and say, Nope!
This is what the food you're- We want you to go and submit you're having salad.
And I say, No, no, no, no, no.
Why am I bothering to pool my resources together when these people are interfering?
Right?
Why would I?
I say I don't participate anymore.
It was supposed to be what my roommates and I wanted to eat.
Not what you wanted.
It's supposed to be elections based on what the state legislatures say and not the executives or the judges.
For what reason would a state like Texas or anyone else want to participate in which they know other states are in violation of the Constitution?
Or how about this?
If Texas feels, to a large degree, either through the public, the AG, the governorship, whatever, if there is large, if there is mass sentiment, or just greater than 50%, that they are not participating in a legitimate election, why would they?
Why would they adhere to it?
And this spells a, this is a recipe for disaster.
Texas v. Pennsylvania was never resolved.
None of these lawsuits were, for the most part.
In which case, why would anyone legitimately participate?
Now, of course, my view is this.
The actions that must be taken now, by everyone, is to start the legal procedures to do everything you need to do to get the votes you need for your candidate.
I mean, Democrats are already doing it.
Republicans better step up.
It could be the last election, or it could be that 2020 already was.
I don't know.
The AG of Texas believes it was fraud.
Believes they cheated.
Do you think that Ken Paxton, this time around, is going to sit around and do nothing?
They tried to impeach him, and they failed.
And that's the big story from the post-millennial.
Biden administration lawyers were part of his impeachment.
Why?
Of course.
Because Texas challenged the unconstitutional actions of these states.
It's a scary reality of what this means.
I don't think people really understand how insane 2024 will be.
If you went back to 2020, and you said that January 6th would happen, people wouldn't believe you.
Because even on the day of, no one thought it was going to happen.
No one thought there would be a breaching of the Capitol.
Can you imagine what's going to happen next year?
Look, you think there will be less than a January 6th?
I'm scared of this.
I am worried.
I don't know where it goes.
I can tell you, Ken Paxton as AG of Texas going on Tucker Carlson's show to the tune of millions of viewers and saying outright that 2020 was a fraud?
And I don't think that's a dispute, whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
Democrats, you think that if Trump loses, he'll simply say, I lost?
He didn't do it last time.
Republicans, are you really going to believe that Joe Biden won again or Gavin Newsom, whoever it ends up being?
I think it'll be Gavin Newsom, but we'll see.
Do you really think that it would be legitimate?
If Republicans right now overwhelmingly believe 2020 was stolen, and Ken Paxton says it was fraud, why would they accept a Democrat winning again?
And if Democrats know Donald Trump rejected 2020, why would he accept 2024?
Why would he accept 2024?
Neither will accept it.
More importantly too, because I am forgetting the other here, Democrats didn't accept 2016.
They accused Trump of being a Russian spy.
Why would they accept it if Trump won?
Of course they won't.
But I don't know what this means.
I can just tell you that... I mean, it's probably fair to say 2020 was the last election.
And you know what?
Based on your view, if you do think it was a fraud, then 2016 was.
Because if you think 2020 wasn't legit, I mean, it might be fair to say, and I gotta be honest, 2012 may have been the last election in this country.
Not that they're not dirty.
And they're always dirty.
But 2016 was viewed by the Democrats as fraudulent with Russian interference.
Thus, that wasn't a legitimate election.
They said Trump was illegitimate.
2020 is viewed by Republicans as a fraud, thus not legitimate.
So if 2016 and 2020 weren't legitimate, when was the last election? 2012.
And if 2024 is not going to be legitimate, how could it be considering 2016 and 2020?
The last election was... 11 years ago.
Makes you think and makes you wonder.
I don't know what to tell you, my friends.
But you look at the accusations that are being levied against Giuliani, against Tim Ballard, against Russell Brand... It is gonna get balls-to-the-walls weird out there.
And I hope you're thinking about this.
I don't know what it means you should do.
I think everybody should get as active as possible in knocking on doors, registering voters, building culture, making sure you're safe, learning a little bit of survival stuff.
At least download some survival apps on your phone.
And that is to assume that if whatever ends up happening, there's electricity.
I assume there will be.
Let's be real.
It could just get really crazy.
And whatever ends up happening, 2024 will not be the end.
It'll be the beginning.
2024's election will have disastrous consequences no matter who wins.
That's it.
End of story.
It was a disaster that they attacked the president and engaged in a seditious conspiracy to undermine the executive branch when Trump won.
It's a disaster that the people don't believe the election of 2020 was legitimate!
