Kid Rock ENDS Bud Light Boycott, Dana White DEFENDS Beer To Tucker Carlson, WE WON THE BATTLE
PRE ORDER OUR NEW SONG And SAY F YOU TO WOKE Industries - https://thebestsongever.com/
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
Kid Rock ENDS Bud Light Boycott, Dana White DEFENDS Beer To Tucker Carlson, WE WON THE BATTLE
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.
We find ourselves at a crossroads.
Kid Rock, Dana White, they've both come out in major support of Bud Light.
That's right!
Kid Rock, who basically kicked off the Bud Light boycott after they sponsored Dylan Mulvaney to the tune of, I believe it was $180,000, reportedly.
Kid Rock is now supporting Bud Light after the boycott, saying, when you step back and look at it like, yeah, they deserved a black guy and they got one, they made a mistake.
He said after boycotting the company for working with Dylan Mulvaney.
We now have the story coming out from Tucker Carlson.
We have this one.
Dana White doubles down on his $105 million a year deal with Bud Light, insisting you don't give an ish about criticisms over the brand use.
He says, this brand is more aligned with you than you realize and they're better than other beer brands.
You gotta buy cases and cases of Bud Light.
And I agree.
But I do know that many of you disagree, and so we find ourselves at a crossroads.
Do we lament Kid Rock and Dana White in their support for Bud Light?
I mean, Kid Rock coming out and saying this, he's effectively ending the boycott, at least as it pertains to him, not to you.
And my position, we talked about this a great deal yesterday, is that we should take a PR victory, declare victory, and that's it.
We won.
But there are many people who are calling for the destruction of Bud Light as a brand.
They say, never again.
Others say, I will drink a Bud Light, but only when they apologize.
Now my argument, I would say, is substantially more tactful, and less emotionally satisfying.
But I agree with Kid Brock, and I agree with Dana White, but more importantly, I agree with Sean Strickland.
The big move came when Dana White accepted a massive sponsorship deal from Bud Light to the tune of $105 million.
Many of us were very upset about this.
We said, why are you accepting money from this company that got woke, went broke, and continues to sponsor Pride events?
Well, of course, Dana White said, you know, we're going to take the money.
It's the best deal ever, blah, blah, blah.
Sean Strickland, MMA champion, said, Bud Light is now sponsoring everything I say.
And then he went off to say a whole bunch of anti-woke things.
And I like it.
I think he's right.
At first, I thought he was wrong.
I thought these people were all selling out.
But then I listened to what Sean had to say, and I realized he flipped the script.
He inverted the narrative on Bud Light.
And Bud Light has not condemned him.
And that is, my friends, a tremendous victory.
We're now seeing liberal activists outright say, nobody should be boycotting Bud Light.
This is silly and just stop.
We've won.
The battlefield is ours.
The enemy has laid down their culture war arms and said, please, please no more.
But I come to you with a warning.
I'll give you my argument.
And I ask that you hear it out and also comment as to what you think.
Now, unfortunately for YouTube, most people comment in the first minute or so and don't hear the full video before commenting, which is really, really funny, and then you can see how the comments are skewed.
You can do this thing where, like, you'll notice someone will say something in the beginning of a video, but then provide context ten minutes later, but no one in the comments sees it.
I believe strategically.
The only move we have right now is to declare victory.
And I'll tell you why.
Because by next May, Bud Light sales will have normalized to 0% and the media will claim anything they've done saved the company.
We must own the narrative in this regard and take the victory now.
Basically, know when to cash out your chips.
Because if you try and stick around, you may end up losing.
Now let me break this down.
First I'll show you what Kid Rock is saying and what Dana White is saying, and then I'll tell you my view on where we go over the next year, half year, before this war finally comes to its culmination.
I should say this battle.
But I also do want to point out that for those that just will never, never get on board with Bud Light, hey man, You got this story.
