Trump & Elon Musk DECLARE WAR With HUGE LAWSUITS, Government EXPOSED Colluding With Press & Big Tech
WATCH INFRINGED NOW At - https://timcast.com/members-area/infringed/
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
Trump & Elon Musk DECLARE WAR With HUGE LAWSUITS, Government EXPOSED Colluding With Press & Big Tech
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
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.
Last night, Elon Musk filed a lawsuit against Media Matters.
We also learned that last night, Trump's Truth Social will be suing 20 news organizations for defamation after misreporting $73 million in losses, which is not true.
Now this, my friends, may be one of the most consequential moments in the history of the Internet.
And to be completely serious, this is a historic moment.
The battle for the Internet has begun, and it appears we are dealing with the U.S.
government attempting to control narrative by manipulating big tech and social media.
Right now with Elon Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters, it would appear there is a coordinated effort to destroy the X platform.
It would appear there is a coordinated effort to destroy Truth Social.
Why?
They cannot allow narrative control to exist outside of the deep state's confines.
I'll keep it simple for you.
We're well past the point of conspiracy theory.
We know these things are factual.
We know for a fact, based on members of Congress releasing the information.
The U.S.
government was coordinating with private groups to censor American citizens.
We know, thanks to the leaks from whistleblowers, as well as from Elon Musk himself after purchasing X, that the U.S.
government had been coordinating with executives at Big Tech to silence and censor Americans to manipulate U.S.
elections.
These are facts.
These are not in dispute.
I will say it again.
These are now historical record facts.
They were attempting to manipulate... I'm sorry, I shouldn't say attempt.
Twitter, before Elon Musk, was in direct communication with the U.S.
government to remove certain information.
They removed the story about Hunter Biden's laptop.
Facebook and Twitter made it difficult to share, if not impossible.
And now, just the other day, Joe Biden announced that they were on threads!
Interesting.
I think I can tell what's happening here.
Let's start with Trump's lawsuit against MSNBC, Reuters, and 18 other news organizations.
How is it that all of these news outlets reported the same fake news at the exact same time?
Why does it matter that they reported a false loss for Truth Social?
Truth Social is part of a SPAC, Special Purpose Acquisition Company.
I believe that's what it's called.
It's publicly traded.
This means that if you're someone who has purchased stock in this company, if you heard in the press repeated 20 times that they were suffering a massive loss, you may actually rush to sell your stock, thus attempting to destroy the company.
Now, according to Trump's lawsuit, The documents cited by these media organizations in no place anywhere does it actually have this number.
It would seem that 20 news organizations coordinated a false story at the same time.
Why?
Well, for the purpose of destroying any rival to the deep state U.S.
intelligence agency controlled media narrative.
Elon Musk was not having it with Twitter, so he decided to buy it, and they lost their minds.
The Twitter files then exposed U.S.
government manipulation of social media to control information in the United States.
Right now, with Elon Musk's lawsuit being launched, at the same time, get this, The same time that Elon Musk is launching a lawsuit, CNN publishes a story about a Jewish man suing him for defamation.
Guess which story appears first on Google?
Maybe not for everybody, but for me, which I find quite hilarious.
Now, does this mean that Google is in on it?
Well, we know for a fact that YouTube has censored information in the past that was critical of the CIA.
I know because I was subjected to it.
There was a big story.
Yeah, and for the sake of making sure this information gets out, we won't poke the bear too much.
But there was a certain individual you could not name.
I covered breaking news from a NewsGuard-certified news agency.
And all of a sudden, I get a notification.
Someone messages me saying, hey Tim, your video's gone.
Turns out, YouTube, without notice, without a strike, without explaining why, removed my segment discussing the major breaking news story.
Now normally when YouTube takes down a video, they give you a notice saying, here's why your video was taken down.
Not this time.
The same thing happened on Facebook.
If you named a specific individual who was in the CIA, the post disappeared.
Just outright disappeared.
This is direct evidence of government collusion to censor speech.
Now, typically when it comes to naughty opinions, they can hide behind that, well, you broke the rules, and the platform has the rules.
But what happens when a CIA employee, or staffer, or analyst, or whatever, whatever they call themselves, what happens when you out a CIA person, when you out CIA assets or personnel?
Well, now you didn't break any rules!
So what can they do?
Quietly, and secretly, they began to remove all of this information.
I will say this right now.
This lawsuit against Media Matters must move forward.
Now it's possible that we see more government collusion, because these people are abject evil.
They are as evil as evil can be.
It may be that the courts just say, no.
Because, well, I'm not entirely convinced we get a fair trial here, but we'll see.
On top of what we're seeing with these lawsuits, the Attorney General of Texas, so I think we may be on good ground here, has announced a criminal investigation into Media Matters.
Oh, this is going to get fun, ladies and gentlemen.
Why?
It is likely that we will see direct evidence of government collusion with Media Matters to suppress and silence individuals.
Chris Pavlovsky of Rumble seems to be joining in the fray with certain statements made on Twitter.
Now X. This one is going to be big.
It is the end of the year 2023.
Next year is going to get wild.
And we are now looking at quite possibly some of the most significant legal action seen in our lifetimes.
Will we sit back and allow corrupt and evil individuals in the government suppress the right of the American people?
Let me make it clear for everybody.
We know for a fact that U.S.
government employees, even the Biden White House, were in contact with big tech because they wanted people censored.
Not allowed to do this.
The argument made by the left is they were just, you know, reporting people for breaking the rules.
No, these intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies had backdoor access, direct portals on Facebook and Twitter to send in specific takedown requests.
It doesn't matter if you think they were just telling the platforms someone broke the rules.
That's still a violation of the Constitution.
Here we are.
This is all proven factual.
And now, they're going to try everything in their power.
To stop Trump from winning in 2024.
I'll tell you why I say these people are evil.
They are pure evil.
They're as evil as evil can be.
They believe that they have the right to usurp, to destroy, to infringe upon your rights as a human being.
They treat you like a chicken.
They think that you are someone to just do work so your labor can be extracted and they can use that to wage wars, to expand their empire and their interests.
That's evil.
My view is we should be a bit more decentralized.
And that means sometimes humans make mistakes and believe stupid things.
So be it.
That's the human experience.
The right of individuals to live, to explore, to love, to learn, etc.
But you see, the people who work for these intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies that are coordinated with big tech are evil.
They believe they're smarter than you.
They believe their guiding vision is better than yours.
And you should do as they say.
You should think as they want.
It is time we took back the power from them and restored a government of, for, and by the people.
Story number one, the rap.
Trump sues MSNBC, Reuters, and 18 other news agencies.
They say, the lawsuit comes following reports this month that Truth had lost $73 million in 2023.
That figure turned out to be incorrect.
The company has actually lost $31 million, a substantial difference.
It is not clear how the error occurred.
The initial $73 million figure was attributed to a securities filing by Digital World Acquisition Corp., which is attempting to merge with Truth Social the next day.
I'll report.
The lawsuit filed in Sarasota County.
So, there you go.
It looks like it's not yet in duac, but I believe that the intention here was to cause economic harm to anything that could rival big tech.
Why is the White House publicly attacking Elon Musk?
Why did the White House just promote Threads, a Facebook meta-entity?
Because they control it.
That's a platform where the narrative machine is still in control.