This country has no confidence!
So what do you think 2024 has in store?
And I gotta be honest, it's not even 2024 that I'm truly worried about.
It's 2025.
So we'll see.
I suppose I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 4pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Gavin Newsom's children are Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, and Andrew Tate fans?
Or at the very least, they're consuming that content.
This is a tweet from Kenneco of the Great, who said Gavin Newsom is worried about misinformation and quote, micro-cults, because his son is asking him about Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, and Joe Rogan.
The story is actually a couple of weeks old, and I think many people are only just now seeing it, because I think this quote's actually something that should have been reported on.
The idea that Gavin Newsom is freaking out because his kids are watching or listening to podcasters, I think the influence on the younger generation is, I believe they do have reason to be afraid.
If Gavin Newsom's kids are getting strong messaging from better men, That's gonna have a lot of an impact.
A lot of impact on what they do and how they live their lives as they get older.
And I think it's good to hear that there are positive influences in the lives of his children.
Now nobody reported on this.
I was really surprised.
The article from Bloomberg is about JetGPT writing a speech and perhaps that's why nobody cared.
Ain't nobody gonna click on this stupid article.
In it, for seemingly no reason, Gavin Newsom's like, my kids are in a cult!
Aww.
Here's what happens.
Let me read, and I do want to talk about the AI stuff too, but.
More human than human is our motto, Blade Runner.
They introduced their weekly thing, blah blah blah, covering Silicon Valley, etc, etc.
They said they talked with Gavin Newsom about his artificial intelligence journey.
Have you integrated it at all into your work to fine-tune his speech or Newsom says, well, it wrote a better state of the state than we did.
I say that with love and respect to Jason, the Chief of Staff, and Anthony.
We use it all the time.
It walks us down paths we otherwise wouldn't walk.
It allows us to see around angles that we may have missed.
We have fun with BARD and compare and contrast it with ChatGPT.
Wait, are you being facetious about the state of the state?
Did you really ask it to write a speech as we did?
It was better actually.
We did it with my voice and it was 10 times better.
I was candidly, openly frustrated with the edits and I'm like, I can't take this anymore.
Let's just get ChatGPT to do this.
And he came back, I think in 34 seconds.
He says he came back?
You could ask Anthony.
He came back very distressed.
They said, did you use any of it?
No, we couldn't.
We had to be careful.
It did reinforce, though.
We were on the right path, which is good.
Have you talked to your kids about AI?
Here's the good stuff!
He says, I've had a very serious conversation with my oldest daughter about the chatbots on Snap.
Separately, I really worry about the misinformation, disinformation, about what's happening with our country.
But I really worry about these micro-cults that my kids are in.
I say micro-cults, because I don't know if there's a better way to describe it.
My son is asking me about Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, and then immediately he's talking about Joe Rogan, and I'm like, here it is!
The pathway!
The pathway!
Wow!
He said his kids are in a cult.
He says his kids are in a micro-cult.
Okay, first of all, If you listen to Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Andrew Tate, you're in the opposite of a cult.
Because these guys challenge ideas and often don't really have strong ones themselves.
Often they do.
That is to say, I'll cite Jordan Peterson.
Jordan Peterson did an interview with, what was that guy?
Jeffries, or Jim Jeffries, or whatever his name was.
And he said, do you think that, you know, the government should be able to force people to provide services?
He's like, no, I don't think so.
And then they ask him, The guy asked him this years ago.
He's like, what about ending segregation?
Should the government have mandated that businesses provide services to, you know, say, the black population?
And Jordan Peterson says, I think they should have.
And then he's like, but that's contradictory.
And Jordan goes, yeah, maybe I was wrong about that.
It was just the most mundane.
Oh, yeah, you're right.
Good point.
That's the reality of Jordan Peterson.
Now, granted, he's posting a lot of Joker memes lately, and he's getting really angry.
But for, say, Andrew Tate, There's a lot of self-referential humor.
I referenced that video where he's like, I just bought 10 Bugattis!
And then he's like, check it out!
And they're scooters.
Like, come on, dude.
The dude's goofing off half the time.
And then with Joe Rogan, Joe Rogan outright says he's a moron.
And he has a whole bunch of different people talking to him on his show.
And Joe Rogan's show is not even about Joe Rogan.
It's about the guests.
If your kids are getting an eclectic view of the world, and learning from the likes of Jordan Peterson, who openly admits that he may have been wrong, and he's learning, it's not them that's in a cult, bro.
It's you that's in a cult!
Isn't it?