Woke Free Beer Company, Ultra Right, is launching a Real Women of America calendar with the most beautiful conservative women in America.
So, shout out to Seth Weathers.
He's coming on the show this week.
And, uh, there are alternatives.
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TheBestSongEver.com and pre-order on Amazon.
The song is 69 cents, and when you buy this song, you are effectively helping us give a big F you to the media establishment, to the woke industrial complex, to the music industry.
I'll give you the simple version.
Together Again is the best song ever written.
It was written by Smokey Mike and the God King of the Daily Wire.
That's Jeremy Boring and Michael Knowles.
I don't know who gets the writing credit.
I assume it's Jeremy Boring.
Or maybe both of them.
I don't want to discredit Michael Knowles.
They wrote a song which was basically a middle finger to the music industry who denied them.
Jeremy tried offering up... What was it?
100 times the going rate.
100 times the going rate to get access to a mainstream song.
And they were like, we're not going to do it.
They basically shut out the Daily Wire from engaging in typical industry behaviors.
Why?
Because they are captured.
So Jeremy Boring and Michael Knowles made a joke mocking them and spent all this money, $150,000 basically, saying, F you.
And I said, I want to get in on that.
Because I've also experienced this from the entertainment industry, where they're saying screw you, and told us to go F ourselves, quite literally.
We were told to go F ourselves because we made music.
So this song is our big F you to them, working with The Daily Wire, Jeremy Boring and Michael Knowles cameo in the video.
Pre-order the song to support our work at TheBestSongEver.com.
Let's talk about where we are with Bud Light.
Dana White doubles down on UFC's $105 million a year deal with Bud Light, insisting he doesn't give an ish about criticisms over the brand.
He gave an interview with Tucker Carlson, and it was actually quite simple.
He just said outright over and over again, buy the beer, buy the beer, buy the beer.
Sure.
Now, a lot of people got mad.
And this presents some very interesting conundrums for all of us that want to engage in a boycott of Bud Light.
Should we continue In opposition to Dana White, UFC, and Kid Rock.
And I'll explain, I'll explain, but first, let me jump over to the story about Kid Rock.
Billboard Reports.
Kid Rock has decided to support Bud Light again, eight months after his transphobic response to Dylan Mulvaney and Bud Light, etc.
I read his quote already.
He said, hopefully other companies get it too. But at the end of the day, I don't think the
punishment that they've been getting at this point fits the crime. I would like to see his
back on board and become bigger because that's the America that I want to live in. There's nothing
wrong with giving a spanking. You don't spank them for the rest of their life. I completely
agree with Kid Rock. This is what I see.
People are saying Bud Light sponsored Dylan Mulvaney one time and therefore will never buy their product again and there is no reconciliation.
My argument is, they gave $180,000 to Dylan Mulvaney, that's what's been reported.
They gave $105,000,000 to UFC.
Okay?
And that means people like Sean Strickland, Conor McGregor, many other very based AF individuals, and Dana White himself, are getting funded to push their cultural values.
UFC is something that is great.
I love UFC.
I love the competition.
I love the fierceness of it.
And there's no... There's...
It is so obvious as to why UFC fighters are based AF.
Because they are strong individuals who have pushed themselves to the limit, have taken a beating, and they don't fear anything.
So they'll go on Twitter and laugh and say, I can say whatever I want.
And Dana White's not canning them for having said it.
Sean Strickland didn't get condemned, didn't get canceled, didn't get banned when he said all of these things about I can't even say it on YouTube what he said.
He posted it on X. So, I see this as like a, bravo.
Think about what this means in terms of the culture war.
Normally you had people terrified.
Look at Snow White.
Disney was going to make Snow White and they were going to get rid of the dwarves because Peter Dinklage complained.
The Daily Wire said, we're making our own version, and they backed down.
All of a sudden now, they're canning the film, they're redoing everything.
We are winning this.
The pressure is winning this.