The lawsuit filed in Sarasota County, Florida on behalf of Trump Media and Technology Group names several major news outlets.
There's 20 of them.
The lawsuit alleges that the $73 million figure was an utter fabrication.
Each defendant, in apparent coordination, reported the exact same false number within approximately 24 hours of one another, each citing to a public SEC filing in which the mystery $73 million loss appears nowhere.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
And I believe, even with the argument that they were just... Oh, I just saw him report it.
They're going to have a hard time.
A hard time with this one.
I don't see how this can fly.
How you can have 20 major media organizations all publish the same fake news.
How?
They were all citing each other.
The problem?
They were claiming to cite a filing.
And there is where they've fallen into a big problem.
Your Honor, we were publicly declaring that we cited an SEC filing, and now they got you.
I'll tell you why.
If it said something like, it has been reported that Trump's Truth Social lost $73 million, reported by CNN or Insert News Company, Yeah, you might get away with that one.
Yep, that's right.
CNN, let's say they report fake news.
And then everyone says, Donald Trump does backflip, reports CNN.
That's a fact statement.
CNN did report it.
And Trump's beef would be with CNN.
The problem?
These news organizations, according to the lawsuit, all cited the SEC.
Which means they all claimed a document that does not make a claim did.
That is fake news.
That is false information.
In fact, they've actually defamed the SEC on top of everything else.
Not like the US government's going to do anything about it though.
Let's talk about Elon Musk and the war for the internet.
Musk sues Media Matters as advertising exodus continues.
This is massive.
Elon Musk and Axe, in their lawsuit claim, as well as many employees, have publicly stated this.
This is the most brilliant thing.
This is hilarious.
What did Media Matters do?
Okay, here's how Twitter slash Axe works, for those that don't know.
I know all of you do, but for the sake of the legal argument.
You follow me.
Guess what?
You see my posts.
Let's say you follow me and Ian Crossland.
And then you're going to see a post from me and a post from Ian.
How about that?
What would happen then if you intentionally followed, I don't know, like a neo-Nazi, and then you intentionally followed IBM?
Your post would literally show an IBM post and a Nazi post.
And this is what they allege was done by Media Matters.
Media Matters intentionally followed the accounts of extremists and major brands so they could screenshot images of their posts appearing next to each other.
Now, what they're saying is, by specifically following these two groups, it ensured that the ads served to them would be from who they followed, and then would appear next to extremist content.
In fact, they argue no one, no one saw any of these ads served along extremist content.
Media Matters engaged in fraud.
And it resulted in a massive, massive multi-million dollar loss to the point where Ken Paxton of Texas has announced a criminal investigation of Media Matters over this.
After a report from Media Matters showed advertisements for major brands appeared next to anti-Semitic post on X, the company sued Media Watchdog Group and its reporter.
The Texas Attorney General Office plans to investigate the nonprofit for potential fraud.
No question.
I think we can all see it.
Elon Musk and employees at X have stated they have the hard data to prove it.
The only person who saw this were Media Matters employees, perhaps one other person.
They created the circumstance, fabricating a scenario, and then lied to claim the ads were being served in this way.
That is massive manipulation, fraud, and tortious interference.
But we'll see.
Now here's where things get interesting.
Before we get into the most interesting, I want to point out Chris Pavlovsky of Rumble has announced that Media Matters also misrepresented Rumble.
Perhaps this will go a little further.
One of the more interesting elements, my friends, there was a post last night Where someone said, any major influencer on X should file an amicus brief or join a class action against Media Matters.
Why?
How much money do I stand to lose because the advertising has been pulled?
A lot.
I think I pull in about two grand every two weeks, two to three grand.
Hey, that's a good amount of money.
And if just I am losing four to five thousand bucks per month, What about the Krasensteins?
This is significant.
The Krasenstein brothers, prominent liberal personalities, reportedly are pulling in around $25,000 per month in their share of ad revenue.
Because Media Matters manipulated the system, lying to get ads pulled from the platform.
It is not just an attack on X. It directly attacks the revenue of individuals like the Krasensteins, like myself, and anyone else who makes money.
You see, those people advertise on our posts.
By lying about what's going on in X, they got our ads pulled as well.
It may be that each and every one of these individuals, should the lawsuit prove to be correct and Elon Musk's statement prove to be true, all of us may have some minor standing to at least file an amicus brief is basically us saying like, hey, we were wronged by this as well and we are in support of X. I'd like to see that happen.
Now in the course of my duties, Investigating the story and preparing this segment, I of course did my cursory Google search.
Google search Elon Musk from an account that is not signed in.
The top story that Google presents.
Far-right conspiracy theorists accused a 22-year-old Jewish man of being a neo-Nazi, then Elon Musk got involved.
10 hours ago.
That's right.
Just after the lawsuit was filed, CNN publishes a story that Google puts at the top of their search results.
There is nothing on this beautiful green earth that would convince me it is not a coordinated effort.
First, let's take a look at this story.
The actual lawsuit took place, I believe was filed over a month ago, a month and a half ago.
Why is now CNN running a story a month and a half later?
Seriously.
Why did CNN publish an old story about Elon Musk?
It's coordinated, it's intentional.
A Jewish, look at this, 22-year-old Jewish man.
Oh, that's interesting.
Did it say that in the headline?
Yeah.
22-year-old Jewish man of being a neo-Nazi.
Elon Musk got involved.
Now, let me show you what CNN says in this story that was published just last night.
Ben Brody said his life was going fine.
He had just finished college, dated trouble, was prepping for law school, then seemingly out of nowhere Elon Musk used his considerable social media clout to amplify an online mob's misguided rants accusing him of being an undercover agent in a neo-Nazi group.
Here's the actual accusation, which I believe is incorrect and has been incorrect the whole time.
There is a group called Patriot Front.
Many people believe that Patriot Front itself is a fabrication of the federal government.
They do not think it's a neo-Nazi group.
The theory from many people is that the group itself was fabricated by the federal government to create a boogeyman.
And this man is part of that federal fabrication.
I do not believe he is.
Y'all gotta be caring about just posting a picture and being like, hey, this guy looks like this guy.
I think that's stupid.
What CNN is claiming, this is really funny, they're claiming that the argument is the neo-nazi group is real and a fed was planted inside that group.
That's not true at all.
CNN's lying.
More importantly, Elon Musk actually did not name this person as far as I can tell.
Very odd is what Musk responded.
Huh?
Is that it?
What else did Elon Musk say?
Elon Musk tweeted a reply in which he said, quote, looks like one is a college student who wants to join the
government and another is maybe an Antifa member but nonetheless a probable false flag
situation.
Elon Musk's legal team says this case will be dismissed and he's correct.
You know why?
Elon Musk never said, this guy did this thing.
He said, looks like one is a college student who wants to join the government.
Now, you made the argument that this is in line with what was said, but please.
Anti-SLAPP legislation would throw this out in two seconds.
He never even said the dude's name!
How many college students want to join the government?
A million?
And they're arguing this is what Elon Musk did wrong?
That's why CNN didn't actually show what Musk says in the opening paragraph.
They say he amplified it by saying something similar.
Don't get me wrong.
It is annoyingly stupid that people are jumping on this story and then saying something like, oh wow, look, this guy did this thing.
Okay, dude, get out of here.
Nobody likes Patriot Front.