And he calls it a micro-cult.
I think that's funny, because it's not.
That's it.
It's just not.
Kids are watching YouTube or something.
And then here's the best part.
For no reason he brings this up, and for no reason he keeps talking about it.
The interviewer tries to shift back and he goes, do you think AI and the potential for very
believable deepfakes will impact or alter the path of the next presidential election? And he goes,
we've talked to some friends and you may well, you may, you may know them well, I won't name them,
who say this is the last quote unquote fair and free election of our lifetime.
These are pretty credible people.
Unless we dramatically do things differently.
And some would suggest that's not the case.
That's already the ability for bots to direct people into these micro-cults.
Already is outsized in terms of its influence.
That's pretty alarming when you think about it in those terms.
These people are evil.
Gavin Newsom is not a stupid guy.
He's an evil guy.
He's the guy who says, you gotta wear masks, and then goes out and doesn't wear a mask.
Because he doesn't care.
It's all about him.
You know, maybe there's no deep state conspiracy whatever, but I can tell you this.
Come on, this dude's evil.
The idea that there are bots directing you into the cult of Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan is just the most ridiculous thing ever.
Why?
It is the likes of Andrew Tate.
And Andrew Tate is the best example, because he's censored literally everywhere.
Are you kidding?
It's bots doing it.
No, it's people.
Yeah.
The machine is trying everything in its power to stop these individuals from getting followers.
And there it is.
You see, in a free and fair world, people are allowed to follow who they want to follow and ideas resonate with them.
And guess what?
If you are an authentic person like Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan, you're going to build a good following.
Because people trust you.
If someone says to Jordan Peterson, what about the government mandating that you provide services?
No, you can't do that.
What about when it came to civil rights?
Actually, that was a good thing.
So what do you have to say?
Well, I guess I was wrong.
What do you think that means to a regular person?
Like, okay, this guy is trying to be honest.
So I trust him.
Or, I'll give him a little bit of my trust.
Enough.
What about when someone says they're going to cover news topics, they provide the sources, and tell you, hey man, I don't make decisions for you.
You get more trust for that person.
Here's Micah Brzezinski on MSNBC saying, Trump, you know, what did she say?
She effectively said it was her job to tell people what to think.
Something to that effect.
Like, Trump wants to tell people what to think, but that's our job.
Something like that.
Compare and contrast.
The corporate press which says, we are the better men that must tell you.
Versus the people online who are like, hey look man, this is what I noticed, what do you think?
The individualists.
The meritocrats.
My view is, I do not want to be responsible for you.
And I actually reject that.
I don't know if it's joking or not when people are like, Tim, run for office, or whatever, and I'm just like, ha ha ha, very funny, that will never happen.
Because quite literally, like, the ethos of me is, I ain't gonna be responsible for you.
I'm not gonna make your medical decisions, I'm not gonna make your financial decisions, that's your problem, not mine.
Now, I'll try and make sure, to the best of my ability, we are sharing ideas that are true and correct.
Sometimes we get things wrong, often.
But we try.
And then, based on the information you receive, you make your own decisions, man.
You figure out what's right for you.
There are certain things I advocate for 100%, like, y'all, we gotta get people to go vote!
We are looking at this busted-up system, and that means we need ten times the effort when it comes to the 2024 election.
There are certain things where I'm adamant about it.
Free speech, Second Amendment, and nonviolent civil disobedience.
I'm just like, look, there are certain things where I'm like, I want to win, and these things have to be laid out in stone.
But for the most part...
I don't know, man.
You gotta do you.
And if you don't agree with me, I just say, well, comment below.
You're allowed to disagree.
It's fascinating that I have people who comment on my Twitter and YouTube videos saying that I'm just like a spineless liberal and blah, blah, blah conservative saying it.
And I'm like, sure, fine, whatever, man.
I never said I was anything else.
I'm just a dude complaining on the internet.
That's my thing.
But ultimately, my point is this.
The likes of Gavin Newsom, The View, et cetera, all of these corporate narratives, definitively false.
How many lies?
Russell Brand, the most recent one, he said, there's something going on here, and they're like, oh, you conspiracy theorists, and now we have definitive proof of the UK government trying to strip his income from him.
Okay, so that was proven in a week.
How about the Burisma scandal?
They lie, lie, lie.
My favorite, Politico reporting that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to help the Democrats, and then a few years later claiming, nope, actually, that was Russian disinformation, but you published it.
Props to Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson for their positive influence.
Andrew Tate.
