Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 19, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:22:48

Leftist RIOTS ERUPT In Support Of Hamas, Corporate Press EXPOSED Posting LIES In Support Of Hamas

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 Leftist RIOTS ERUPT In Support Of Hamas, Corporate Press EXPOSED Posting LIES In Support Of Hamas Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:19:19

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:30

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Make sure to go to TimCast.com.
		Click join us and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do, and you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
		Now, let's jump into the first story.
		Chaos in Berlin.
		65 police officers injured as pro-Palestine activists riot and set fires during banned protest.
		I'm not a fan of the idea of banning protests, and we've heard this in more than one location.
		I think in France as well, they said, you're not allowed to protest in support of Palestine!
		Or Hamas, because many of them are actually protesting in support of Hamas.
		But, either way, what we're seeing is chaos, and what I think we're seeing is the... The mask has been ripped clean off, and it's funny because we say it quite a bit, the left will do something evil, and then we'll be like, oh look, the mask's come off, and it's like, okay, well, look, at this point, I think we get it.
		But this one, man, I don't even know if they grabbed the mask off, they basically ripped off their skin suits, revealing a demon face.
		Because what we're getting now is, I think this is just shocking, the amount of evil on display.
		And I, man, it's crazy because when I was younger, I hated to use the word evil, but let me explain.
		You have people violently rioting in support of what was an overt Definitive, as a statement of fact, act of terror targeting civilians.
		The pro-Palestinians themselves say that Hamas targets civilians.
		They lied about a hospital being bombed.
		The media then runs fake images.
		I kid you not.
		The New York Times, not having an image of a decimated, leveled hospital, shows different photos while running the headline about a hospital being bombed to make you think the building they're showing was the hospital.
		Why?
		I don't know.
		Because they're evil, maybe?
		Jeremy Boring of the Daily Wire was speaking with Piers Morgan and there's an article from the Daily Wire up.
		And I am absolutely impressed with Jeremy Boring consistently.
		We had him on the show, and the man is deeply insightful.
		Seriously, I mean, he talks about the issue here, and the issue of moral equivalency, and how we should respond.
		And I want to read some of the statements for you, because I think we can break down the general idea of what it means to try to be good.
		Not that we're good.
		But I see this story in the morning about more far leftists riding.
		We have this story out of D.C.
		where far leftists stormed the Capitol.
		300 arrests!
		Insurrection?
		Parading in a building?
		Trespass?
		We gonna get any of that?
		Of course not.
		Dave Smith, famed libertarian and comedian, made a good point.
		Look, we don't want the far left, these leftists supporting Palestine, to be arrested and given solitary confinement for two years and then get sentenced to 20 years in prison.
		It's the feds that did that.
		We don't want that.
		We want the opposite.
		We want this to set the precedent.
		You should let the other guys go.
		Time served.
		How about that?
		But I think when you combine all these stories, when we look at these protests and what's going on and how the far left has responded to what is abject terror and the targeting of civilians, evil, you can see the mask is off.
		Engaging in violence in support of those who are violent.
		And I will give you this.
		They say Palestine's an open-air prison and thus they are justified and we must free Palestine from the river to the sea and all that stuff.
		What about the Uighur Muslims?
		You want to talk about an open-air prison?
		How about a closed-door prison where women undergo forced abortions in the Uyghur Muslim camps in China?
		No, Disney thanked them.
		Thanked the security forces operating that.
		You see, this is why I am opposed, for the most part, to foreign intervention.
		I'm not so blind and naive to think that there's never a circumstance that, you know, the U.S.
		would need to be involved in some capacity.
		I'm overwhelmingly just opposed to it.
		I'll tell you why.
		We have right now in China concentration camps of Uyghur Muslims who are raped and then given forced abortions.
		It is specifically targeting an ethnic and religious minority group.
		We know it's happening.
		Disney praises the forces behind it.
		Nothing.
	Not a peep.
	No one cares.
	Why?
	Because the real issue is that when the politics of the individual are aligned with the actions, you will get press coverage, you will get Care.
	And so what we can see is, when you see stories like this about Hamas attacking Israel, I say, wow!
	October 7th, overt terrorism.
	And they say, what about the history of the region?
	Okay, let's talk about the history of literally every other region everywhere.
	You don't come to me and complain about what's going on in other countries.
	And that's why I say, why are we involved?
	Why is this one, one issue, right now, Well, to be fair, what happened to Israel?
	1,400 dead civilians targeted.
	That I get.
	But here's where it gets worse.
	Joe Biden goes to Tel Aviv, speaks with Israel, and what does he do?
	He pledges $100 million to Gaza.
	Gaza and the West Bank.
	He does not speak of the American hostages being held.
	No.
	He says, I'm gonna give money to the people who started this.
	Now they'll argue, we didn't start it, we're responding.
	Dude, I don't care.
	I'm not gonna trace back the history of every nation and every conflict.
	I'm gonna say, right now on October 7th, Hamas attacked Israel.
	Killing civilians, capturing civilians, killing children.
	Now you can argue about whether or not children lost their heads.
	You can have all those arguments and whatever, I don't care.
	They did.
	There's photos, there's videos.
	The preponderance of evidence is, I shouldn't even say that, the evidence, in my view, right now, Says to me beyond a reasonable doubt.
	Well, I've seen videos of civilians being killed.
	Some of it's unverified.
	And you take a look at what Hamas did the other day, claiming that a hospital was blown up and 500 people were dead.
	Lies.
	And the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, and many others, many other corporate news networks ran the lie.
	Let's break this down.
	Let's break this down.
	Here's the story from Breitbart.
	Last night, 65 officers injured as pro-Palestine activists riot and set fires during banned protests.
	And you know what?
	I don't know what you expect.
	The governments of the EU, the United States, the West, have courted the far left.
	Courted them!
	So don't come to me all bent out of shape now.
	This is what you wanted, isn't it?
	On Wednesday evening, protests were held throughout Germany following the explosion at the hospital in Gaza, which international media initially blamed on Israel without evidence.
	And not only was there no evidence that Israel did this, there was no evidence the hospital even collapsed.
	There was no evidence the hospital was leveled.
	There was no evidence the hospital was even hit.
	Crazy, huh?
	Seriously.
	It was all just assumed.
	Hey, fair point.
	We here at TimCast, we assumed it too.
	Because Israel and Hamas were arguing over who did it.
	And we were like, well then, the assumption immediately was that it happened.
	And then the next day, it turns out, parking lot.
	I mean, people got hurt.
	It's bad.
	It's war.
	Parking lot fire.
	I'm not kidding.
	No crater.
	No blast on the building.
	All buildings intact.
	Parking lot fire.
	They lied.
	In Berlin, through Neukölln, hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists gathered despite the city's ban on anti-Israel protests.
	I'm not a fan of that.
	Let them protest.
	Just don't riot.
	The demonstration devolved into violence and rioting, with local police reporting the demonstrators attacked officers with stones, bottles, and makeshift pyrotechnic missiles.
	According to the Berlin police, 174 people were arrested at the banned protest, and 65 police officers were injured during the rioting that lasted until the early hours of Thursday morning.
	The protest was organized by the Youth Against Racism activist group.
	You know, I think it's, I think it's funny.
	I mean, this stuff's happening all over the world.
	From Amman to DC, protests erupt for Palestinians following the Gaza hospital blast.
	We live in a world of darkness, my friends.
	These people, I just, abject evil.
	We seek to understand to the best of our abilities.
	This is science, right?
	The goal of science, for me, to better understand the world, to bring about solutions, to improve the lives of humans, and to be better stewards of the Earth.
	That's something I heard from Jeremy Boring too, to be good stewards of the Earth.
	I like that one.
	So we need to know what the facts are.
	With these protests here, it's not a question of morals or facts, it's a question of nihilistic destruction.
	That's it.
	I'll tell you right now.
	You can argue all day and night about the history of the region.
	Should we go back to the nation of Judea?
	When do we decide when people were displaced and deserve their land back?
	Who stole what land from who?
	The people in Gaza right now, they're talking about losing their land in 1948.
	How many of those people were alive back then?
	And you can argue it's recent history.
	Fine, but it's war.
	War is bad.
	We try to minimize it.
	And I can tell you this right now.
	I've asked, I'll ask everybody.
	If the security barriers around Gaza were removed right now and Israel said to the people of Gaza, please free movement, what would happen?
	I do not believe anyone, anyone could make the argument that Israeli civilians would take up guns and run full speed into the Gaza Strip and start massacring civilians.
	But people from Gaza would run full speed into Israel and they would take up guns and they would massacre civilians.
	Don't believe me?
	Well, when they paraglide in and tear the fences down, that's what happened.
	And of course, many of the pro-Palestine, uh, pro-Gaza would say, yes, but it's because they want their land back.