Now, if you refuse to accept victory, and you decide instead the only option is the raising of Bud Light, I'll tell you where we go.
The end result is going to be, you have Bud Light right now seeing a 30% drop in sales.
That's stabilized.
Actually, let me see if I can pull this up.
I think I have a chart showing this.
So this is Bud Light sales plunge from April 8th, the start of the boycott, to June 24th, the peak of the boycott.
The way the sales tracking works is...
They're saying June 24th today versus June 24th last year.
They are not tracking sales day over day, week over week, or month over month.
If they were, this would be insane and Bud Light would be out of business today.
You can't lose 30% of your sales every month and survive because that would mean no one's buying their beer ever.
No.
What happened is, you my friends, the boycotters, Worth 30% of the sales of Bud Light.
If they were selling, I'm gonna give you a figurative number here.
If Bud Light was selling 100 beer units per month in April, they went from 100 to June to 70.
30 beer units per month, gone.
Since then, every month, they've been selling 70 beer units.
You get my point?
The reason why I bring this up, is that even after I explained this on TimCast IRL last night, I still had people commenting, not understanding.
And I know most of you probably do.
But I figured this is worth breaking down, because it's important.
We want to win.
When April 8th comes around, so we're not even talking 5 months, we're talking just about 5 months.
Okay, but 4 months into the year.
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.
When they wrap around, Bud Light sales are going to jump up.
That's right.
Because if 100... 100 is a figurative number just to give you a percentage.
If they sold 100 beers and then you boycotted and now they're only selling 70, once they come back to April, that percentage where it says minus 30% year over year is gonna go to zero because April's sales of 2023 will match April's sales of 2022.
The media will then report Bud Light has recovered.
If you are maintaining a boycott and refuse, the narrative will be, boycott fails.
Sales normalize.
Sales jump back up.
And then?
If they sell 71 beer units?
Bud Light will say, the boycott only lasted about one year before everyone gave up and got back on board.
Now there's something else you can do.
Embrace Dana White, Kid Rock, and the others who have now gotten on board with Bud Light.
Why?
Because now the narrative is this.
Sean Strickland, UFC fighters, have made numerous political statements for which Bud Light has paid for.
If you start buying before April, Then let Bud Light say, the boycott has ended and sales are recovering early.
That would be great.
Why?
Because then you say, they sponsored UFC, they sponsored anti-woke politics from athletes.
Individuals who are not only opposing to wokeness, but also political themselves.
And when Bud Light did that, they bounced back.
Do not let them take the narrative.
Because I gotta tell you, the inverse, if you want to maintain this boycott, which I don't think we can sustain, I don't think we can maintain a narrative victory here.
You have to understand, you'd have to boycott UFC, you'd have to boycott Dana White, or I should say, call out Dana White and call out Sean Strickland.
And I think Sean's great.
I think he's fantastic.
He made an excellent point.
Now, a lot of people said, Tim's flip-flopping.
Flip-flopping?
Dude, spare me your political mumbo-jumbo.
When Sean Strickland came out and said, I'm gonna rehabilitate Bud Light, I groaned.
And we were all like, no, what are you doing?
Then he made an argument and we went, oh.
It's called listening, learning, and adapting.
Flip-flopping.
Smear me the nonsense.
What I don't want to see is people sitting here being like, we're gonna burn Bud Light to the ground and destroy them.
They're not going anywhere!
Their sales may be down, but they are sustaining right now.
And if this wraps around to April, they will claim you failed.
Take the PR victory lap right now.
That's what Kid Rock and Dana White are doing.
They're running around saying, we won everybody, it's over, we won.
Bud Light just gave us money.
Dylan Mulvaney gets 100k.
We get 100 million!
We win!
Rub it in their faces.
Say we win.
Say it over and over and over again.
Send a message to every corporation.
You will be rich beyond your wildest dreams!
If you support our cultural values.
It is not just the stick, it is the stick and the carrot.
So here's my view.