Andrew Tate, I'd say, with a little bit more reservation.
Because he's certainly got really awful statements in the past.
But a lot of the stuff he says today, and from what I've seen, it's really good, positive, masculine messaging.
But I don't know enough about Andrew Tate's ethos for me to comment on whether or not I think it's ultimately the best thing.
I don't know enough about him.
So I try to refrain.
Other than to say, he's got some good things I've seen, he's got some bad things I've seen.
What I know of Jordan Peterson is that he's got a lot of crazy things.
I mean, for real.
And Joe Rogan, I think, is a great role model for young people.
So, hey, Gavin.
Calm down.
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.
A video is going viral showing what appears to be a gas station being ransacked by a group of criminals.
And what appears to be a female clerk is being mercilessly beaten.
This video reportedly comes from Seattle.
Seattle shopkeeper beaten and store robbed.
To which I stated, what emotion am I supposed to feel here?
The dudes beating these people and robbing these stores are punishing them for voting this way.
Should I feel bad for someone who begs to allow themselves to be mercilessly beaten?
And oh boy, has this one divided people.
But no, my friends, I think it's funny that there are people who are like, Tim can't accept when he's wrong!
We're talking about opinions.
On fact issues, there's no question.
If someone came to me and said, actually this wasn't in Seattle, this was in Chicago, I'd go, oh wow.
I guess it was wrong.
It's not Seattle.
The data is incorrect.
Sorry about that.
But on issues of morality and personal opinion, why would I change my opinion if it's an opinion statement based on individual moralities?
Now, some moralities are absolute.
I completely agree with a lot of people on this one.
But the question here is, where do we draw the line?
And in this video, oh boy, are people mad.
So I ask you right now for this video, comment below, what emotion should I feel watching these people ransack this store and mercilessly beat a Seattle shopkeeper?
I am not saying to be snarky.
I am not saying that because it's to imply I should feel good about it.
I'm saying, what should I feel?
It's a confusing situation for several reasons, which I'll break down.
When it comes to Seattle, they're 80%.
In fact, I think it's 82% Democrat.
82%!
So if you live in this city, and you are of the 18% that doesn't vote Democrat, full stop!
It's only 12% Republican, I believe.
Which means another 6% are likely voting Green Party or Libertarian or something else.
But the overwhelming majority vote for these policies.
We had the Chazz Chop.
Okay?
People were murdered there.
So there are questions about why someone would choose to live in a place where they would be or could be mercilessly beaten.
And thus, we enter into the more difficult questions.
Nuance Bro says, Tim, I thought we've been through this before.
This ain't the way, brother.
What's not the way?
Me saying I don't know how to feel about this?
How do you guys feel about this?
Seriously, comment below.
Let's break this one down.
Let me lay it out for you.
Here's what I said.
When a man runs into a burning building to save his pets, we say he made his choice.
Some call him stupid.
In fact, there have been many instances where people have been arrested for this.
No joke.
There's a viral video of a man.
You see a burning house.
He runs in full speed, runs inside straight through the flames, and people are screaming, no, don't.
And then he runs out, I think with two dogs, and the dogs run out with him.
And his arms are burned pretty bad.
And they said, how stupid for a dog.
That's kind of crazy to me.
Our dogs are loyal to us.
We're loyal to our dogs.
Dogs are family members, but a lot of people just say dogs aren't people, man.
Dogs don't live that long.
Why risk your 70 years, 80 years for a dog that's got 15?
He made his choice.
Maybe he was stupid.
However, if a person runs into a building to save children, they're a hero.
Any children, not even their own.
I said, if someone chooses to, so if it's for his kids, he's a hero.
If someone chooses to stand in a burning building because they have nowhere else to go and fear homelessness, I don't know what to say.
So let's entertain this possibility.
There's a burning building.
And a man runs full speed into the building and then stands in the kitchen.
And you're going, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE FOR YOU!
And they go, yeah, but I don't want to be outside, it's snowing.
The cold is bad for me, it's wet, I could get sick, I could die, it's hard to be out there, at least in the kitchen.
The kitchen's not- Hey, it's the living room on fire.
I may get burned.
It's falling down around me.
Okay, now I'm confused.
Now I'm confused.
I said we have been over this.
The conclusion is some people have a reason to stay and fight the fire.
Some are trying to save their kids.
Others fear that life is harder if they were to move and choose the chaos and hardship of the city around them.
Others actively vote for it to the tune of 80%.
No, I do not feel that I'm wrong to ask this question.