	Yeah, okay.
	Right.
	Uh, war's over.
	Okay.
	The idea that you would argue that they are justified in engaging in warfare, which will kill civilians.
	Sorry, not happening.
	That's it.
	If the Uyghur Muslims broke out of the camp and started massacring civilians, yeah, I'm going to speak out against the Uyghur Muslims.
	No question.
	If the Uyghur Muslims break out of the camps and try to flee, and they seek to secure a certain territory to protect themselves, I'm on their side.
	If Hamas broke through the barriers and expanded their territory, gained ground, and ushered away all the civilians, we would be having a very, very different conversation.
	If they minimize civilian casualties, and this was a conflict between Hamas and Israel, the militaries and civilians were spared, very different conversation.
unidentified		Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
		Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
		Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
		These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
		Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
		Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
		See you on the tour.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bye bye.
		You can make the argument that fighting over land, I mean, you've got war.
		What can we say?
		The Palestinians are making a claim.
		That's different for me.
		This one we're seeing right now?
		Let me show you where we're at.
		300 protesters pleading for a ceasefire were arrested on Capitol Hill, organizers say.
		The New York Times is an evil organization.
		It is a skin suit worn by evil people masquerading as journalism.
		Don't believe me?
		I've got the tweets!
		Michael P. Sanger.
		I'm not familiar, I don't know, who's this?
		Author of Snake Oil, How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World tweets.
		Yesterday, when the New York Times published a fictitious story from Hamas about Israel bombing a hospital, the New York Times used a picture from a completely different location to make it look like a picture of the hospital that was destroyed.
		Astonishing disinformation and journalistic malpractice.
		Now, I'm a careful here, right?
		It's a screenshot.
		I don't know if it's real.
		I'm just assuming that it is.
		But I'll tell you that.
		I believe that it is absolutely likely because we've seen this numerous times.
		It is true.
		The New York Times does these things.
		You take a look at this image.
		It says, Israeli forces again bombarded Gaza with airstrikes on Tuesday, including the southern cities of Yedidah.
		Israeli strike kills hundreds in hospital, Palestinians say.
		And then they put a photo of a different building.
		Because they wanted you to believe that what the Palestinians said was true.
		Was it true?
unidentified		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It is absolutely.
		Well, I should calm down.
		Based on the evidence we have so far, from satellite, from drone imagery, from footage, from the site, from numerous angles and numerous individuals, parking lot fire.
		Hundreds did not die.
		But wait, there's more!
		The Wall Street Journal!
		I'm typically a fan of the Wall Street Journal.
		Blast at Gaza hospital kills hundreds.
		Fake news.
		That's crazy, right?
		And now we have this.
		The Wall Street Journal runs this story the next day.
		U.S.
		experts say evidence suggests Palestinian militants rocket hit Gaza hospital.
		It's almost like the Wall Street Journal didn't want to retract their overt lies.
		Failure of journalism.
		So instead of saying, whoopsie daisies, we got this one wrong.
		Sorry about that.
		What they should have said is, with the deepest remorse and regret, we apologize for believing Hamas.
		And this is the world we live in, and what people need to understand about the far left.
		You and I, I think that who we are, are just regular people trying to figure out the world.
		We don't know what is absolutely true.
		There are certain things we think are good and bad, and we are trying our best to understand the nature of what's happening in our country and around the world to solve these problems and bring peace so that people can live peacefully and successfully with their families.
		And that means, when it comes to war and conflict, when it comes to the culture of war and American politics, we need the truth.
		Because what we're trying to do is adjudicate to the best of our abilities.
		Two people stand before us.
		One person says, they attacked my hospital.
		I say, oh, did they?
		That's really bad.
		They shouldn't have done that.
		What did you say?
		No, we didn't.
		They bombed their own hospital.
		Okay.
		Well, here's what we don't want.
		Civilians shouldn't die.
		If the argument from both sides is civilians died, then clearly the solution here is minimizing civilian casualties.
		Let's figure out what happened here so we can do just that.
		As it turns out, One person lied to us.
		Hospital wasn't even hit.
		One person was wrong.
		They assumed the hospital was hit.
		And the media ran the lies of the people who claimed the hospital was blown up, was leveled, they claimed.
		Leveled!
		That's crazy.
		They said leveled.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		Maybe because the New York Times ran fake photos.
		I mean, they're real photos, but they're not photos of the actual site.
		And that's something I noticed right away with this story.
		When we had a super chat on Timcast IRL and someone said, Hamas's rockets could not level a hospital, they're not strong enough, it had to have been Israel, I said, was the hospital leveled?
		I didn't see that.
		Is that what happened?
		People just said it.
		They believed it.
		They pushed the lies.
		It was a big super chat too.
		And maybe this individual was just wrong and really thought that's what happened.
		And the next day we see parking lot fire.
		No blast crater.
		What likely happened?
		Hamas firing rockets in civilian territory over civilian structures.
		One of the rocket's propulsion systems malfunctioned, causing it to sputter out, dropping its propulsion system in one area, small explosion, and its payload on the hospital, larger explosion.
		Did not kill hundreds.
		But this is what you'll get.
		And for this now, you have Harvard students doubling down.
		And I'm glad!
		Good, good, good!
		The culture war is heating up over this.
		And I'm glad it is.
		It's time to put an end to the abject evil that is modern American leftism.
		And I don't mean the typical liberal.
		A lot of liberals are coming out right now.
		It's amazing to see Ted Lieu on the right side of this one.
		I find that fascinating.
		Saying like, Hamas lied and the media just believed all of it.
		Yeah.
		Uh-huh.
		The corporate press is the enemy of the people.
		These abject lies, overt lies, to sow discord and chaos, to support evil people who killed civilians.
		They say Israel killed civilians.
		Yeah.
		All right.
		Do I?
		Where is this?
		From the Daily Wire.
		I saw this article.
		Moral equivalency is nonsense.
		Jeremy Boring shreds Piers Morgan's guest attacks on Ben Shapiro.
		Wow.
		Wow, absolutely brilliant.
		And Jeremy Boring breaks down masterfully and brilliantly where we're at.
		Let me read this for you.
		And I'll be the first to say, I've been lightly critical of Ben.
		I wouldn't say harshly critical because I mostly agree with him.
		I just think, and I respectfully understand why he's as agitated as he is.
		He's very, very passionate about this.
		He was there before the attack happened.
		He has family and friends there.
		Totally get it.
		And it's almost meaningless for me to be like, if Ben lowers the temperature a little bit, he might be more effective.
		It's like, how do you tell someone who's witnessing their friends and family, their communities being attacked and massacred, like, to calm down?
		So it's like, I think logically, it's like, you can be more effective here.
		But, sympathetically, I'm like, I totally get it, man.
		I totally get it, right?
		Daily Wire co-founder Jeremy Boren responded to criticism of his colleague Ben Shapiro by Egyptian comedian Bassem Youssef on Piers Morgan's show Uncensored Tuesday night.
		Bassem Youssef came on, sardonically said he agrees with Shapiro so that he would avoid being called a terrorist sympathizer, before falsely accusing the Daily Wire host of wanting to kill, I'm sorry, wanting Israel to kill everyone in the Gaza Strip.
		You see how they lie?
		I just can't stand these people, dude!
		I try to give- I try to steal men and give as much leeway to my political opponents as possible, and they lie all the time.
	So annoying.
	And at a certain point, it's just like, okay, we're dealing with evil.
	What do we do?
	I think it's just time to stop giving figurative quarter.
	Stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.
	He said his solution was for Israel to annex Gaza and kill as many of SOBs as possible to make sure it'll never happen again.
	Yusuf said before falsely claiming that Israel killed 500 people in an airstrike on a hospital.
	You see how they lie?
	So my question to Ben Shapiro is how many more SOBs do we have to kill before he's happy?
	Because the implication from Bassem Yusuf is that Ben Shapiro is saying target civilians.
	He's not.
	Morgan pushed back on Yusuf's accusations against Shapiro saying the Canadian was conflating different interviews.
	And he played a clip of what Shapiro actually said, calling for targeting Hamas.
	All these leftists say, Palestine is not Hamas.
	Okay, then you should have no problem with Israel sending, I don't know, strike forces into Gaza to execute Hamas leaders.
	Is that what you're arguing for?
	AOC basically called for that.
	No, they wouldn't want that.
	They'd say, no, don't do it, don't invade.
	Okay, so then airstrikes?
	There's gonna be collateral damage, civilians are gonna die.
	Yeah, right, we don't want that.
	I don't know how to respond, right?
	I don't want civilian casualties.
	Jeremy Boring breaks it down.
	Let me read. Morgan then bought brought on boring, who was listening to use of segment and gave him
	a chance to respond. He says, Well, first of all, I make it a point not to speak for Ben Shapiro.