We can go back several years to a story I like to tell.
A story about a man named Joey Salads.
You guys know Joey.
He's mostly not been doing political stuff, but back in the day.
He filmed a video where he's like, we're gonna leave this car in this neighborhood with Trump stickers and stuff and see what happens.
The next clip is a bunch of black guys smashing the car.
Well, someone secretly recorded him.
And what did they find?
He staged the whole thing.
He was accused of being racist.
And it destroyed his career.
I went to Sweden.
And Joey tweets at me that we should meet up.
And I'm like, dude, you?
No way, dude.
We all know what you did.
And then I realized something.
Really quickly.
Because people reached out and tried talking to me about Joey.
And I realized something.
Joey has a lot of fans.
And they trust him, and they want to see redemption for him.
And if I decide that he's my enemy no matter what, then these people are just gonna say, you're unforgiving and we don't like you.
And I'm thinking to myself, how do I reach these people that follow Joey no matter what?
I gotta talk to Joey.
I've gotta actually reach out and make an argument.
I can't just be knee-jerk reaction angry.
And then I realized something even deeper.
If Joey came out after this grand mistake, begging for forgiveness, knowing he made a mistake, If we say no, as many YouTubers did, guess what?
There's only one direction he can go.
Deeper in the wrong direction.
Because no one will just give up and stop and accept the end of themselves.
They'll find a way to survive.
And if Joey was told, you will never be allowed in polite society, then he'd go to impolite society.
No, no, no, no.
Hold on.
He's an influential guy.
He's talented.
He's smart.
We want him on our side.
Joey, I accept your apology.
I went and interviewed him and said, you know what?
I accept your apology.
Please, don't do bad things in the future.
Do good things.
And he said, I will.
And what did he do?
He started doing comedy bits.
Funny bits.
He got away from the politics.
And that's where he's been.
And I think that's the appropriate move.
I don't want Bud Light to double down and go woke.
And this is what I think people don't get.
They say, why would Bud Light double down on wokeness if the boycott hurt them?
Simple.
That 30% loss in sales is not coming back.
Y'all are not buying Bud Light.
So you know what Bud Light's thinking now?
The market executives are meeting.
And look, by all means, you can believe whatever you want to believe.
You don't have to agree with me on this one, but I will tell you this from my perspective, which is someone who owns a business and has done marketing for a very, very long time for nonprofits, for various media organizations, and now for my own company.
They're looking at market share and they're saying our market is comprised of, let me simplify it for you, 30% conservative and libertarian, 30% liberal democrat, and 40% don't know, don't care.
The liberals and the don't know, don't care are still buying our product.
The conservatives have stopped.
What do we do?
Their first option, let's try and sponsor Harley-Davidson, didn't work.
Their next option, let's try and sponsor UFC.
We want these customers back!
Well, Kid Rock and Dana White say yes.
But if you say no, I'll tell you where the next step is going to be.
The marketing guys say Bud Light is no longer the top beer.
Modelo, owned by Constellation Brands in the United States, has taken over.
It's not owned by AB InBev.
Internationally it is.
We will never recover this market.
Stop spending money on it.
That's where they go.
Let me tell you what happens next.
Bud Light spent $100 million in marketing.
That went to the UFC.
They've spent it elsewhere too, desperately trying to win you over, knowing that the $100,000, $180,000 campaign, it's been reported, I don't know if it's true, cost them billions, and now an additional $100 million.
They're suffering over it.
You can't just use the stick, you gotta offer a carrot.
If all you ever do is whack your dog with a stick, their behavior is not going to improve.
When you're training a dog, you need to give them treats.
You need to say, bad thing means pain, good thing means treats.
Bud Light is only being told right now, we don't care, you've done bad, and we don't want you.
If this is the case, the marketing executives are going to meet with Bud Light and say, there's no possible campaign we could launch to recover sales from conservatives.
So how do we increase sales in general?