Hence, what emotion am I supposed to feel here?
Here's some responses.
What were the responses?
This is not a new question.
Schadenfreude exists for a reason.
I'm not experiencing schadenfreude.
I don't watch a store clerk get beaten and then say, haha, you get what you deserve.
I'm asking, what should I feel?
What should I feel if someone runs into a burning building?
Or how about this?
What should I feel?
If someone is standing in their kitchen, when a fire starts, and we're screaming, there's a fire, there's a fire, and they go, I don't care.
And you say, you gotta get out, the fire's spreading, it's coming to the kitchen!
And they're like, yeah, but it's cold outside!
And I'm like, okay dude.
I don't know what to tell you.
Now here's the reality.
It's snowing outside, it's sleeting, it's hail, it's 30, let's say it's minus 5 degrees.
You could die in that weather.
Where will you go?
You can't just leave your house.
Okay, well, the fire's coming for you.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
We'll try and help you to the best of our abilities.
We'll try and put the fire out.
We do.
That's what speaking out about all this is.
It's why we challenge these awful policies.
But in the meantime, bro, you either need to have a real reason why you're there, and I can respect the real reason.
You're not just standing in the kitchen.
You're protecting your kids.
Fair.
Your kid's trapped.
His leg is pinned down.
You're not leaving.
If that kid is still there, respect it.
And that's the people who are like, look man, I have kids here, we're divorced, my wife and I are divorced, we can't, I can't just leave the state with my kids here, I'm not going anywhere.
Totally fair, acceptable.
In which case, is this story an instance of someone who can't leave?
Probably not.
And I don't know what to feel.
I can make assumptions about the store clerk being attacked, but I'm not talking about the individual clerk, I'm talking about the city as a whole.
What am I supposed to be?
It's not schadenfreude.
Now, if there is someone who goes on TV and says something like, we should invite all of these migrants into this country.
In fact, I'm gonna invite them in my home.
And we're like, stop!
Don't do that!
And then they get mercilessly beaten.
Some might feel schadenfreude if that migrant then went around robbing people.
Let's say that.
Let's say there's a story where An illegal immigrant is let in to the country by someone who says, we welcome all of these people.
Then that person harms you and you're like, I've been, you, how dare you?
Then that, that, that illegal immigrant goes and robs this person.
I'm not saying all illegal immigrants are doing that.
I'm saying in this particular instance, as an example of schadenfreude, you might be like, ha!
Now you get what you deserve, right?
You started this, it's schadenfreude.
I'm not a big fan of schadenfreude.
I don't typically care for the idea of enjoying anyone suffering.
It pisses me off.
I don't feel good about it.
One person says, sadness.
For the moment and situation we are in, but move on to solving problems.
It's what men's do.
Empathy for getting punched in the face.
Voting a certain way doesn't justify getting punched in the face.
You more than likely would have just watched.
Entirely depends, to be completely honest.
And more than likely, perhaps.
Perhaps more than likely.
Why?
If I was on a train in Philadelphia and I saw a man start raping a woman, yeah, I would probably fight the guy.
I don't think there's a question of what I would or would not be thinking.
I would probably just... I don't know.
Instinctive reaction?
And there are a lot of people who are like, yeah, you talk big.
Just watch the videos of- Watch the video- I was on Tucker Carlson.
Antifa guy attacked me, started swinging at me.
I- I- I- I- I- I- Locked my abs, I just stood there, and I was just like, What are you doing?
He started throwing flinches at my face, and I just stayed there, pointing the camera at his face.
I did not move.
He didn't attack me.
So I- I didn't do anything to him.
I certainly didn't run away or do nothing.
If I was on a train and I saw what happened in Philly because that happened, I'd probably just instinctively lose it and run up and attack the guy.
In this instance, with this gas station, in Seattle, different question.
Different question about what's going on.
First of all, come on bro.
Am I as an individual going to be able to fight five dudes?
That's a stupid question.
Or a nonsensical statement.
If a building is burning down, Am I able to put that fire out by myself?
Some things are just illogical and impractical.
Like, okay, I don't know what I can do.
What I can do is call the police and call for help.
That's the best I can do.
But when it comes to someone running into a burning building for no reason.
If I'm outside a burning building and someone's like, I'm gonna go in there and stand around.
I'll be like, uh, don't do that.
I'll try and stop them.
I'll say, hey man, stop.
And if they go in, I'm not gonna run in after them, would you?
Now how about this?
A man crying says, my baby is still upstairs.
And runs in.
Man.