Everyone's trying to call them out.
And it's fascinating that the quote-unquote right-wing conspiracy theory is critical of a neo-Nazi group.
Yeah, they don't want to say that either.
But let's get back to business.
When you search Elon Musk lawsuit on Google right now, what's the first story?
Elon Musk, far-right conspiracy theorist, he's being sued by a 22-year-old Jewish man.
That's the first one.
Don't get me wrong, Google does show the other stories.
But how did this story become the number one story related to this?
If you were now thinking, Oh, I want to look up this lawsuit thing.
You would find a completely different story.
It's coordinated.
No question.
I believe that it's very likely that should this move to discovery, I think Ken Paxton's investigation could be significant, you will find that Media Matters directly coordinates with the government.
Here's what I imagine what happens.
There's some government employees that are sending notes to Media Matters saying, hey, take a look at this, take a look at that.
Media Matters then will publish a story after being informed by the government.
Yeah, that's unconstitutional.
This is the war for the internet right now.
It's not just Trump, not just Musk.
It is all of us that are being deeply affected by this.
Consider, Joe Biden, his White House personally targeted Elon Musk in a statement and then announced they were on threads.
It is a coordinated effort from the government.
These people are evil!
Ken Paxton, take it to the top, man.
We have decided enough is enough.
And now we're winning.
So let me just say, what must we do to vanquish this evil?
Exactly what we're already doing.
I look forward to the victory in 2024.
Shout out to Javier Millet in Argentina.
These people are evil, and they're routed, and they're on the run, and they're terrified.
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.
But you see, what did we do over the past several months?
We, as in those who believe in freedom.
We have fought for freedom of speech.
We've supported people like Elon Musk.
We've launched our own companies.
You've supported the likes of Rumble, Public Square, Truth Social.
And this has resulted in our abilities and foothold growing.
It's resulted in the failures of threads.
It's resulted in YouTube even backing down from many of their previously held positions and rules.
YouTube used to ban you if you questioned the election.
They're losing.
The government, their manipulations, these evil individuals are losing.
All we must do is stay the course, keep tweeting up storms, keep producing content, keep building the parallel economy, and then we vote.
Be wary.
This is the important one.
Anyone who advocates for violence, fed, this is what they so desperately need.
Some kind of legitimacy.
Here's what's fascinating.
I was looking back a few years ago at some of these stories.
There was a story that Dave Rubin posted about where he was trying to host Pete Buttigieg on his show.
I think it was in 2019 or 2018.
And Buttigieg backed out because these far-left activists started targeting and harassing Buttigieg's team and they panicked.
What's amazing is we're beyond that.
We've won.
Right now, we had Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks on the Culture War podcast.
We are going to have some Democrats, that's right, on the Culture War podcast.
They are no longer afraid.
The stranglehold of the woke cult in the deep state is breaking.
We are winning.
Anyone who comes out and attempts violence, advocates for it, they're a Fed.
I see this on TimCast's IRL from time to time.
What do I say?
We are winning through the machine in the way we are supposed to win.
Through lawsuits and by voting.
And what we see pop up on YouTube and on Twitter is, No, there's only one thing we must do!
Yeah, right.
You're a Fed and everyone knows it.
They are so desperate in their panic.
The only thing they can do is try and goad people into acts of vandalism or violence.
We ain't buying it.
And nobody wants to do any of that stuff.
The people of this country, the good people of this country who work hard every day, know better.
So you know what I say?
Anybody who wants to engage in violence and threats and intimidation and terror, lock them up.
Because we don't care for that, and we know we're winning without it.
And anybody who wants to do that is a bad person who has nothing to do with anything we want.
So when they talk about these groups like Patriot Front, spare me dude, everyone hates those guys.
We know.
We're winning.
And there's nothing they can do about it.
They'll try to censor.
They'll try to suppress.
They're losing.
Some people have asked, why be so overt about it with this overt collusion?
Because they're losing.
It used to be that they had back doors into Twitter.
Then Elon Musk bought the platform and now they're in panic.
This was asked last night.
Why would Media Matters create fake evidence?
It used to be that you could just threaten and people would back down instantly.
It used to be that if you found a post that was offensive and showed it to an advertiser, they would panic in fear.
But now, it's not working as much anymore.
So what does Media Matters have to do?
Well...
Presuming that Elon's correct in their data.
They must fabricate these circumstances in a desperate bid to try and gain some traction.
And it is not working anymore.
So, my friends, I say this to you.
Share videos like this.
Become a member at TimCast.com.
Buy products from companies you support.
And we win.
It's over.
Look at the success of Sound of Freedom.
Rich Men North of Richmond.
The failures of Bud Light and Target.
The failures of the Marvels.
Get woke.
Go broke, baby.
We need only stay the course and we win.
Let them flail in their panic.
2024 is around the corner.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
With Thanksgiving around the corner and everyone getting ready for those oh-so-wonderful family conversations, I thought I would arm you with this gem of a segment about Donald Trump and my friends, his terrifying plans.
If you listen to MSNBC, you may have heard one of the scariest things imaginable.
And if you're a Democrat, if you're a Republican, you probably heard one of the greatest things imaginable.
I'm half kidding, by the way.
But let me give for all of you this segment from Morning Joe, where he makes some bold claims that Trump will imprison and execute people.
I'm not kidding.
This dude actually thinks that Trump is going to start just slaughtering his political enemies.
Dude, the only people who actually went after their political rivals are Democrats.
But, you know, let's just play the video.
And the reason why we do this is because, well, Thanksgiving is around the corner.
And I want you all to be ready for this, because I guarantee you, for those of you with those liberal family members who watch MSNBC, oh boy.
Doesn't mean he won't do it when he gets a chance to do it.
And if he has voted into office, then a lot of these people that are talking about literal or figurative or whatever the hell they're saying, you're gonna look like idiots.
Because he will do, he will get away with, he will imprison, he will execute whoever he's allowed to imprison No doubt about it, ladies and gentlemen.
Look at this from the New York Times.
Just look at his past.
It's not really hard to read.
Again, the only thing that stood between him and the destruction of American democracy
Ladies and gentlemen, look at this from The New York Times.
Trump's dire words raise new fears about his authoritarian bent.
The only thing that stopped Donald Trump, they say, was the federal judiciary.
Do you mean when Democrats fabricated a fake story that Donald Trump was secretly colluding with the Russians, that the election had been stolen in 2016, and that we needed to get to the bottom of whether or not Donald Trump was a secret Russian agent?
Hey, I'd like to give it all to everyone in 2020, to all the people who thought that Donald Trump was secretly the president and would be reinstated in March because the United States was incorporated.
But hey, far be it for me to tell you what's real.
I don't know.
Everybody's got their claims.
I can only tell you this.
Yo, the world's gone wild, man.
It's absolutely wild.
And this next year is going to be absolutely insane.
While one thing that was stated by Joe Scarborough is true.
A Colorado court ruled that Trump did engage in insurrection!
But he can't be disqualified because he is not an officer of the United States.
Which is a weird thing, but okay.
I think this is the point.
Where this is all headed, they need to plant the seeds to remove Donald Trump from the ballot.
It won't be so simple.
They can't just go out there and be like, yeah, Trump's gone.
They need precedent.
So what do we get?
Minnesota and Michigan, the judges say, nah, you can't take Trump off the ballot.