	He's got 20 IQ points on me and speaks for a living professionally, so he's much better prepared to defend himself.
	But as his business partner and his best friend, I do feel I have to respond to the things that Basim was just saying.
	With all due respect, I gotta be honest, I think with respect to Ben Shapiro, Jeremy Boring's answer was top-notch.
	You know, he can be humble and say Ben's got 20 points on him.
	I think his response here is It's just better.
	No disrespect, I'm just saying, Jeremy.
	He says, first of all, the question of how many SOBs have to be killed to end this conflict, I suppose that the answer is, as many of them as it takes.
	That doesn't mean that I or Ben or any decent person in their right mind is happy with the killing of civilians.
	I posed at the very beginning of this conflict that a woman or child blown apart in Gaza is just as tragic as a Jewish baby killed in one of the settlements.
	That doesn't mean that Israel's actions or the actions of Hamas are morally equivalent.
	The tragedy is a tragedy, but the moral equivalency is nonsense.
	If you entered Israel with the express purpose of targeting and murdering civilians with your own hands and cold blood, that is not comparable to Israel bombing targets in the Gaza Strip and killing civilians as a terrible, tragic consequence.
	War is terrible.
	War is an awful thing.
	That's why decent people do not lightly engage in war and why Hamas should not have incited this war.
	You know, we could talk about the history of the Israeli conflict.
	I'm not a professional political commentator, I'm a CE, I'm a screenwriter, and I'm certainly not Ben Shapiro.
	I'm not here to talk about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we all saw what happened on October 7th.
	And the idea that Israel was not going to react severely to that, or that Israel should not react severely to that, is ludicrous.
	The idea that Ben Shapiro should be moderating his voice, that Ben Shapiro should be saying what?
	No, Israel should not respond to the situation?
	That's nonsense.
	Brilliantly put, nobody wants civilians to die.
	I think we absolutely must remain critical of Israel when they strike targets in Gaza that result in civilian deaths.
	Why?
	I'm not saying I have a better answer.
	I'm saying we as decent human beings must always lament the death of civilians.
	Innocent individuals caught up in the crossfire.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
		Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
		There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating But all I can say is, this is war.
		We don't want it to happen.
		And the left and the pro-Palestinian say they're under occupation and they started the war.
		on trial with Josh Hammer.
		Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcast.
		It's America on trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But all I can say is this is war.
		We don't want it to happen.
		And and the left, the pro Palestinian say they're under occupation and they started
		the war. The war would stop if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel.
		I absolutely believe.
		Look, I'm not going to be an expert on this.
		The problem is, they want from the river to the sea.
		They want the entirety of this territory, and they will never stop.
		I can't speak to 1948.
		I can just tell you that right now, if you tear down the barriers, storm in, and yes, this is part of Hamas's military doctrine.
		Target civilians as bargaining chips against Israel.
		If that's your strategy, then expect your leadership to be decimated.
		And just because Israel has the power to do so, doesn't make them evil in responding to the attacks.
		But I will say...
		I absolutely will remain critical of the killing of civilians.
		Even if Israel argues they had no choice, or they gave warnings, it doesn't matter.
		I'm not saying that one side is right or wrong, or I'm absolutely condemning Hamas.
		But the point is this.
		If at ever a point arises where we excuse the killing of civilians, then we have entered a darkness in which You're not coming back from.
		We do not excuse the killing of civilians.
		We don't.
		I don't.
		You can do whatever you want, but I absolutely condemn it while understanding why Israel is targeting Hamas.
		What's the alternative?
		Ground invasion?
		Israel's been warned against that.
		A lot of people say, you're just taking Israel's side on this one, blah blah blah.
		I'm taking the side of right now, as of October 7th.
		I can't speak to before, during, or after.
		There is no justification for storming into a music festival and killing civilians, shooting people in their car as they drive up to the gate of their kibbutz, and arguing that settlers are not civilians.
		That's evil.
		Again, if Hamas tore the barricades down and then sent out a bunch of guys with guns and secured territory outside of Gaza and says, we are returning to our land, I'd be like, wow, that's war, territorial dispute.
		They minimize civilian casualties and then a war broke out between Israeli soldiers and Hamas.
		Very different conversation.
		I'd be like, man, war happens all over the world.
		Instead, Hamas said explicitly they will target civilians and capture them.
		It was a target of opportunity.
		Okay.
		You crossed the line.
		And then we had Max Blumenthal on who said, well, that's their only option.
		Dude, I'm not playing that game.
		It's not.
		Let me read more.
		Morgan asked Boring what he thinks proportionate response would be to the atrocities committed against the Israelis by Hamas.
		And Boring responded, no moral person could possibly call for a proportionate response.
		Saying, well, first of all, I don't know what a proportionate response is or why we would want it.
		I suppose a proportionate response would be for 3,000 Israelis to go to the fence, gun down innocent Palestinian women and children, burn their bodies, burn them alive, take hostages, rape their women.
		No one wants a proportionate response.
		No moral person could possibly call for a proportionate response.
		It's a fair point.
		Here's the issue.
		Right now, I believe the numbers are such that more civilians in Palestine have been killed than in Israel.
		So the issue is, Israel's response has been more destructive, and thus there's cause for a ceasefire.
		That's why I say we must remain critical of Israel, no matter what, without condemning or condoning a response.
		It's war, of course they'll respond.
		Totally get it.
		And I'm just saying, Collateral damage is bad, that being said.
		Hamas intentionally targets civilians.
		Israel, it's collateral damage.
		Both are bad.
		The intentional targeting of civilians is evil.
		Collateral damage... That's tough to say.
		I'm sorry, but it is.
		It's tough to say.
	I do not expect Israel to sit by as rockets are being fired into Ashkelon and Tel Aviv and these civilian areas under the guise of this religious or, you know, multi-generational war.
	It's war.
	The left is going to make the arguments that Hamas wants their land back and they're fighting a war.
	And they're under occupation.
	Okay?
	You're not going to win that argument with me.
	I'm sorry.
	Peace begins with... I mean, look, I gotta be honest.
	Sometimes there's a surrender.
	I can understand.
	If our country was occupied and 70 years later, you had Americans being like, we will restore America to its borders.
	Totally get it.
	At a certain point though, you lose.
	There's a lot of questions about how you answer this, and the truth is, I don't think there's an easy answer.
	What I can say is, Hamas started a fight where they targeted civilians, and these are the repercussions.
	If in a... I'll put it this way.
	Bank robbers storm into a building and start shooting people.
	The security guards return fire, and in the process, several civilians are killed.
	Who do we blame?
	You blame the robbers.
	That's it.
	I don't know what to tell you.
	Jeremy Boring says the purpose of war is to defeat your enemy.
	The West has, in my lifetime, forgotten the purpose of war because the true cost of war is so terrible.
	The last time the West engaged in war and won was World War II, and they did it through incredible brutality.
	They did it by bringing their enemies to heel.
	That's not a thing to rah-rah about.
	That's not a thing to look forward to.
	As I said, all decent people should avoid war.
	But I think the sort of lie of the post-World War II, the post-war consensus lie, is that somehow war, in which you kill a bunch of people and don't secure victory, is morally superior to a war where you do secure victory.
	I would say that the only way to morally justify war is to win it.
	Otherwise, your very argument that brought you into the war, this enemy must be defeated, ends up being proven a lie.
	There are no easy answers.
	And everybody wants us to come out and just keep taking the position where we're like, oh yeah, Israel was wrong to do anything.
	I'll tell you this.
	I don't see reason for us to be involved in any of it.
	If the U.S.
	wasn't involved, Israel would not exist.
	I genuinely think so.
	Then there's the Samson option, in which they would use nuclear weapons to secure their existence.
	If they were going to be invaded or wiped out.
	It's not easy.
	I don't have the answers.
	I can only tell you that in the real world, there's no easy answers.
	There are simple moralities.
	If you are the aggressor who targets civilians, you will be dealt with.
	And there will be repercussions that, unintended consequences, collateral damage.
	Collateral damage is not the intentional killing of civilians.
	It's that civilian structures and civilians die when militaries retaliate.
	It's the age-old question.
	If a butterfly was trapped in a spider's web, would you free the butterfly?
	Serious question, would you?
	Some people say yes.
	The butterfly is beautiful and it's going to be killed by the spider.
	But does not the spider have the right to live as well?
	And the spider eats the butterfly.
	And so, there's no right or wrong answer.
	You decide your moral line.
	When I was younger, I learned this lesson.
	Would you free the butterfly?
	And then I said, yes.
	And then I was asked, but what about the spider?
	Should the spider die?
	The spider hunts to survive, taking its food away and destroying its web.
	You're hurting it.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Is it because we think the butterfly is more beautiful?