Well, if conservatives are a lost cause, what can we do to target the left and maybe get more beer sales among other groups?
The last thing we want is for AB InBev Bud Light to take that $100 million they gave to UFC and give it to universities.
Or give it to Pride events.
But that's what you will do if you force their hand.
You are not going to put them out of business!
A lot of people seem to think they will.
And I'm just like, man.
Do you?
Good luck.
You know, there are other options.
There are other beer companies.
You don't gotta drink Bud Light.
My concern is Bud Light just put a hundred million dollars into UFC in the most desperate play they could imagine.
One hundred and five million dollars per year into UFC.
Almost every UFC fighter is some based AF dude.
Dana White is... Donald Trump is coming out with Kid Rock and everyone's screaming and cheering!
In New York City!
Man, you gotta hear me out on this one, man.
At Madison Square Garden, in the Liberal Democrat stronghold of New York City, Donald Trump, and Kid Rock, and Dana White walk out, and everyone goes, screaming at the top of their lungs!
And Bud Light paid for the whole thing?
Come on, man.
If you're mad that Bud Light sponsored Dylan Mulvaney and these Pride events, okay.
But why are you not happy that they sponsored UFC and Donald Trump and that appearance he did in New York City?
New York City.
Trump walks out, everyone's screaming and cheering.
We should be playing that video 24-7.
We should be playing that video while drinking Bud Light and pointing a finger at all the woke activists and saying, remember when they gave up on you?
Remember when Bud Light said Trump was better?
Remember when Bud Light sponsored UFC and Kid Rock and Trump came out and everyone's cheering?
That's us.
We win.
The money's ours.
Victory is our side.
That's the narrative we want.
And we can take it.
It is in your hand right now.
You need only close your fist.
That's why it's so frustrating to me that people are like, no, I boycott them forever.
And I'm like, I watched Donald Trump and Kid Rock and Dana White walk out in Madison Square Garden, New York City, New York City to everybody screaming and cheering.
They got dudes in dresses who aren't even doing tricks getting paid money.
And that's what kids are being told to like.
I give up.
I'm out.
I boycott this.
I don't want to be involved anymore.
I didn't think that for a while.
And then I was like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No, I'm going to double down.
I'm going to take it over.
Why?
I want this kid.
I want this kid to look at the, look at the posts online, look at our culture and say the path to success, fame, fortune, and recognition is with us and not with them.
Now let's think about in the context of these big companies.
You say to Bud Light, you will never, never be forgiven.
Other new fledgling companies growing will say, don't bother with conservatives.
They won't buy your product anyway.
No, no, no, no.
The narrative needs to be, guys, if you put American flags on your products, you will sell more.
That's how it used to be.
I want every company, every marketing agency that doesn't care about politics, I want to hear that marketing VP sit down and say, ladies and gentlemen, conservatives will buy anything if you support America.
So, these toothbrushes?
American flag toothbrushes.
Okay.
Yeah.
You put an American flag on it, I'll buy it.
Then every single company, Clorox bleach, American flag edition, bought.
Make them jam pro-America messaging in every product they do because we buy it.
And then they're going to say, don't bother with the woke people, they boycott everything.
The conservatives buy everything if you give it to them.
That's the mission in my mind.
That's what I see.
I think the point of the cultural endeavors that we engage in Is because we want young people to think the path to success, to fame, to fortune is with us, is on our side.
And the path to fear and pain is on their side.
But if you never, never forgive, if you never give an opportunity for that sweet treat reward, then we will only represent the side of pain and suffering.
Now again, it's not all bad.
Because there will be companies who will say, don't get political, you'll lose money.
The issue is, it's not the strongest path forward.
And it may result in them saying, well, if we already lost that base, then go for the other side.
You don't want to create a scenario where you can push someone left.
You want to create a scenario where you welcome them right.
So I give you this.
The meme.
It shows people that are blue on the left, and people that are red on the right.