Really great arguments on the part of Trump, actually.
States do not have the right to determine eligibility, only the federal government.
The federal constitution determines who is eligible to be president, and therefore it is a federal judiciary question, a judicial question, not a state one in which Michigan and Minnesota were like, yeah, we can't take him off the ballot.
In Colorado, however, They said, well, he's not an officer of the United States, but he did engage in insurrection.
And this is the path.
What's likely going to happen now is there's going to be other states that cite Colorado and say he did engage in insurrection.
Colorado already said it, but they don't agree that he's an officer of the United States.
Well, that's wrong.
This will not stop.
It is not Donald Trump who did anything.
He didn't even bring in the National Guard to stop the riots.
Let him happen.
Many people argued that during the Summer of Love riots, the worst riots we'd seen in 50 years, in 2020, Many argued Trump should have brought in the army.
Tom Cotton wrote an article about it.
Editor at the New York Times got fired for publishing the article.
Trump didn't do it.
The argument was that if Trump did bring in the military, they would say, this is it.
Trump is deploying the troops.
He's targeting the American people.
So he didn't.
And what happened?
You ended up with widespread violence and crime.
Could have worked out if the Trump campaign played that angle a little bit better.
Then what do we see with January 6?
Trump should have called in the National Guard.
But he didn't.
Why?
If Trump called in the National Guard on January 6, they would have immediately run the story in all the press.
Trump is mobilizing a coup.
His supporters are storming the gates and now he's ordering the military to come in and secure blah blah blah.
They would have said a military coup is happening.
What would have happened then?
Even if Trump instructed the National Guard, To allow the electoral vote to continue, the media would have framed it as Trump is deploying the troops and his supporters are attacking the Capitol, and then they would have imprisoned him instantly.
So Trump didn't.
Trump instead went to the Democrats and to the mayor and said, you guys got to get the National Guard out here.
And they went, nah, they're not going to do it.
They wanted Trump to do it.
Trump would be locked up in a military prison, in my opinion, if Trump ordered the National Guard to be deployed on January 6.
They would have said, it's a military coup.
And what would have happened to all of those guardsmen who followed those orders?
It would have been bad.
It would have been bad.
In fact, if Trump really wanted to play dirty, he could have done a bunch of other things.
In fact, Trump could have ordered at any point the National Guard to actually attack him.
That's right.
He could have pulled an Erdogan.
Trump could have had, through various actors, the National Guard come and actually try and arrest him.
He could have then come out and said the Democrats are staging a coup, could have blamed the troops, but he didn't do anything like that.
That's silly, why would he?
I think they would have done it to him.
Here's what the New York Times is claiming.
Trump's dire words.
Oh boy, here we go.
Autocrat experts, autocracy experts, are so concerned.
Let's get it, baby.
The New York Times writes, Donald J. Trump rose to power with political campaigns that
largely attacked external targets, including immigration from predominantly Muslim countries
and from the south of the US-Mexico border. But now in his third presidential bid,
some of his most vicious and debasing attacks have been leveled at domestic opponents.
During a Veterans Day speech, Mr. Trump used language that echoed authoritarian leaders who rose to power in Germany and Italy in the 1930s, degrading his political adversaries as vermin who needed to be rooted out.
You know why I really, really love this line?
Because it was the Democrats who referred to Trump supporters as maggots.
And they've been doing that for years.
Trump comes out only recently and they're like, Oh!
Dude, like I can tell you, the conflict is escalating.
But to act like these people are standing on any kind of moral ground is laughably absurd.
The threat from outside forces, Mr. Trump said, is far less sinister and dangerous and grave than the threat from within.
And he's correct.
This turn inward has sounded new alarms among experts on autocracy who have long worried about Mr. Trump's praise for foreign dictators and disdain for democratic ideals.
They said the former president's increasingly intensive focus on perceived internal enemies was a hallmark of dangerous totalitarian leaders.
Wow!
All of those things could be applied to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Obama is a deranged and evil individual.
He is the worst president this country has seen in my lifetime.
I give a special reservation for Woodrow Wilson, but Obama may be one of the worst presidents we've ever had, and I'll tell you why.
Obama.
He lied.
He cheated.
He stole.
Obama prosecuted more journalists and whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all other presidents combined.
The attack and affront to free speech was massive.
The expansion of the woke cult and these policies implemented by Barack Obama, DEI, the expansion of the wars in the Middle East, Libya, Syria, etc.
The extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens.
Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old American citizen, who was killed in a drone strike in a country we are not at war with.
Obama outright murdered a child!
That's not an exaggeration.
Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki, a well-known story.
Obama murdered a child.
Anwar al-Awlaki was a jihadi.
Still, he was an American.
And you can make your arguments, but he deserved a trial.
Obama blew him up.
than his son, who committed no crime, who was at a civilian restaurant in Yemen.
Obama killed him.
Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which included the indefinite detention provision, allowing, though they will argue, their right, the government's right, to capture, detain any individual, anywhere, even an American, without charge or trial, and hold them indefinitely They could send you to an offshore military rig and hold you there against your will without you having committed any crimes.
Thanks, Obama.
unidentified
And they say, remember when the only scandal was a tan suit?
I don't know, I thought the murder of a child was a scandal, but I'm understanding why the media didn't want to report on that one as heavily.
But yeah.
Now tell me about all of your fears about Donald Trump!
Pathetic scumbaggery.
Scholars, Democrats, and anti-Trump Republicans are asking anew how much Mr. Trump resembles current strongmen abroad and how he compares to authoritarian leaders of the past.
Perhaps most urgently, they are wondering whether his rhetorical turn into more fascist-sounding territory is just his latest public provocation.
On the left, an evolution in his beliefs or the dropping of a veil.
There are echoes of fascist rhetoric and they're very precise.
I'm gonna pause right there and just let you know the left is fascist.
By every definition.
Uh, come on.
The lucrative merger of corporation and state.
They have that.
Oh, and they say, oh, but that's not what real fascism is.
Okay.
But the, the, uh, socialized enforcement of, um, Let's slow this down.
Let's say, social pressures and norms used to dictate economic policy.
That's what the Nazis did.
The Nazis played the game, and the reason why people are like, they weren't really socialists, because they used market economics, but they used social coercion.
I was reading a great academic article about how the Nazis enforced the market mechanics they desired, because they would go to, like a steel manufacturer, And they would say, are you manufacturing things for the war effort?
You're not.
Do you hate this country?
Are you a bigot?
Are you a racist?
I'm not saying literal, I'm saying figuratively.
They would go to them and use social pressures and cancel culture.
Why aren't you building things for the war effort?
Why aren't you supporting the Nazis?
The rainbow flag by the LGBT community, the progress pride flag.
Same thing as the swastika.
I'm not being cute.
I'm not exaggerating.
The swastika was long used by people all over the world as a symbol of prosperity and good fortune.
If you look back at antiques from the early 1900s, you'll see swastikas everywhere.
Much like the rainbow, it was a symbol of fortune.
The rainbow represents gold at its end.
It represents a spring warm day.
It represents prosperous, beautiful springtime.
The swastika at the time did as well.
But now, the Nazis have turned it into something grotesque and vile.
And it doesn't mean that anymore.
When the Nazis came to power, they were flying the swastika flag, a symbol of peace, harmony, and prosperity.