		Does not the spider have a right as well, even if we think it's ugly?
		Interesting question.
		And so then from from an early age, I said, you know, you shouldn't release the butterfly.
		Now I'm older and I realize There's no right or wrong answer.
		You decide who gets to live or die in that scenario.
		You decide, based on your moral lines, should the spider live or should the butterfly live.
		Spiders, they kill pests.
		Butterflies, they pollinate.
		Which one do you think is more valuable?
		Man, the human interference, the human perspective in this is so fascinating to me.
		Because the system is what it is, and then humans decide some moral line and take action.
		As for what we're seeing here, the question is much different.
		I am not saying that Palestine is a spider or a butterfly, or Israel is not, or anything like that.
		I am not saying that there is no moral action to be taken.
		I'm saying that when it comes to the nature of the world, you must recognize that you have to decide.
		To what degree you are willing to engage in actions which could kill to do the right thing.
		And what that right thing is.
		As for the spider and the butterfly, there's no right or wrong.
		I mean, you can certainly argue the spider should live.
		What I'm saying is that in the issue of Israel and Palestine, you must recognize that if you decide a moral action, you will cause suffering in some degree.
		You know, and I've said this for a while, no matter what action you take, no matter what action, anywhere, you will help someone and you will hurt someone.
		And it's not necessarily absolute, it's a generality, but I mean it is simply as... Let's think about skateboarding, right?
		How does that help or hurt anybody?
		Well, let's say that you want to engage in the culture.
		And, uh, you go to the skate park, and as a participant of that park, which received $400,000 in state, in city or state funding, you are enjoying yourself, and your life is getting better.
		But hold on there.
		Somebody else wanted that $400,000 to repair some infrastructure, and a vote was had, and they decided the skate park would be better at this time.
		That person is now upset, saying, why couldn't we get the funding?
		That person may be asking themselves, without even realizing the money was diverted for a skate park.
		My point is, you go out, and I learned this when I was doing fundraising for non-profits, you go out and you go to people and say, please give me money for this cause.
		And people do.
		And you think, I'm doing good.
		I am bringing goodness to this world.
		But the political efforts of the non-profit you're working for are causing a hindrance to other people.
		Fossil fuels?
		Climate change?
		There are people who want to reduce carbon.
		They believe they're right.
		I'm not saying they're right, but they do have a mission.
		When you go and advocate for their cause, you are causing a detriment to many people in industry, and you're raising the cost of gas.
		The more you fight against fossil fuels, the more detrimental to the oil industry and the fossil fuel industry.
		Prices go up, you're hurting someone somewhere.
		There is no simple path forward.
		Ultimately, the point comes down to this.
		We try to maximize goodness and minimize harm.
		Sometimes not so easy.
		Because we can't just take a utilitarian approach to everything.
		The idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few can be atrocious at times.
		It could mean killing of... This is the argument made effectively when it comes to, like, the second revolution in Egypt, when the government starts killing the Muslim Brotherhood.
		Though they may have been morally right in winning their election, the government said, you know what?
		For the betterment of the majority, we'll just start killing the minority.
		And that's horrifying.
		The world is not filled with easy answers.
		If it was, we wouldn't be having these conversations.
		That being said, I believe it is fair to say that the left represents chaos, disorder, and evil.
		They are lying to us about what happened.
		As we good people try to solve these problems and minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties, they lie about it happening to garner international support so they can continue to wage war targeting and killing civilians.
		No matter what choice you take, bad things happen.
		We try our best to minimize the bad things and stabilize things to create peace.
		It is not easy.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
		on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
	You heard that right, ladies and gentlemen.
unidentified		She says she did it!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		She's guilty as charged!
		She was trying to overthrow the election.
		I'm exaggerating a little bit.
		She pleaded down.
		Several misdemeanor charges instead of several felony charges.
		But she has agreed that she will provide communications and testify truthfully, which suggests she has just placed the knife into the back of Donald Trump and will now be testifying against other Trump defendants, which means as one domino falls, so too shall all the others.
		We'll now see how many people who were charged in the Georgia case will begin to plead guilty.
		And you can make the argument they're not saying they did it.
		They're pleading down a lesser charges.
		No.
		They're telling the press, they're telling the public, they did it.
unidentified		It.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's all that matters.
		No one's going to look at the minutiae of the cases.
		No one's going to investigate what they pleaded guilty to other than they were accused of trying to overthrow the United States government and said, yes, they did it.
		Amazing, isn't it?
		Now, I don't know what this means for Trump.
		I can only assume they're going to file more challenges to his candidacy under the 14th Amendment because he's doing really well in the polls.
		Currently, the RealClearPolitics average has Donald Trump tied with Joe Biden.
		So not like he's winning as of right now.
		It's gone a little bit back and forth.
		But he does have many very favorable polls.
		This a year out from the election means relatively little.
		But of course, the efforts to sabotage and stop Donald Trump extra... How would you say this?
		Here's a story from Time Magazine.
		We also have some audio clips to play for you.
		of the extra electorally outside of the electoral system.
		Instead of saying, let the American people's vote, they're saying we will lie, cheat and steal
		to stop Donald Trump.
		Here's a story from Time Magazine.
		We also have some audio clips to play for you.
		Sidney Powell pleads guilty in case over efforts to overturn Trump's Georgia loss.
		Lawyer Sidney Powell pleaded guilty to reduce charges Thursday over efforts
		to overturn Trump's laws in the 2020 election in Georgia, becoming the second defendant in the sprawling case
		reach a deal with prosecutors.
		Donald Trump is going to be facing a similar trial, right?
		Sidney Powell now on the record saying, yeah, did it.
		state's anti racketeering law, entered the plea just a day before jury selection was
		set to start in her trial.
		She pleaded guilty to six misdemeanors related to intentionally interfering with the performance
		of election duties.
		And now here's what happens next.
		Donald Trump is going to be facing a similar trial, right?
		Sidney Powell now on the record saying, yeah, did it.
		So what's going to happen?
		All.
		They now go to the jury in the Trump case and say, see, look, Sidney Powell says he did it.
		And the jury says, okay, case closed.
		You've got an individual involved in the conspiracy.
		I'm not exaggerating.
		Literally, they're charging him under RICO.
		Admitting it all happened.
		There you go.
		Powell's charged alongside Trump.
		As part of the deal, she will serve six years of probation, will be fined $6,000, and will have to write an apology letter to Georgia and its residents.
		She also agreed to testify truthfully, i.e., she's agreed to lie.
		How about that?
		Against her co-defendants at future trials.
		Powell, 68, was initially charged with racketeering and six other counts as part of a wide-ranging scheme to keep the Republican president in power after he lost the 2020 election.
		Prosecutors say she also participated in an unauthorized breach of election equipment in a rural Georgia county elections office.
		You gotta love the willingness of people to say every man for themselves.
		The acceptance of a plea deal is a remarkable about-face for a lawyer who, perhaps more than anyone else, strenuously pushed baseless conspiracy theories about a stolen election in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary.
		And you know, I will say this.
		I think Sidney Powell's claims in 2020 were absolutely bonkers.
		Crazy stuff.
		And, uh, you know, it's remarkable to see many people coming around to my line of thinking while claiming I'm coming around to theirs.
		It was remarkable when people were like, in March, Trump's going to be brought in as the president.
		And then the conspiracy even extended to Joe Biden was secretly arrested.
		And that, you know, it's, it's going to happen.
		I can't tell you how many people I spoke to in person who was like, no, I think Trump's really the president.
		And I'm like, why, what are you talking about?
		I'll tell you what happened.
		Ballot harvesting.
		Ballot chasing.
		They admitted how they did it.
		Voting in the park in Wisconsin.
	Was it Wisconsin where they did that?
	And people were like, no, no, it's fake ballots and it's all this and it's all that.
	And I'm like, dude.
	I'm telling you what they did.
	Okay?
	They told you what they did.
	Procedural manipulation.
	And Sidney Powell chased after some crazy nonsense.
	But maybe, some people think she was always out to sabotage Trump.
	And so was Ellyn Wood.
	I don't know about all that.
	That's what they claim.
	They say, That, uh, if prosecutors compel her to testify, she could provide insight on a news conference she participated in on behalf of Trump and his campaign short after the election, and on a White House meeting she attended in mid-December of that year, during which strategies and theories to influence the outcome of the election were discussed.
	Powell was scheduled to go on trial on Monday with lawyer Kenneth Chaseborough after each filed a demand for a speedy trial.
	Jury selection was set to start Friday.
	The development means that Chaseborough will go on trial by himself, though prosecutors said earlier that they also plan to look into the possibility of offering him a plea deal.
	So what, Sidney Powell's not going to testify against him?
	This is it, man.
	She stabbed everybody in the back.