That's tough.
That's real tough.
I don't know if I have the answers.
He runs in and I can respect 100% the sacrifice being made there.
Maybe the store clerk is there for those reasons.
I don't have all the answers.
What I do know is that 82% of the people keep voting for this over and over and over again.
Despite the fact that you had the Chazz Chop.
Despite the fact that in the Pacific Northwest it continually gets worse and worse.
The crime is running rampant.
The homelessness businesses are shutting down.
Everywhere!
That the Chas Chopp extremists murdered people, and they keep voting for it.
Which brings me to this conclusion.
My friends, if you tell me you want a policy that will result in risks to your life, but you accept those risks, I am not going to feel bad for you because you got what you asked for.
It is the projection of values of people who don't live here, and I do not... I don't care for that.
If a dude in Seattle says, we want no cash bail, and then we say, you will likely see more violent criminals on the streets, and they say, so be it.
I say, okay.
Then when they get attacked by a violent criminal, I'm going to be like, who am I to say they should not live the way they knowingly chose to live?
If they scream for help, yeah, I'll try and help them.
But at a certain point, you're going to be like, dude, if I don't have the means or the capacity, I can't.
And I can't help you, dude.
Y'all voted for this.
Y'all want this way of life.
It's no secret.
It's not confusing.
Across the board, we see things like this.
San Francisco is in decay.
New York, Chicago, LA, all of these big cities are suffering from this stuff.
And they keep voting for it.
What do you do?
If a dude keeps sticking his hand on an oven, you try and stop him.
But at a certain point, it's like, you can't live with this guy and be their keeper!
So at a certain point, I see this stuff and I'm like, well, and the people of Seattle vote for it.
Ultimately, my problem boils down to this.
While I can respect some people have real reasons to stay in these cities, protecting family, I do not respect the it's too hard argument.
And I've heard that from a lot of people.
I'm sorry, I just don't respect it.
I was living in Chicago, and I get it.
I know.
You know, I was 23.
It's a lot easier to do.
And with only a couple hundred bucks, I traveled all the way across the country to California, fully prepared to just figure it out.
And I did.
That was hard.
What else am I gonna do?
Nothing?
Just stay in a bad place where things were getting worse?
New York's a better example.
When the bombs went off, and I'm like, I gotta get out of here.
It was very difficult to move.
Not easy.
For a lot of people, they say, I can't move, it's too hard.
Where will I go?
I don't have a job.
And I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay.
My argument is, you're sitting in your living room, and a small fire starts in your garage.
Well, it's snowing outside.
And what are you gonna do?
Just stand outside?
You have nowhere else to go.
There's no food outside.
It's gonna be hard.
The question is, is what is occurring in your city worse or better than dealing with the hardship?
The truth is, here's a reason why I ask this question.
How should I feel?
For these people in Seattle who know the problems are getting worse, don't want them to get worse and don't vote for it, but choose to stay there.
What they are saying is the problems they experience are easier to deal with than moving.
Well, okay then.
Deal with the problems you know surround you.
I'll do my best to speak out against them.
Respect.
But recognize, there's not a lot of sympathy I can have for someone who says, I'd rather be here being robbed and beaten than have to live somewhere else and start over and deal with, you know, hardship.
Okay, then you're saying being beaten is easier than moving.
Okay.
So what am I supposed to feel?
Am I supposed to be like, oh, that's too bad.
Or am I supposed to be like, well, we got to help this person.
No, it's just like, okay, dude.
It must not be that bad.
For real.
I'll tell you what I don't like.
Is that people keep making excuses.
For the people in these places that vote for policies that not only destroy their cities, but destroy the rest of the country.
Take, for instance, these bans on guns.
You don't live in these areas.
Why are you subjected to laws by these psychopaths who are voting intentionally to burn down the cities around us?
If I live in the middle of nowhere, why am I subjected to these federal laws of these crackpots in these cities who want to make things worse?
I can't support people who are trying to destroy my life outside of these places!
We moved to West Virginia.
We like Second Amendment.
They're trying to take it away from us in New York.
New York members of Congress and Senate go to the federal government and say, I shouldn't be allowed to have weapons.
Baltimore votes that I can't have an M1A where I live in the Western Panhandle.
Or I say where we work out of the Western Panhandle.
I live in West Virginia.
We're the tri-state.
Why is that?
Baltimore is in chaos and disrepair, and they vote at the state level to take away my rights.
Am I going to defend these people when they live in the world they want to live?
There are no easy answers, and I am not the arbiter of morality.