They inverted it.
They corrupted it.
This is what the left does with the rainbow in the same way.
And people look at the rainbow and they're like, oh, you can't possibly think a rainbow means that.
Take a look at any antique store that carries antiques from the 1900s.
I went to an antique store in Austin, Texas.
They had swastikas everywhere.
And the guys who worked there said, don't care.
This meant something back then, and that's what these antiques represent.
They don't represent Nazis.
And I'm like, that's kind of crazy to me.
But this is what they're doing now with the rainbow flag.
They are Nazis.
And don't forget, they hate Jews.
Seriously, they hate Jews.
Let's not be cute.
The far left, the woke cult, believe insane anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
We saw this with the Women's March.
We saw this with Black Lives Matter.
We saw this with Black Lives Matter pushing outright anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about the slave trade and banks and all this other crazy garbled nonsense.
Now, when Hamas attacks Israel, they're now singing the praises of Hamas, these far leftists.
No joke.
But it's Donald Trump who's the dangerous one.
They say Mr. Trump's shift comes as he and his allies devise plans for a second term that would upend some of the long-held norms of American democracy and the rule of law.
These ambitions include using the Justice Department to take vengeance on his political rivals.
Full stop.
They're already doing that to him.
And many others.
How many Trump people have been arrested and charged who didn't actually do anything wrong.
Plotting a vast expansion of presidential powers, which is what Obama and Biden have been doing non-stop.
Sure.
Spare me.
And installing ideologically aligned lawyers in key positions to bless his contentious actions.
That's quite literally what Democrats have already been doing!
The only problem I have is that Republicans aren't fighting back hard enough.
Mr. Trump's allies dismissed the concerns as alarmism and cynical political attacks.
Stephen Chung, a campaign spokesman, responded to criticism of the Vermin Remarks by saying, if it came from reactive liberals whose sad, miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House, Mr. Chung did not respond to requests for a comment on the article.
Some experts on authoritarianism say that while Mr. Trump's recent language has begun to more closely resemble those used by Hitler or Mussolini, he does not quite mirror fascist leaders of the past.
Still, they say he does exhibit traits similar to current strongmen like Viktor Orban of Hungary or Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey.
Mm-hmm, sure.
Mr. Trump's relatively isolationist views run counter to the hunger for empire, an expansion that characterized the rule of Hitler or Germany or Mussolini.
Oh, so you're saying that it's more in line with like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden?
Next question.
As president, he was never able to fully wield military power for political purposes.
Uh-huh.
Meeting resistance when he sought to deploy troops against protesters.
No, he just didn't do it.
It's too simplistic to reference him as a neo-fascist or autocrat or whatever.
Trump is Trump.
And he has no particular philosophy that I've seen after four years as president, said former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a Republican who served in President Barack Obama's cabinet after 12 years as a senator from Nebraska.
Still, Mr. Trump's campaign style is damn dangerous, he said.
He continues to push people into corners and give voice to this polarization in our country.
And the real danger is that if this continues to bubble up and take hold of a majority of Congress and statehouses or governorships, there must be compromise in a democracy, because there's only one alternative.
It's authoritarian government.
No, there isn't.
There is cultural homogenization.
When we win, and we are winning, and we push out the psychotic woke left cult through politics, culture, and market economics, that's just how we'll do it, they will cry, and they will scream, and they will pray, and they will beg, and we will say, don't know, don't care.
We will not allow these groomers, these corrupt narcissists, these arrogant elitists to have any say.
And how will we do that?
By just saying, go away.
There doesn't need to be tribunals.
There doesn't need to be arrests.
There should be some arrests for some people, for sure, criminals.
But for the most part, we're going to say, we are not interested in spending money on your businesses.
We are not interested in electing you.
You are not invited onto our shows.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
The idea that Donald Trump needs to go and beat people and arrest and detain... No, it's a bit silly, but some people, it will happen.
I do believe what we need will be Criminal charges for the criminally corrupt.
I want to see the Democrats who engaged in the false Russiagate hoax arrested and charged and that we do need to correct this country.
So they can cry all they want.
The Washington Post says voters must take Trump seriously and literally the stakes are that high.
Trump may be a performance artist, but with his shocking provocations, he is telling us what he would do in a second term as president.
That's why taking him seriously and literally is required because all of these people know they're criminals.
The reason why they can't allow Donald Trump to win is because many of these people are guilty of crimes.
They took the money.
How many of these people?
Went to Epstein Island.
Epstein then said, we are going to destroy your life or you're going to play ball.
How many of them are on that list?
And not just Epstein, but just criminality in general.
How many of these individuals took the bribes, played ball, and know if this machine comes crumbling down, they will be destroyed?
You see, they're fighting for dear life.
They should be excised from polite society, these criminals and the corrupt.
Donald Trump should weed them out.
And now, Stephen Colbert makes grim reaper joke about Joe Biden's age.
I don't care about Colbert.
I don't care about these jokes.
What I care about is the fact that even Colbert recognizes Joe Biden cannot be president.
But I'm pro-Biden, baby!
All the way!
Joe Biden must be the Democrat nominee, and we gotta support him and give him a chance for a second term.
Why?
The reality is, he can't win.
He can't win and we know it.
They're gonna start coming after him.
And they're gonna try to replace him.
And it will be disgraceful for him.
But they know Joe Biden can't win.
But I gotta be honest, I don't see how Newsom wins either.
Newsom has less than a year now to build the narrative of success.
California's not successful.
So what can they do?
The only option they have is removing Donald Trump in some way.
So pay attention to where this country is headed.
Pay attention to what's happening all around you.
I'll say it again.
The only path forward to stop Donald Trump, for the Democrats, it's not going to be Newsom.
They need Trump off the ballot.
They need Trump unable to run in any way imaginable.
And they'll need someone to replace him.
But I think many of these individuals would be happy with literally anybody else.
With Iran DeSantis, you'll get negotiating on foreign policy.
They're not going to let Vivek Ramaswamy come in, that's for sure.
But I'm concerned about Donald Trump.
After we had this Democrat go on TV, I think it was on MSNBC, and call for Trump to be eliminated.
Yeah.
Now things are getting a little scary.
You could argue that he meant all politically.
Doesn't matter.
It's the escalation of rhetoric.
You see, if they said Trump should be removed from political office or not allowed to run, we get it.
But saying someone should be eliminated?
We know what that means.
That's a scary reality.
If these people are publicly saying the only way this country survives, what they really mean is the only way their corruption survives, is if Trump is eliminated, do you think it just ends with politics?
Donald Trump recently released a report that he's in great health.
Something dark is coming.
This country is in a dangerous way.
And now they're going on MSNBC and they're trying to rile everyone up into believing that Donald Trump is going to create gulags or something, when the Democrats are already doing it and already have done it.
So, as we sit here, and they claim that Trump will do all these things, but we know they've already done these things, recognize what they are saying, where they are saying we are at now.
If they're arguing that Donald Trump is going to destroy democratic norms by doing things they've already done, they are telling you outright they are gutting this country and ripping it to shreds, and they're doing it on purpose.
No, I'll tell you, it's really simple.
It's probably because they're criminals, these politicians.
It's probably because they know that if Trump gets in office, he's going to start cleaning things up, and they will rot in a jail cell.