	They're now going to use this to go after everyone else and make it substantially harder.
	But it's obvious.
	This is the game they play, okay?
	They play with everybody.
	You got three guys who are accused of a crime.
	You go to one and say, listen, I don't know.
	I don't care.
	If you agree to work with us, you go home to your family.
	If you don't, we'll get them to do it.
	They'll sell you out and you go to prison.
	You choose.
	And what happens?
	It's a race to the bottom with everyone trying to sell out everybody else because they don't want to be the one getting locked up.
	But in the end, y'all get locked up because it was a trick the whole time.
	They say Barry Coburn, a Washington-based lawyer for Powell, declined to comment.
	A lower-profile defendant in the case, bail bondsman Scott Graham Hall, last month pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor charges.
	He was sentenced to five years of probation and agreed to testify in further proceedings.
	Prosecutors allege that Powell conspired with Hall and others to access election equipment without authorization and hired computer forensics firm Sullivan Strickler to send a team to Coffey County in South Georgia to copy software and data from voting machines and computers there.
	Well, I gotta tell you, this is their fault for believing the crackpot nonsense conspiracies and chasing after it, but what is Donald Trump guilty of?
	and instructed him to send all data copied from Dominion Voting Systems equipment in
	Coffee County to an unidentified lawyer associated with Powell and the Trump campaign.
	Well, I got to tell you, this is their fault for believing the crackpot nonsense conspiracies
	and chasing after it. But what is Donald Trump guilty of?
	Donald Trump was challenging an election, as is, in my opinion, his constitutional
	requirement. That's right.
	If you believe impropriety occurred, it is your duty as an American to challenge it and seek out answers.
	In the Trump campaign, Trump wanted that.
	But he had some really bad people working for him, unfortunately.
	Really bad people who are not very smart.
	And this is where he ends up.
	Ed Krasinski says Sidney Powell's guilty plea in Fannie Wells' Georgia case not only spells bad news for Trump, but it also means that we will likely see more guilty pleas from Trump co-defendants.
	This is why Paul has agreed to truthfully testify against other co-defendants, which will very likely include Trump.
	This means other co-defendants know that if they don't take a plea deal, she will likely be testifying against them.
	This is horrible for Trump's defense.
	We could see multiple co-defendants flip on him.
	You bet.
	That's always the plan.
	You put the boot in the neck and say you work with us now or you get locked up.
	And this is this is a point about who these people are.
	Trump should never have brought these people in or around himself.
	And that's his fault.
	She's now going to turn on Trump because she wants to protect herself.
	There's no loyalty here.
unidentified		Here's the clip that you truthfully testify at all, that you truthfully testify at all hearings
		and proceedings and trials involving the codependents in this matter, and that you have
		no communication with codependents, media or witnesses until this case has been completely
		closed against all defendants. I do. And do you understand as a special condition of this sentence
		that you were to provide what you've already done a proffered, a recorded proffer to the state
		and provide any documents and evidence subject to any lawful privileges asserted in a good faith
		prior to entering this fleet.
		Undo.
		And, Judge, at this time the state will enter into evidence what's been marked as State's Exhibit 1, which is the apology letter that Ms.
		This pal has all the keys.
		Oh.
		What is this?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, I think about...
		Sparta.
		I think about great nations.
		I think about Patrick Henry.
		Not Mick Henry.
		I don't know what's going on with that Jim Jordan stuff.
unidentified		Give me liberty or give me death.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think about the people who are willing to stand by and support those they believed in.
		And I think about the lack of candor and character that we have now.
		The lies, the manipulations, the lust for power, disloyalty.
		It's the weirdest thing to me.
		It's the weirdest thing to me.
		I just don't understand the minds that these people have.
		I really, really don't.
		They don't want to go to jail.
		I get it.
		I get not wanting to go to jail.
		But their personal comfort is more important to them than the concentration of being within themselves.
		I don't understand that.
		But perhaps because it was never there, right?
		See, for me, there is what I am, and then there are the externalities.
		And asking me To plead guilty to something I did not do would be for me to compromise the essence of being of myself.
		For what?
		Now, don't get me wrong.
		I can certainly understand in some circumstances, you retreat.
		Surrender and retreat are not always the wrong response.
		I don't see how Sidney Powell's view of the world Intentions or goals benefit from her taking this plea agreement.
		Now, I understand.
		You made the argument.
		Oh, but, you know, now she's gonna be able to fight the good fight.
		No, she's not.
		Probation for six years?
		She's gonna go hide away and, you know, sip mimosas or whatever and mind her own business and say, the comfort of my life is more important.
		I despise this.
		I find it to be disgusting and pathetic.
		Slavenly, lazy, morbidly obese individuals of liberal sensibilities who would rather sit in their hover chair floating around drinking Slurpees, gaining weight, because it's so easy and comfortable.
		That's weird.
		You know, I just don't understand this.
		I really don't.
		But, I mean, people probably do.
		I'm just saying I don't.
		I don't, because I get that it exists.
		I understand the motivations.
		But, um, I was talking with, uh, I can't remember who I was talking with.
		Luke Rudkowski put out a video hanging out with, uh, Ian Crossland.
		They're in Miami.
		Ian's at the gym, and he's, he's, he's working out, right?
		Good for him.
		And I think it's funny because, you know, Ian's been talking about how working out feels so good.
		And I'm like, yes, it does.
		It feels amazing.
		You know, I'm going to go exercise after I wrap up the morning show.
		I tend to.
		And there are a lot of people who sit around and don't want to go to the gym, don't want to exercise, and I just don't understand that.
		It feels great.
		But you know what it is?
		It's that people are averse to any kind of strain or hardship.
		And that, to me, I don't understand.
		Me?
		I think the personal struggle is the essence of life, right?
		There are a lot of people that say things like, my children will never understand the things that I went through, and I'm just like, why?
		Like, did it make you successful?
		Did struggling and overcoming challenges make you smarter and stronger and better?
		Sharper?
		It did.
		That's the grindstone, the blade up against the stone, the whetstone, sharpening it.
		That is a hard stone.
		You are pressing it against, applying pressure and force to sharpen that blade.
		And if you leave the blade sitting there doing nothing, it erodes.
		That's why I have to oil my meteorite katanas.
		Swords.
	You have to maintain And there are so many people that just want to sit about and just consume.
	But it feels bad!
	I don't understand this.
	I don't understand this.
	Would it not feel more mentally and emotionally satisfying standing up for what you believe in, defying corruption and evil, staring down the beast and saying, I will not move.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Maybe the reality is Sidney Powell was always a liar and never believed any of this stuff and thought it was a path to get rich, and that is perhaps reality.
	The reason why she's pleading guilty now?
	She was only doing this because she thought she saw it as a path towards cash, grifting.
	Maybe that's the real answer.
	Because I kind of feel like any true believer, anyone who truly believed in what they said and had faith, would refuse to back down.
	I ask you this.
	Imagine you, good God-fearing Christians, were put on trial and told you will spend the rest of your life behind bars because you are a blasphemer who believes in Christ.
	And they said to you, just tell the court, write a letter saying you do not believe in Christ, you do not follow this doctrine, and we'll let you live under our boot, but outside of prison.
	Just apologize and swear to the court you don't really believe any of this.
	How many Christians would truly do that?
	I'm sure there are some.
	You probably wouldn't call them Christians.
	But I know there's not everybody watching this is Christian.
	My point is, even those who are not Christian recognize a true believer in the faith is not going to plea to a court they don't actually believe it.
unidentified		They're going to say no.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And some may say, sure, whatever you want, just please don't hurt me.
		But can you really call them a true believer?
		If they believe that they would compromise their immortal soul Now I'm not saying I hold like a religious view of this or anything.
		I'm just saying that if someone came to me and told me to reject and renounce everything that makes up the core of my being for a little comfort, I'd say the core of my being is marked by a willingness to sacrifice for what I believe in.
		So I will gladly sit in your box until the day I die knowing that it is what must be done for what I believe to be true.
		Man, it's crazy to me.
		I just can't understand that.
		The willingness to sit in your comfort, but knowing you have betrayed everything that is within you doesn't make sense to me.
		I just don't understand it.
		That mental prison would be a misery.
		A misery well beyond being jailed by a corrupt system.
		And you hope.
		That when you stand up for what you truly believe in and say, no, I will not move, when they do lock you up for what you truly believe, one day the righteous will prevail and you will be, you will be released and you will be vindicated.
		For many of you, many of you, maybe it's not about Christ or religion.
		Maybe it is the ideals of America.
		So I ask you this, Marxists, Take over this country and accuse you of the crime of sedition for supporting the racist Founding Fathers.
		And they tell you to speak to the court the true words of your apology and remorse.
		Tell the people of this nation, wear the dunce cap and say you reject the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, our inalienable rights.