I am simply saying, for me, as a personal individual, you will be hard-pressed to find sympathy for those who choose to live that way in Baltimore, when they try and take my rights away from me, and continually pass policies, laws, that destroy the city around them, and try and send it my way, when I don't live there.
For the people of Seattle, I just say, okay man, like, that's your city.
Best of luck to you.
That's what it is, man.
Let me know what you think.
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.
I decided for the last segment of the week I'll just piss off the establishment mainstream and, uh, I don't know.
I'll just talk about American culture for a second because I saw this story and just had a lot of thoughts.
Here's the title.
Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards' OnlyFans model daughter, Sammy, 19, details struggle to quit vaping ahead of breast augmentation surgery as she admits she hasn't gone a single day without nicotine since age 14.
My!
Stars and Garters, welcome my friends to Sodom and Gomorrah, I guess.
Seamus Goglin said to me, I guess it's a quote from somebody else, but he said, if God does not smite the United States, he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.
And I'm like, yikes!
That is a bold assessment of the current state of politics here in the United States, but I think you need only look at this headline to understand.
Sammy admitted she hadn't gone a single day without nicotine for five years.
Fourteen years old?
So, oh man.
So many questions, so many critiques.
I feel bad for this human being.
I feel bad and also partly don't care.
I'm gonna be crude and crass and say this as academically as I can.
First, I have no personal issue with this individual.
Probably a nice person, you know, live your life, do your thing, face your struggles, and be your best person.
I believe that this 19-year-old appears to have plastic surgery of some kind, and maybe lip fillers or something like this.
OnlyFansModel suggests prostitute.
I don't want to definitively say she is a prostitute, because I don't know.
There are prominent individuals who don't use OnlyFans for sexually explicit content.
They just post, like, exclusive pictures of themselves?
No, it's true, though.
They're very famous individuals on OnlyFans, and they make millions of dollars per year, some per month, not doing sex.
But it's overwhelmingly sex, so I mostly just assume if you're not a huge celebrity movie star, like in this instance, you're just the child of celebrities, then I have to wonder if you're probably just doing porn.
And so, here we go.
Breast augmentation surgery.
95,600 followers on TikTok.
Not the most prominent individual.
Smoking can increase complications when getting breast surgeries.
I'm sorry.
I saw this story, and it's a 19-year-old covered in, uh, I shouldn't say covered in, but lots of tattoos.
Uh, no real people tattoos, just pointing it out.
Appears to have lip fillers, maybe not, okay, could be wrong.
Getting a boob job.
Smoking, uh, ingesting, I just say, nicotine, since the age of 14 every single day.
And it makes me just feel like, man, there are things wrong with this country.
And it brings me to the sad state of affairs that, you good sir, watching this segment.
I know you.
Hard-working guy.
You got some kids.
You're just trying to make sure they have the best life.
You're trying to raise them right.
You want your kids to be good people, to know the value of hard work.
But you can't help but see these stories of what happens to these kids who grow up with everything they have ever wanted.
Now, I'll tell you.
You talk to these individuals, and I don't mean, you know, this woman in particular or specifically.
But a lot of people in the similar space.
And they'll tell you, it's not true!
I've never got everything I've ever wanted!
You don't know me!
You don't know my struggles!
Spare me.
No, for real.
There are whole other worlds, but problems and challenges are just unique to the individual, and everyone has them.
No matter how wealthy you are, you have stress, you have hardship, and there are things you have to deal with.
It's a little bit different for everybody, though, and especially if you are wealthy, so I'll put it this way.
Yeah, I know people who are super wealthy and have always been wealthy.
I knew one individual who was stressed out.
Why was she stressed out?
Her parents weren't paying off her credit card.
And she was stressed because she didn't know if she was going to be able to travel with her friends.
And she was like, I am so frustrated right now.
I am freaking out.
My parents haven't paid off my credit card bill and we're supposed to fly to Cabo.
I'm somewhat embellishing, not embellishing, but altering the details of the story for the sake of the individual's privacy.
But stories are basically like that.
And I'm like, oh, growing up, my stresses were like, the fridge is empty.
You know what I mean?
Or like when I'm a teenager and I'm, you know, living by myself, I'm like, how am I eating today?
We're paying rent.
Some of our challenges and struggles are a bit more serious, but hey, don't get me wrong, these people feel stress, they feel depression, because everyone's challenges, it's all relative to your life.
And depression is serious, no matter how rich or poor you are, depression can end you.