So they must say or do whatever they can to make that not happen.
But my friends, we're winning.
So I hope you're excited.
Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
What is at stake in the culture war?
My friends, I don't think you will live in a pod, and I don't think you will eat the bugs.
Now, to be fair, you may be eating bugs already and not realizing it, because they've started including something called acheta in various foods.
I don't know how ubiquitous it is, I don't think it's actually very common at all, but acheta is a type of cricket, I believe.
And so, the acheta protein, you'll see in the bag and you won't realize you're actually eating cricket protein.
Now, I gotta be honest, I really don't care.
They make these cricket cheesy poofs, and I'm like, if they taste good, they taste good, whatever.
Like, food's food, dude.
I've never had an issue with eating weird things.
But, I do believe there are health considerations and freedom implications in whether or not you have a right to enjoy a nice, fine filet mignon.
In this video from the World Economic Forum, they say these tiny pods are helping to tackle homelessness.
Ah, yes, the tiny pods.
So, I will say it once again, what is at stake in the culture war?
Your children will live in the pods, and they will eat the bugs.
That's the reality.
So when you say, I cannot speak up, I could lose my job and I got a family to feed, fine.
You are buying short-term gains and ensuring long-term losses.
I'm not saying it's easy.
It's extremely difficult, probably one of the most difficult things ever.
But, do whatever you want.
I'm not going to tell you what to do.
I'll just say this.
If you are the person who says, I will not speak up.
How about this?
I've had people come up to me and say, I used to watch all the time.
I don't watch anymore.
I just cut out all politics from my diet.
I'm like, okay, well, your children will live in the pod and your children will eat bugs.
I'm watching this movie about, uh, I forgot what it's called.
Something on Amazon where, like, aliens come to Earth and bring the technology and it destroys the economy.
And there's a scene where they're like, Wow, I haven't had a real steak in years!
I forgot what it tasted like!
There's a scene in V for Vendetta where, um, Natalie Portman's character says, Is this real butter?
Oh, how did you get it?
That's the future for your kids.
But okay, I mean, you know, do whatever you want.
I don't have kids.
You know?
Family planning underway, but none of your business.
I want to make sure that my kid understands what butter tastes like, not this margarine crap.
Portland also has some of the fastest rising rents in America.
You see what they're saying?
It's not just about homelessness.
It's about eventually you, good renter, not being able to afford it.
Well, here's the solution, baby!
A Place for You aims to solve these problems.
I'd like to let you in on a big secret.
Homelessness does not exist.
Did you know that?
Oh, you may be saying, how is that possible?
That's right.
Homelessness is not a real phenomenon.
For the most part.
I'll give you this tweet from Mike Cernovich.
This guy Matthew Ziegler tweets, how many American homeless could be taken care of for the cost of shooting another rocket into space?
And Cernovich says, this is a little kid talking point.
There's almost zero true homelessness, as voluntary drug users want to live in camps, and when they get houses, they strip out fixtures and pawn scrap metal to buy more drugs.
Fact.
I know, because I worked in the non-profit sector, specifically dealing with homelessness.
He is right.
Someone responds saying accepted for catastrophe, natural disaster, fires, broken relationships, mental illness, lost jobs, greedy landlords, crime, and many other reasons there are homeless.
Point being, we need to address the root cause of homelessness while making living space affordable.
Spoken like a true child!
This is one of the reasons I really despise the left.
Having worked in the homelessness space and having known people who are homeless and having been homeless myself, I can tell you this.
There is almost zero true homelessness.
Let me tell you about my homelessness.
Lived in a car.
Had an apartment for a little while.
Ended up losing the apartment.
Super simple, long story.
But I was a teenager working for the airport, so what did I do?
I worked for American Eagle Airlines, which is AA Regional.
We'd sleep in the pilot's lounge.
You weren't supposed to do it, nobody really cared, but what I would just do is I would work a double shift from 5.30 in the morning until usually midnight because they have what's called Mando, mandatory overtime.
And then once we were done by midnight, typically it would go to like 10.30 or whatever, and then the last flights are going out.
Some red eyes, but they would say mandatory overtime for the next hour or so.
Sometimes people liked it because it's extra money.
And then, I'd be back at work at 5 in the morning.
It's midnight, so what do I do?
You just go to sleep in the pilot's lounge in your uniform.
You wake up groggy with only a few hours of sleep, and then you get right back to it.
Why?
At least you had a place to sleep and stay warm.
That's what I'd do.
Another thing I would do is I'd sleep in my car sometimes.
Eventually, just find a friend to let you crash in the couch, and I got lucky enough to do that.
I did not sleep on the streets.
I did not live in a tent.
I would not have been able to keep my job if I did.
Homelessness in the true sense of not being able to afford a home looks a lot like this.
There are certainly people who deal with catastrophe, but having worked in this sector and on this issue particularly, I found that almost every homeless person I'd encounter was someone who chose to be homeless.
That's it.
Literally.
Chose.
I'm not kidding.
Cernovich brings up a good point.
You put them in a tiny house, what are they going to do?
They're going to find a way to make money off it to buy drugs.
Serious.
I knew people who got EBT, electronic benefits.
I also got food benefits myself when I was a teenager.
I, uh, at one point was, uh, not making enough money and I was hungry and someone told me, dude, you can get EBT because you don't make that much money.
And I was like, no, but I have a job.
And they were like, yeah, but it's either rent or food, right?
I'm like, yeah, I'm like, go talk to the people.
So I went down to, um, health and human services and I said, I don't know if this is for me.
I'm like, how old was I at the time?
I think I was like 19 or 20.
And I was like, I make like 10 bucks an hour, and so it's like pay rent or eat, so I've been going to food banks.
And the lady was like, no worries.
And she gave me a bunch of free bus passes, and she gave me a hundred- a car with 144 bucks a month, just for cold food products, not prepared food.
And I was like, wow!
So we'd go to the grocery store and we'd buy groceries, and I was like, this is pretty cool.
And I used it for three months and then stopped.
Long story.
When I used government benefits, and I believe in government benefits, I used them legitimately.
When I received unemployment, it was because I'd lost my job, and then, long story short, legal issues, and then got off the benefits.
And then there was, uh, I used them when I was having a hard time.
And then I went back to work and found a way to make money for myself, and quickly got off these programs.
But I'll tell you what I do know.
People who received EBT benefits would go into grocery stores and they would say things like, I'll buy the groceries for you and you give me the cash.
Why?
They were siphoning away EBT benefits for drugs.
So if you got 140 bucks a month for food, not the most, but you know, it gets you by.
It really does.
They'd go in and say, Hey man, what are you buying?
I'll buy it for you, and then you give me the cash.
And then people are like, nah, I'm not interested.
Oh, okay, how about... I'll give you $140 in food benefits for $100 cash.
Yep.
Then somebody would get $140 in food, give $100 to the person, and the person would go buy drugs with it.
So I tell you...
Homelessness, man.
It's not, it's not, it's not real.
But the pods aren't about homelessness, man.
You're gonna live in the pods and you're gonna eat the bugs.
Take a look at this story from, uh, this is from a few years ago, I think, right?
This is from a year ago on CNBC.
Startup company offers pod space for rent in three-bedroom home.
unidentified
Organizer right here.
People are living on top of each other, literally.