		Those are lies from racist slave owners.
unidentified		Admit it and we'll let you live.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How many of you would stand before this nation and speak up and say that Thomas Jefferson was an unrepentant racist with horrible ideas who should never be idolized or canonized and you reject those teachings and apologize for having ever thought those thoughts?
		How many of you would be willing to do that?
		I would not.
		And this is why I say this should prove Sidney Powell is a grifter.
		Because either she never believed what she was actually claiming, or today, her selling out these views proves she never cared in the first place.
		I mean, this is it right now.
		Or she's turned her back on what she believes.
		Doesn't sound like very strong convictions, if you ask me.
		No, I think she's probably a grifter, who was just trying to get press and get attention and enrich herself.
		Because you come to me and you tell me something like, something we know to be true, right?
		Even outside of our faith in the founding ideas of this nation or in your religion.
		Let's say they came out and said, tell the court that Joe Biden did not say, fire the prosecutor and not give me the billion dollars.
		But he did say that.
		No, no, no, we don't care.
		You must write a letter saying it never happened.
		You want me to lie?
		I tell you this.
unidentified		There are four lights.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You guys know that reference?
		It's what I love.
		Love.
		I mean, the 90s were really great, man.
		I'm sorry, it's just true.
		The 2000s sucked.
unidentified		I'm sorry!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, I was driving in the car, and I put on 90s top songs, and it's like, we know all the hits, and we're like, oh man, Jesus Jones, remember that one?
		And then I put on 2000 hits, and we're sitting there like, what is this?
		Like, what are these songs?
		Like, nobody knows the words, nobody remembers it.
		What happened?
		The internet, maybe, I guess.
		Napster?
		I don't know.
		The 90s were great, man.
		Star Trek The Next Generation.
		Captain Jean-Luc Picard.
		I know it's fiction, but these stories are important.
		They're very important.
		He's captured.
		He's captured by the Cardassians.
		Not the Kardashians.
		Okay?
		An alien race.
		Nearing war with the Federation.
		He is captured and tortured mercilessly.
		And the military officer keeps shocking him, saying, how many lights do you see?
		And he says, four.
		And there are four lights.
		And he says, you're mistaken.
		There are five lights.
		Now, how many lights do you see?
		And Picard says, four.
		Shock!
		Once again, how many lights do you see?
		And he could not break Captain Jean-Luc Picard.
		It's amazing!
		This is indoctrination.
		I am a small child, I am watching this sitting on the couch with my dad, and I barely understand what I'm watching.
		As I get older, I just start to re-watch some of the old episodes, truly with a more nuanced understanding, and wiser.
		Viral clips, one of Data, asking, why is it that we reject terrorism, but find that throughout history it tends to actually be successful?
		It's a scary thought.
		And Picard says it may be, but I do not subscribe to the thought that political power is derived from the barrel of a gun, but from a will from the masses.
		That last part's not part of the quote, but that's the general idea.
		These are the things I grew up with, learning, and believing.
		And it could just be that were I not ever exposed to these ideas, I would not hold these ideas.
unidentified		And that's kind of a sad thought.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I've been thinking about the movie The Patriot.
unidentified		Right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's my favorite film.
		A modern favorite film.
		I love Doctor Strange, but in terms of, like, ideals and values and nuance, man, The Patriot is incredible.
		Year 2000, I think 2001, Mel Gibson, American Revolution.
		It's fiction, right?
		They have fictional characters in the revolution fighting a battle that's, you know, ancillary to the actual end of the revolution, but Amazing film.
		The concepts of guerrilla warfare, propaganda, manipulation, the true cost of war.
		It's the importance of indoctrinating young people towards American values.
		That's why I say this, as soon as your kids are old enough, because there's people getting shot in it, and cannon fire, and it's brutal.
		As soon as your kids are old enough, I'd say you have them watch that film, so they can understand what it means to fight for what you believe in, and the sacrifices that will be made.
		Because it's scary to watch.
		But I think one of the problems we have as a nation is that since probably World War II, we have seen a degradation in the moral convictions of the American citizenry.
		A willingness to stand up for what we knew to be right, gone today.
		And now you have people who are going to sell you out the moment they get the opportunity.
		Jenna Ellis is trending.
		I don't know why.
		Just popped up, right?
		She's also facing criminal charges and she did nothing wrong.
		She's a lawyer providing legal advice.
		She gonna plead guilty too?
		I don't know.
		But considering Sidney Powell did, the dominoes begin to fall.
		It will now become increasingly harder for anyone, the innocent, to prove their innocence when someone is willing to lie on the stand to get you convicted because they don't want to go to jail.
		I just don't understand it.
		I gotta be completely honest.
unidentified		I... I just... I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The idea that you would push someone off a cliff to save yourself is a crazy thought to me.
		It's crazy.
		But I guess people justify survival.
		Man, I don't know.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 4pm on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
		Victoria's Secret got woke and went broke.
		And now they're gonna be getting rid of their woke campaign because, surprise surprise, women don't want to be ugly.
		They want to be attractive.
		And so they want to look at pictures of attractive women and think, I can look like that.
		Here's how the story goes.
		You see last, I think it was a couple years ago, Victoria's Secret says, no more are we gonna do these very sexy models because they don't represent what women actually want.
		They decided to bring in fat, morbidly obese, homely women.
		I got no beef with women who are homely or fat or whatever.
		You do you.
		But the issue is when it comes to sales, there's a reason why the tried and true methods of advertising beautiful women works for women who are trying to look beautiful.
		Let me tell you the story, and then we'll talk about what's going on with the psychological elements here.
		New York Post says, Victoria's Secret ditches prioritizing wokeness over sexiness after sales drop.
		Since the brand decided to move away from its hyper-sexualized image, as Business of Fashion described in a recent article, Victoria's Secret has seen a significant revenue drop.
		As such, it has looked to revamp itself and bring back sexiness, the outlet noted in a piece that was also published by editorial partner CNN on Tuesday.
		Kathleen Chen reported that the brand's efforts to promote inclusivity, which included making LGBTQ pro-women soccer player and outspoken leftist Megan Rapinoe, as well as a trans woman, brand spokesmodels, and getting rid of its angels, gained favorable reviews from online critics, but never translated into sales.
		Yeah, surprise surprise.
		According to the numbers, the lingerie brand's projected revenue for 2023 is $6.2 billion, which is 5% lower than it was last year, and even lower than 2020 when the brand's revenue was $7.5 billion.
		The drop in Victoria's Secret sales also followed the company's move to make its board of directors mostly female.
		In 2021, Rapinoe called out what the brand had been before the revamp, claiming it had sent out a really harmful message that was patriarchal, sexist, viewing not just what it meant to be sexy, but what clothes were trying to accomplish through a male lens and through what men desired.
		I love this!
		That they were so stupid as to not realize the product they sold.
		Women, 98 to 99 percent, trying to be attractive for men.
		Yeah.
		And they said, we're gonna get rid of that!
		And we're gonna have women try to impress other women with their virtue?
		Well, that didn't work, did it?
		They're gonna say.
		And it was very much marketed towards younger women, Rapinoe said.
		She's just awful, isn't she?
		I love this.
		They did the fat mannequins and stuff.
		You know, the larger ones.
		In the fashion outlet, Chen noted that lingerie companies' attempt to stop the financial drain body positivity marketing was causing was to bring back its runway show format and blend the sexiness the brand had become famous for with some of its more inclusive initiatives.
		She described Victoria's Secret, The Tour 23, as a display that felt somewhere in between the personification of male lust for the brand's aughts-era heyday and the inclusive utopia promoted by its many disruptors.
		Victoria's Secret and Pink brand president Greg Unas summed up this new direction for the company, reportedly telling investors sexiness can be inclusive.
		He explained that sexiness can celebrate the diverse experiences of our customers and what we're focused on.
		No, it can't.
		Shut up.
		Here's the article from the New York Times in 2021, so about a year and a half ago.
		Or actually, no, over two years ago.
		What am I saying?
		Here's Megan Rapinoe, who is not an icon for the male gaze, and probably intentionally, but this means that women who are trying to attract men probably don't want to look like Megan Rapinoe.
		Victoria's Secret swaps angels for what women want.
		Will they buy it?
		The answer?
		No, they won't.
		I mean, 5% decline's not the craziest thing, but it's bad enough.
		They say the Victoria's Secret Angels, those avatars of Barbie bodies and Playboy reverie, are gone.
		Their wings, fluttery confections, and rhinestones and feathers that could weigh almost 30 pounds are gathering dust in storage.
		The fantasy bra dangling real diamonds and other gems is no more.
		In their place are seven women famous for their achievements and not their proportions.