I mean, there are tons of ultra-rich people, like Kurt Cobain!
Well, we don't need to get into all that, but there are a lot of high-profile individuals who are very wealthy, who became depressed and ended their lives.
Having money does not mean you don't feel pain.
My point is simply this.
For all of you at home, And so this is what gives me pause when I hear conservatives say things like, My kids will never know the hardship I knew.
Yeah, that hardship made you who you were.
in the news stories, the problems that these people face is, no, their food's taken care of.
They've got everything they want for nothing. And this is what they become.
And so this is what gives me pause when I hear conservatives say things like,
my kids will never know the hardship I knew. Yeah, that hardship made you who you were.
It made you strong. Think about it this way.
Let's say you're a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Taekwondo, Karate, Wing Chun, name it!
Krav Maga.
Let's say you're a master of all of these things.
Did you experience hardship to become a master of these martial arts?
How about this?
You can punch through three cinder blocks.
Imagine saying, I want my kid to be as strong as me, but they will never have to train.
Well, that makes no sense.
Of course, yeah.
Ah, but training's hardship, isn't it?
In order to get to the point where you can deadlift 400 pounds, you had to lift 200 pounds.
You had to work every day and risk injury.
And some days it was really hard.
You wanted to have that ultimate male physique and you worked every day and you just slammed chicken and fish and protein shakes?
And then you think your kid will have that physique, that strength, that understanding of hard work without actually doing it?
The reality is this.
The reason why you're a successful personality who has made all this money is because your hardship was your training.
And some people don't have that.
If your children do not experience hardship, they'll be soft, chain-smoking prostitutes getting boob jobs by 19.
Or, you can make sure your kids do understand a degree of hardship.
Now, I'm not saying put your kids into coal mines.
That's ridiculous.
I'm saying think about what you went through.
When you say you don't want your kids to experience these things, to be fair, you may be referring to, like, serious traumas you've experienced that they shouldn't deal with.
Things that did not make you stronger, but hurt you and maybe held you back.
That I get.
What I'm saying is, there are people I know who are rich.
They weren't always rich.
They worked really, really hard and fought their way from the bottom of the bucket of crabs and broke free.
And they became wealthy and successful.
You raise your kids in this pampered lifestyle.
Those kids aren't going to be successful.
They'll always live in your shadow and never understand the hard work that it took to get to the point that you made it to.
I wonder about, like, Charlie Sheen.
I don't know his background.
This is Charlie Sheen, right?
Yeah, Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards.
Uh, I'm gonna be completely honest.
They're bad parents.
That's just it.
Not always the parent's fault.
Not always.
So it's not necessarily completely fair, but I would say, let me rephrase, I think it's probable they're bad parents.
I know a lot of people who are good parents, and mistakes happen.
We had on Katie Faust talking about how drugs can just take your kid away from you like that, nothing you can do about it.
And I'm like, yeah, it's tough.
Because you try and tell your kids how to be good, do right, and then they make mistakes, and those mistakes can be instantaneous and fatal.
If a kid gets groomed and manipulated and kidnapped, I don't blame the parents.
If a kid gets groomed and kidnapped and then abused and traumatized to the point where they become drug addicts and they're all, you know, messed up for the rest of their lives, I don't blame the parents.
But if you've got parents of means and wealth, there is a good chance that your kid who grows up to, you know, just be listless, drug abusing, there's a good chance it is your fault.
What did you do to protect your kid adequately?
What I mean to say is, as parents you bear the most responsibility for what your child becomes.
Sometimes the bad things you do can be good for your kids.
Maybe the lesson learned by your child through neglect was independence.
Maybe the lesson learned by your child from you actually guiding and protecting them was codependence.
I'm not saying I have all the answers, or that, you know, I'm not a parent.
What I am saying I lament, many people probably do, the current state of affairs in this country when we see the degradation, when we see the gluttony of young people.
I guess my message is just this.
Seeing this story, I asked myself, how does this person become what they are now?
Why isn't she playing a piano in an orchestra?
Why isn't she just, you know, I don't know, doing art, making music, acting?
Why is she doing OnlyFans and getting a boob job at 19?
You know what, man?
It's America.
You do what you want to do.
If Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards don't care and she doesn't care, then I'm not going to intervene.
I'm more libertarian.
But it does make me just want to say to everybody, Take a role in your kids' lives and homeschool your kids.
Your kids should be watching you and emulating you.
If you neglect them and let them be raised by television or the internet or these schools, they'll become something unrecognizable that will cause them harm.