It's my own personal space, so I can close the curtains.
And it's more private.
Pod Living.
It's the brainchild of entrepreneurs Christina Lennox and James Stallworth.
At first we were thinking that bunk beds might be an option, just because it's space efficient.
But then I was thinking, bunk beds are not private at all.
You can't long-term stay in bunk beds.
And put out the word, pods for rent.
I had always wanted to start a company to solve this housing issue.
When we talk about homelessness, we're talking about drug abuse, and we're talking about social disorder.
People choosing to live in the streets.
Why?
It is not expensive to live in the pod and share a space like this.
When it comes to young people not being able to afford rent, they find a way.
Skateboarders I know, they'll all work a minimum wage job, and they'll rent a studio apartment and have like six people living in it, and then rent is like a hundred bucks a person.
And they're like, sweet!
Or maybe 200 bucks these days.
It's getting up there.
But now they're working minimum wage jobs.
They can afford rent.
That's what they do.
They set up dividers and curtains.
You know, you live in the pod.
It's not a fun way to live.
And I think there are problems here, don't get me wrong.
But this shows homelessness ain't just it.
It also shows you where your children are going to be heading.
Do you know what a railroad apartment is?
In New York City, they have a thing called railroad apartments.
It is disgusting, and I think they're awful.
I was surprised to see this exist.
Coming from Chicago, we did not have this.
So in New York, the way they built a lot of houses, the stairs would be right in the middle.
It makes sense.
The support beams you use for the stairs go in the middle and also support the upper floors.
However, these old houses, you'd walk in the front door, you could go left or right, and the stairs are in the middle.
It makes sense.
But what happens when you're converting these buildings into apartments?
You create a wall on the left and a wall on the right, creating a narrow corridor on both sides so the stairs can still be used, creating what's called a railroad apartment.
You walk in the front door, you're in the living room.
You walk into the next room, there's a door in the front and a door in the back.
Now it's a bedroom.
You walk through the back door, door in the front, door in the back, a bedroom.
You walk through the next door, bedroom.
So if you live in the back, you have to walk through two people's bedrooms to get out of the building, or there would be a secondary exit, and you'd have the best room in the house.
But if you lived in the middle, People have to walk through your room to get to theirs.
Zero privacy.
What are you gonna do?
You have a company over?
Good luck.
Awful.
But this is what happens.
As the system breaks down, this is what your children will get.
They will live in the pods, and they'll eat their cricket paste.
And they'll think it's normal.
Now maybe, they'll live in the pods, they'll eat the bugs, they'll own nothing, and they'll be happy.
Because if they don't know what was lost, how could they ever regret losing it?
And that's the world they want to create.
But if you want your kids to enjoy at least the bare minimum of what you've understood, then you've got to resist and you've got to speak up.
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.
Do men hate women's content?
Well, I think it's fair to say I would be surprised if there was many men who actually enjoyed women's content, as it is quite literally women's content.
No, no, I'll slow down.
We got this TikTok from this woman who says men cannot handle being subjected to women-centric content, even though it's for women.
Where she goes into this big thing about how, like, men complain online and they're all whinging on the internet because someone made something for women.
Well, she's wrong.
It is fair to say there are some guys who don't like content from men and complain about it to no end.
But what she does is she highlights major blockbuster films, which are intended for general audiences, and then says men don't like them because they're made for women.
I'm gonna start by saying this.
It's entirely fine if she wants to criticize some men, but she does just say men, men, men, men, men.
And I would also like to point out This content not made for women.
The Marvels, a bunch of women punching other women?
Dude, that is not women-centric content.
And I can debunk the whole thing she gets into, but okay, let's first play this video.
You can hear her arguments, and then we'll talk about the question of whether or not men like women's content or are offended by it.
And I want to stress too, it's not like this lady is like the most important lady in the world.
It's not like her opinion is the most important opinion or anything like that, obviously.
So why highlight a video like this?
It gives an opportunity to explain the mistakes made by many of these people when it comes to producing movies, comic books, video games, etc.
When you argue that The Marvels, a superhero film, is made for women, that's the mistake.
Successful content that targets women?
Fifty shades of grey.
Sorry, that's reality.
But there are women like this, that just, they want to be in male spaces.
Dude, if the average woman does not visualize herself flying through the air and punching people in the face, and instead is more interested in, like, The Notebook, or, I don't know, Legally Blonde?
I don't know, what movies women are watching.
Or how about this?
How about the, um, what was it?
Twilight.
The vampire film the teenage girls were all into.
And they put themselves in the position of Bella, the girl who is being courted by the powerful vampire.
That's a really fascinating take on this too.
Content made for women?
How about where the main character is actually less powerful, Examples of men not being able to handle being subjected to content that caters to women, even though women every single day have to endure content only made for men.
unidentified
The first category is just when they have to start seeing something made for women too much, and the obvious example is the Barbie movie.
That's why they have Ryan Gosling and Margot Robbie.
Barbie is a mainstream popular brand.
Now, to be fair, I think they did think it would skew towards females, but family, in which case they expected general audience.
But again, again, yes, I will give some credit to her.
They probably expected a female-skewing audience on this one, but I don't think it's fair to say this is a movie catering towards women, because it is a general audience blockbuster that is meant to be big.
It was meant to generate hundreds of millions of dollars, it did, and they expect everyone to go see it.
But, you know, I'll give her a little bit on this one.
unidentified
They were just so annoyed that Barbie was everywhere, they could not escape it, and that, like, people were talking about it more than Oppenheimer.
And then, a car is about to hit her, when all of a sudden, BOOM!
This guy puts his hand on the car and it's all dented and he stops it and he's like, huh, are you okay?
Yeah, you see, here's a story, Twilight, that was written for women.
And the funny thing is, Fifty Shades of Grey, in my understanding, was Twilight fanfiction.
And then it was changed because it was so popular.
So you have, um...
Bella?
I'm probably trying to get the name.
I only know like Edward and Bella, I guess.
Is Edward the guy's name?
But basically, here's the female fantasy that sells really, really well among women.
Men did not care.
There was no like, I can't believe they're making Twilight.
Oh, movies are bad.
Some guys probably, but generally, no.
No guys cared.
Women put themselves in the role of a woman who was being saved.
I think this is a really great example of how you make superhero genre films with women in mind.
Now, instead, the Marvels, and many of these films, are women as the ultimate superhero, but they make the characters nasty.
So when you make the story of a ultimate protector, and guys identify with it, and then women don't like it, the movie bombs, everyone hates it, it's not men who are complaining.
This lady's like, men didn't like the Marvels.
Uh, who are they making the movie for?
Because nobody went to go see it.
It bombed.
It was the worst box office bomb Marvel has ever seen.
So clearly, women did not like it either.
Okay, here we go, here's more.
unidentified
Every piece of content should be geared towards them.
Pro tips for launching successful movie geared towards guys.
Women and men have different perspectives, different desires.
Men tend to be object-oriented, women tend to be subject-oriented.
And the male power fantasy is the guy who jumps on the grenade to save everybody.
And I don't know if there's the female power fantasy.
One argument is that the female power fantasy is like these movies where the woman gets to do whatever she wants, goof off, screw around, and then she ultimately gets the guy anyway.
But I think I've pointed out exactly There is the... I don't think power fantasy is the right thing to put in it.