		That includes Megan Rapinoe, the pink-haired soccer star, Eileen Gu, 17-year-old Chinese-American freestyle skier, soon to be Olympian, Look, I'm sorry man, like, are you kidding?
		Women don't buy sexy underwear so they can be good at skiing or soccer.
		Dude, I just love, I absolutely love this story.
		This is some of the funniest stupid garbage I've ever seen.
		Okay, you get the point.
		I'm not saying these women don't look good.
	Some of them do.
	That's great.
	Good for them.
	is the seven women who form a group called the VS Collective, will alternately advise
	the brand, appear in ads, and promote Victoria's Secret on Instagram.
	They are joining a company that is an entirely new executive team and is forming a board
	of directors in which blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
	Okay, you get the point.
	I'm not saying these women don't look good.
	Some of them do.
	That's great.
	Good for them.
	But, uh, you know, when they start bringing on the obese, unattractive women.
	Men don't like.
	It is painfully obvious.
	Okay?
	It is plainly simple.
	Here's what happens.
	Guys look at certain kinds of women they find attractive.
	Attraction can change depending on what people are being exposed to.
	For sure.
	But there is a general attractiveness that is rooted deep within us.
	And it is mostly like health.
	Yeah, because a component of our evolutionary biology and psychology is looking for partners that are healthy and can help raise and create beautiful, successful offspring.
	I mean, that's what humans have always done.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Because if they didn't, they would not exist.
		The animals of this world that did not prioritize successful offspring aren't around anymore because they did not have successful offspring.
		And so what happens?
		Well, this translates to, sometimes, a negative based on what people might think is healthy.
		But typically, slim women that are busty.
		Why?
		It's a really fascinating thing, really.
		Humans, I believe, are the only species of mammal that have permanently engorged mammaries.
		I'm trying to be somewhat academic here with it, and I know the junior high students are laughing at having heard that statement, but it's a fair point.
		Most species, mammals which have mammary glands producing milk, do not engorge their mammaries until after they give birth and start producing milk.
		Humans though, women, you know, consistently always have larger breasts.
		Not every woman, you know, but you get the point, like, you know.
		And so, the issue is, men like looking at women who are busty, and slim, healthy, and attractive.
		Young-looking.
		These are all signs of the ability to bear children.
		I am not saying that's all women are good for.
		Calm down, feminists.
		I'm saying that's what men are attracted to.
		And not all men, and not, you know, every woman or whatever, but the majority.
		That means if you're seeking to gain sales for a product, you want to target the largest demographic, which is the average man, which is guys who like slim, busty, sexy women.
		Now, for women who are trying to attract these men, they want to, to the best of their abilities, emulate these features which men find attractive.
		Which means, when they're looking at an advertisement and it says, you too can be attractive and appealing to those you are trying to attract, look at these beautiful women, be like them.
		For guys, guys are trying to be powerful, confident, and so they look up to athletes and men of accomplishment because they want to emulate that.
		When you start putting women of accomplishment in your ads, these things are not attractive to men.
		Some men for sure, but not on average.
		Guys aren't going around and being like, dude, you see that stock portfolio on that chick?
		She's gotta be worth like six, like seven figures, man.
		Dude, did you see that one chick?
		I heard she could do a double backflip.
		Yeah, guys aren't talking about that.
		I mean, maybe.
		But a dude's not going to a bar and walking up to the women who's with a bunch of gold medals on.
		That's peacocking.
		That's what guys do.
		Now, I gotta be honest.
		If there was a woman in like a ski outfit at a bar and she had a big trophy, I'd be curious.
		Yo, who's that?
		What's up with that?
		Interesting.
		Is that going to be a determining factor in whether or not a guy wants to approach a woman?
		Probably not.
		And I gotta tell ya, while it may be for some, not for most.
		And most is what matters when you're talking about maximizing sales.
		So these women end up seeing these ads of homely women, obese women, who men clearly are not on average attracted to.
		Here's what happens.
		Certainly there are some women who are like, I wanna be like that, and so they buy the clothes.
		But overall, we're talking about larger general numbers.
		Women ultimately just say, that's not what I wanna be.
		I don't want to be the fat unattractive woman who's good at soccer.
		I don't want to be the pink-haired soccer star.
		I want to be what, you know, like the people I'm attracted to are attracted back towards.
		So what happens?
		Sales slump.
		Get woke, go broke.
		And they should have realized it.
		I think it's fairly obvious.
		But you know, let them try, let them try.
		I wonder what the investors are thinking.
		I don't know, is Victoria's Secret publicly traded?
		A lot of money was lost in this ridiculous campaign about female merit or whatever.
		Dude.
		Women are human beings.
		And they can do whatever they want.
		And when they become CEOs, I think that's great.
	More power to ya.
	But, uh... No, I'm sorry.
	The idea of, like, having it all.
	I just... I think it's a lie.
	It's not an absolute lie.
	It's just only the cream of the crop, the best women are ever gonna get to that point.
	And I'll give you a simple breakdown as to why.
	Okay.
	A man and a woman.
	Same age.
	Born in the same days.
	Raised in the exact same way.
	They start their careers.
	They're making $80,000 a year in their mid-twenties.
	And they both then say, it's time to have a family.
	I want to have children.
	And so they both begin the process of creating human life at the exact same time.
	Everything is identical.
	Everything.
	And then, the man impregnates his wife.
	And the woman becomes impregnated by her husband.
	Guess what?
	Carrying that child is a disadvantage the man does not have.
	And this is why most, like traditional men and conservative guys, cherish women for taking on that role.
	And I have tremendous respect for women who are moms and choose to do that because it is difficult.
	But that being said, if your goal is to have a career and have children, women have a disadvantage.
	Period.
	Oh, no, of course.
	I mean, women could have a surrogate or whatever.
	That's fine.
	But we're talking about averages here, and most women won't do that.
	A lot maybe do, but the majority won't.
	This means, even if the woman can work through their pregnancy, they are still eating for two.
	They are still dealing with the, you know, morning sickness or whatever.
	Disadvantages men don't have.
	And it might be minor on an individual level.
	But ultimately, the process by which the woman is to birth that child is going to take time out of work.
	And wanting to be with the child more.
	And men want to be with their kids too, don't get me wrong.
	But the men don't have to take time off work.
	They don't have to recover.
	Even if it's one day.
	Even if it's two days.
	Over a long enough period of time, you see that.
	So, I'll break this down in a casino-style analogy.
	On an individual level, it may not be the biggest impact on the world to the woman.
	She may be able to have the kid, and then get back to work, and then become the best of the best.
	CEO and have it all.
	But how do casinos operate?
	Blackjack.
	You know, Blackjack, the edge the house has, meaning they're... I think it's like 50.5% chance to win, to your 49.5.
	Something ridiculously small.
	Meaning it's basically a coin toss, right?
	For you, the individual, you go in, you could...
	Land 60% win rate and make some money.
	The casino then loses money.
	Oh, but how could they operate?
	Well, because, statistically, it doesn't matter.
	Over a long enough period of time, the averages out make money for the casino.
	Blackjack is profitable, even if the odds are not that great.
	And then you've got people, you're playing basic strategy or you're card counting, whatever.
	If you look at C.R.A.P.S., for instance, I mean, a lot of these bets are almost 50-50.
	The casino adds an edge on these games, knowing that it's almost 50-50, but that teeny percentage will be significant in the long run.
	And that's what I'm saying when it comes to women in the workplace in the long run.
	There may be many women who don't experience this.
	There may be many women who are massively facing a massive detriment from trying to have kids, and it takes them out of work for months.
	But it doesn't matter.
	Because the averages will average out.
	My point ultimately is this.
	The idea of having it all.
	Showing women who are successful through meritocracy and have careers and make a bunch of money, fantastic, by all means do it.
	But selling lingerie in that angle?
	I mean, that doesn't quite make sense.
	Because you're, you're, you're... Imagine if you opened an ice cream shop, and you said, eat ice cream to your heart's content, and then inside, you were just advertising salads.
	People would come in and be like, I'm here for the salad.
	Oh, it's an ice cream shop.
	Nevermind, and they'd leave.
	Because you're advertising the wrong thing in the wrong place.
	It's an insane market strategy.
	But anyway, shout out to Victoria's Secret for finally abandoning wokeness and coming back to what all the guys wanted, I guess.
	Women are trying to buy these clothings to be the most attractive.
	They're not trying to become soccer stars.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	You know, I keep hearing that R.F.K.
	Jr.' 's independent run is bad for Trump.
	The argument is because he's anti-establishment, it's going to result in the anti-establishment vote, people like me, splitting and voting R.F.K.
	There was a poll showing that favorability among Trump voters, R.F.K.' 's, was good, was high, more so than Democrats.
	But this does not mean anti-establishment individuals or Trump supporters will ditch Trump.
	Quite the opposite.
	Now we have the story, actually.
	R.F.K.
	Jr.
	comes out in favor of reparations, carving out lane to Biden's left.
unidentified		So, uh, about that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, when R.F.K.
		Jr.
		announced he was running, what did he say?
		He was talking about Indigenous Peoples Day instead of Columbus Day.
		And I'm like, I don't see how any Trump supporter or anti-woke independent is going to vote for this.
		It's going to be Democrats who don't like Joe Biden, think he's too old and incompetent, who are going to vote for the likes of RFK Jr.
		And now that it's coming out for reparations, you better believe it!
		But they'll keep running that story claiming that it's hurting Trump.
		Fine.
		Well, here's a story from the New York Post.
		R.F.K. Jr. supports issuing reparations to the black community, making him the most prominent
		2024 candidate to favor the controversial policy meant to atone for slavery and legal
		segregation. President Biden has largely been silent on the issue, leading to frustration
		among the far left. Kennedy, who ditched the Democratic primary challenge to Biden earlier
		this month, has spoken out in favor of issuing federal dollars to rebuild black infrastructure,
		like banks and businesses, and as well as direct redress payments or tax credits.
		Rather than no strings, cash giveaways.
		Certainly makes more sense in my opinion.
		Communities that were specifically targeted for destruction need to be specifically targeted for repair.
		Said his campaign website.
		During Jim Crow, black banks, businesses, hospitals, schools, and farms were targeted for destruction.
		Racists knew that without these, the black community had no chance of building wealth.
		We must set federal dollars aside to rebuild black infrastructure.
		Interesting.
		These programs complement direct redress payments, or tax dollars, to the descendants of the victims of Jim Crow and other victims of persecution.
		RFK Jr.
		will find ways to offer this redress that are legal, fair, and win the approval of Americans of all races.
		Kennedy has also said he supports establishing development projects like the Bed-Stuy Restoration Corporation, which his father helped found in 1967, along with then-Mayor John Lindsay and then-Senator Jacob Javits.
		Those actions are less likely to contribute to polarization between blacks and whites, because it benefits everybody.
		Everybody, even the people who are Trumpers.
		Everybody wants businesses to work and to flourish.
		Kennedy Jr.
		told YouTuber Matt Hoffa in a July interview.
		Now look, by all means, RFK Jr.
		is allowed to believe whatever he wants to believe, but the idea that this pulls from Trump is bonkers to me, okay?
		Trump supporters ain't gonna be joining on the woke bandwagon.
		Just not gonna happen.
		Look at this one from the New Republic.
		RFK Jr.
		is very bad news for Trump's election chances, new poll says.
		In what reality is a leftist Democrat beating Donald Trump?
		I just think it's absolutely remarkable.
		It's like, dude, I honestly think a Trump supporter is more likely to vote for Joe Biden than a far leftist.
		That, it's just, look, you get Joe Biden, Corporate neolib.
		And then you get some communist Trump supporters more likely to vote for Biden.
		Now, RFK Jr., a lot of Trump supporters like him for his stance on the COVID vaccine.
		He opposed mandates and lockdowns.
		Very, very strongly worded statements.
		They like that.
		But he's woke.
		What are you going to do?
		Donald Trump will surely in some capacity come around.
		But why would they vote for RFK Jr.
		when they could vote any other third party or libertarian instead?
		But listen.
		Why would RFK Jr.
		take from Trump when the Libertarian Party already exists, right?
		I love this argument, by the way.
		I just gotta tell all these Trump supporters and conservatives, guys, knock it off.
		When they say things like, if the Libertarians just voted for Trump, then Trump would've won.
		I love that premise.
		As if the Libertarians like Trump.
		Like, dude, listen.
		There is no world where Libertarian voters are like, I should have just voted Trump.
	They don't like him!
	That's the point!
	That's why they voted Libertarian.
	And nobody's owed a vote.
	But it's funny to me that there are people who think Libertarian voters are, like, Trump supporters, or, like, could be.
	Dude, Libertarians rag on Trump all the time.
	They voted because, like, you don't got those votes, man.
	But here's my point.
	The Libertarians are already the third party.
	They're already the independent run, basically.
	Right?
	If you get a Libertarian, they're gonna come out and they're gonna say, no mandates, no lockdowns, no vaccine mandates, etc.
	That sentiment already exists.
	You don't need RFK to fill it.
	And then, if you got someone who was a Trump supporter, who said, look at Luke Gretkowski, he's like, Trump will not accept responsibility over the mandates and the vaccine stuff, fine.
	But Luke's certainly more likely to vote for the Libertarian Mises Caucus candidate than RFK Jr.
	Now, we've talked about a potential Trump-RFK ticket, because that might be like a unity ticket that could actually work.
	I still don't see that as even being possible.
	I mean, especially like, well, obviously RFK Jr.' 's running as an independent, but also because they're ideologically opposed.
	Here's the New Republic leftist website.
	They say, Republican fears around RF Kennedy's recent party pivot appear to be coming true.
	In a potential three-way election, RFK's influence over independents would give Joe Biden a 7 percentage point advantage over Trump, according to a new poll by NPR, PBS NewsHour and Marist.
	So you're telling me that among independent voters, they would vote for Trump were it not for RFK Jr.? ?
	What policies are shared by these two men?
	No, no, I mean that seriously.
	Donald Trump screams and raves about the vaccine success.
	RFK Jr.
	opposes the vaccines.
	Donald Trump anti-woke.
	RFK Jr.
	woke.
	What is it?
	Tell me what it is.
	These independents on what issue would choose Trump over RFK or RFK over Trump?
	The argument is over Biden, right?
	I suppose you can make the argument that Biden is such a terrible candidate that they would vote for anything, even Donald Trump over Joe Biden.
	OK, I guess, but I don't see that being enough.
	I think that is silly and absurd.
	But we also have this one from The London Post.
	I love it.
	RFK, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	is destroying Donald Trump's election chances, poll says.
	Look, there have been several polls showing it go back and forth, right?
	So it could be.
	Who knows?
	They say third-party candidate RFK is on track to push Joe Biden to an easy victory over Trump, according to a new poll.
	Since Kennedy announced he was leaving earlier this month, blah blah blah, they cite the same poll.
	They say if the election were held today, Biden would snag 44% of the vote to Trump's 37%, followed by Kennedy's 16%, with 3% undecided.
	They're claiming Kennedy's gonna get 16%!
	16% in the general!
	I just gotta tell you right now, that's insane, okay?
	Dude's polling around 14 to 15 among Democrats, which means he's gonna be scoring maybe 5, 6, 7% in a general, if he does.
	And why would Trump voters vote for RFK Jr.? ?
	Now maybe.
	Single-issue voters that only care about vax mandates.
	Possibility.
	But you're telling me that those people would vote for Donald Trump over Joe Biden?
	The argument is that Trump and Biden were both in favor of the lockdowns.
	In fact, Trump started it.
	So that doesn't make any sense.
	What other issue does RFK Jr.
	have that someone would vote for Trump over if RFK wasn't around?
	RFK Jr.
unidentified		Woke.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Trump not woke.
		So with no RFK Jr., you're saying these people who are woke are going to be like, I guess I'll vote for Trump over Biden.
		That makes no sense.
		War?
		Maybe?
		Donald Trump being, uh, no new wars, they'd go for RFK Jr.
		I just, I just don't see it.
		Plus RFK Jr.
		has been in favor of, you know, Green New Deal type policies and gun control.
		This is the weirdest thing to me.
		But maybe it's just propaganda.
		They are desperately trying to get this narrative out there for some reason.
		Don't ask me, honestly, just don't.
		I don't get it.
		Kennedy, whose anti-vaccine views have appealed to some conservatives, is simply siphoning off more votes from Trump than Biden.
		I don't see how.
		With the political sign on the ballot, Biden loses 5 points.
		Trump loses 10 among Republicans.
		Ow!
		I love it, man.
		I love it.
		Kennedy, who's gotten significant airtime on Fox News and other conservative outlets, has been denounced by his own family.
		Although it's always tricky to assess the impact of a third-party candidate right now, Kennedy alters the equation in Biden's favor.
		Lee M. Mieringoff, director of the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion, said, What this does speak to, however, is that one in six voters are looking for another option, especially independence.
		It may be something basic that people hate Trump and Biden and they're just voting for RFK because he's a Kennedy.
		That's a fair point.
		But what I've heard from many people of liberal families is that many of these older Democrats love the Kennedys.
		And that's a Democrat poll.
		Now, if it's true that a lot of ex-Democrats joined the Republican Party, they may also want to vote for a Kennedy.
		That I could see the argument for.
		But ultimately, in the end, it seems to me that the facts favor RFK pulling from Biden, not Trump.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
		over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