The male fantasy is of power, right?
You have Spider-Man, and he's got to save the bustle of kids and his girlfriend, and then Green Goblin is like, Choose, Spider-Man!
And then Spider-Man saves both, because he's awesome, and we like Spider-Man because of that.
And then you have Twilight, which did extremely well.
And then the derivative, Fifty Shades of Grey, which was more like BDSM stuff, I guess.
I don't know.
I don't know anything about it.
But Twilight was the woman being saved by the big, strong man.
And then she's got a werewolf and a vampire fighting over her because she's so special.
Like...
Like, this is what Twilight is!
And this was selling extremely well among women.
Now, you want to make a movie for women?
There you go.
Why make the male fantasy with a female character arc that doesn't relate to either males or females?
I got no problem with you making whatever you want, but let's be real, lady.
Ain't nobody wanted to see that movie.
Twilight did really well, and the other Marvel movies did really well, but when you mix them, Look, and when they did Bros, the movie about the two gay guys, nobody wanted to see that either.
Because it's about market cap.
unidentified
This girl just went to see the movie and this person tweeted at her calling her fat and ugly.
It doesn't matter if people think these movies are good or not.
Dude, the movie was objectively bad.
That's it.
When they did the new Ghostbusters, the recent one, with the diverse cast of young people, including females, ain't nobody had a problem with it.
The problem is when they do, like, the problem with Ghostbusters was that it was not funny, it was slapstick, and I gotta tell you.
I watched a great video that broke down the problem with the new Ghostbusters 2016.
So, in the original Ghostbusters, when they're explaining the power of the proton packs, you know, the things they wear to shoot the ghosts, they're in an elevator.
The whole scene takes like 20 seconds.
And one of the Ghostbusters is like, can you switch me on?
and they flip it on and it goes, dooooooooooo, like it plays that sound and then they slowly walk away from it.
And it's like in that short scene, you understand the power and instability of these weapons they have created.
And the fear that it could blow up and take out New York City.
In the Ghostbusters 2016, it was like a three minute long sequence where she's like flying through the air, and they're
like, wooooooah, and it was all just overly elaborate, overly explained jokes.
That's why people didn't like it.
They were not mad that it was just a bunch of women.
This lady's got a chip on her shoulder, let me tell you.
I have bad news for you, ma'am.
There are women who also don't like these things, too.
I know!
There were women who did not like the Marvels!
How do I know?
They did not go and see it!
So, uh, I don't know what to tell ya.
There are a lot of these things that you're claiming about, and guess what?
Women don't like them either.
Now as for the Eminem thing, it was one of the stupidest things that Tucker Carlson ever did on his show, where he complained about the Eminem being less sexy.
Sorry.
Dude, I don't care if they made the Eminem a clown, or gave it big fake boobs that just be like, this is stupid.
It is a dumb commercial for a piece of candy.
And I gotta be honest, it was not just men who were upset about it.
Now to be fair, Tucker did do a segment on it, but I don't know what her point is.
unidentified
She's just like, if my eyes have to see the brown M&M, she should be dressing for me.
The issue is not that sports bars play sports.
It's that male content is so omnipresent, the infrastructure is so readily available, that you're always seeing content made for you that men cannot handle when content made for women comes across their TV.
This is the funniest thing I love so much about feminine masculinity, which I'll explain in a second, is that she's not paying money to see this stuff.
And you know what?
Fine.
I mean, the Marvels made, what, like 47 million?
It was 46.1 in their opening weekend.
So someone went to see it, effeminate males and masculine females.
And if it worked for them, bravo.
I don't care who they make the movie for.
I think the problem was bad storytelling.
That was the problem with the first one.
Characters that don't inspire, and the movies flop.
So if you like it, you're allowed to like it.
My complaint is not that they made a movie for women, because they did not.
They made a movie for weird woke people, and it ruins the brands.
If you want to make something for weird woke people, make something new and different.
Okay, make new characters that you can snowflake in safe space.
Remember they tried that?
That failed too.
The issue here is, people like this, who have a chip on their shoulder, blame men for everything.
Let me explain.
Just simplifying as I wrap this segment up.
Women liked Twilight, young women, and Fifty Shades of Grey.
Men like Captain America and Iron Man.
Could you imagine what would happen if they made a movie like Twilight, but it was like a weak effeminate man being saved by a female vampire and a female werewolf who then fought over him?
It could maybe work better than like a movie like the Marvels, but it would not have hit nearly as big as Twilight did.
And I want to point out Underworld.
Take a look at movies like Underworld and what do you get?
You do get a component of that, of that, you know, female dynamic of that, or I should say of the protector dynamic.
So let's talk about Underworld.
Underworld is vampires versus werewolves.
And there's a, uh, uh, Kate Beckinsale plays a sexy vampire.
She's very strong and very powerful.
And then there's this guy and she rescues him.
But what ends up happening to anybody who knows in that series?
The dude becomes the ultimate secret weapon, a hybrid vampire werewolf more powerful than she is.
So even when you try to make something that starts off in a similar way to Twilight, It ends with him being the biggest and the best.
Now, to be fair to Twilight, I know that Bella has, like, special abilities and becomes a werewolf and does become powerful.
No, I get all of that.
But she is still being fought over by two burly, like, strong, attractive men, and that is not typical of the male, you know, desire.
So even in Underworld, it was just Kate Beckinsale saving this guy, but he was capable in his own right.
He wasn't just some, like, you know, guy who is being fought after, fawned over.
I think what I want to say is, what I mean to say is, if you're gonna make something for women, you're typically making something where you have, like, a Bella who is the object of desire, and that is the female fantasy, to be desired.
And then for the male fantasy, you have a man becoming strong, overcoming, and saving those he cares about.
Not absolutely, but generally speaking, this is what people are probably experiencing.
This lady, Look, I get it.
Some guys, you're completely right.
But the real issue is they're making garbage content for audiences that don't exist.
It's not for women.
It's for this weird amalgamation that does not make sense and nobody cares about.
That's the issue.
So, to answer the final question, do men just hate women's content?
No.
I mean, it's probably fair to say they don't care for it, they're indifferent.
Like, I didn't go and see The Notebook or whatever.
There's a whole bunch of movies made for them and I don't care about.
I've never read nor watched, uh, uh, uh, Twilight.
I've seen it passively, like, when it's on TV in the background or something.
I don't seek it out.
It's not for me.
And I got no beef with it.
That's just how things go.
Do I go around complaining about how you go?
Let me tell you this one.
This lady, she's so full of it.
I go to Walgreens, right?
Because I want to get like a bag of beef jerky.
And what do I see?
They got two whole sections just for women.
They don't have a men's section.
In fact, if I want to get, like, a razor for my face, I gotta go to the makeup aisle.
And then in the back of the women's makeup, women's, you know, like, hair, hair, hair, hair stuff, this big whole section dedicated to all of women's needs, I ain't never complained about it one time.
You see what she's talking about?
She's full of it.
Men are so mad when they're subjected to things made for men.
No, we're not.
We walk through stores all day, and I mean, like, there's aisles in stores just for women, and there are not aisles in stores just for men.
For the most part.
But I don't really care.
So whatever.
There are things women need that men don't need.
Have a nice day.
Ain't nobody crying about it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up tonight at 8pm over at youtube.com slash timcastIRL.