And there's a guy in the middle.
And he says, I guess both sides are making interesting points.
The Democrats shove him in anger.
He falls to the right where he's caught by guys who are red and they say, hey, man, are you OK?
And then the leftists go, why are you siding with them?
You see the point?
The point was, we all recognize that the far left got so woken and saying they pushed people like me, liberals, former liberals, et cetera, into the hands of Donald Trump and the conservatives.
And when we were shoved, guess who was standing there cracking open a beer, handing it to us, saying, I'm sorry they did this to you.
It was Trump supporters.
They say had been there myself, man.
So when people like Elon.
He's a liberal, moderate kind of guy.
And the left goes super far left and starts attacking him.
What happens?
People on the right shake his hand and say, we may not agree, but we're not going to do to you what they did to you.
That is the carrot moment.
We want to represent that.
The left beats you down.
We pick you up.
We'll be here for you.
When you, Bud Light, went to the left, we got mad.
But guess what?
We're not going to do what the left does and excise you permanently.
We're going to be the reasonable and pragmatic individuals who say, now you understand why we were mad.
Thank you for doing the right thing.
Otherwise, what do you do?
Burn it all down?
It is what it is, my friends.
We'll see where this goes.
But comment.
Let me know what you think.
You don't have to agree with me.
I gave you my argument.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Barack Obama is under fire.
Why?
Well, he was consulted on a new film about a cyber attack that takes away the power grid and forces people to work together.
In the film called Leave the World Behind, some black characters say you shouldn't trust white people.
I mean, I don't know much about the context.
Maybe it's an early line in the film and they later learn to trust one another.
But certainly a lot of people are slamming the film, saying that it is racist, and it's unsurprising.
It's more woke garbage.
But again, I think it's important to note that the film may have a different message as it pertains to this character saying, don't trust white people.
Or perhaps it's all just foreshadowing.
Whether because someone had direct knowledge of what's to come, or just because it is in the zeitgeist and humans are looking to stories like this in fear and thinking about what may happen.
Why?
Well, cyber attacks have been on the mind lately.
The big news surrounding international conflict is that China's cyber army is invading critical U.S.
services.
These are industrial control systems.
And they reported the other day, China's invaded.
They are warning us that war may occur.
My friends, we are dealing with Eastern European war.
We are dealing with Middle Eastern war.
We've got war bubbling up in South America with Venezuela.
And now we have, of course, the fear of Southeast Asia and whatever's happening in the Pacific theater.
China may be about to attack us.
Or actually, I mean, I gotta be honest.
This story is basically saying they did.
And so I'm gonna level with you.
Right now, we've got Zelensky, he's gonna be meeting with Biden.
We got these news stories that Putin's gonna use nukes.
So I wonder, as it pertains to this cultural story, warning about white people, is this an artifact of You know, over the past several years, we're deeply concerned about cyberattacks, nuclear war, EMPs, and what the aftermath of major war would look like in a modern sense.
And thus, someone got the idea to make a movie.
Said, hey Barack Obama, you're the president, you know what's going on with this stuff, can you help make this film?
And then of course the film is woke, because why wouldn't it be?
Is that all it really is?
Or is it something deeper?
I would be more inclined to think it's just on the brain.
We're all thinking about these things.
So, of course, movies are going to come out reflecting what we as a culture are concerned about.
There's also the reality that they want to foreshadow this and they want to send these signals.
Now I don't know how much you'd think fictional movies are actually meant to be related as propaganda during times of war, things like this, but I will say, the use of fictional films to create ideas, normal Typical, we see it all the time.
There are so many people who believe insane things about guns because they watched movies.
Right?
You know what I love about movies?
Every single time someone raises a gun, it cocks.
You know what I mean?
I'm like, why are all the guns clicking?
Well, it's because guns don't make a noise when you lift them up.
And if you've already chamber a round, you don't need to do much else.
Maybe flick the safety off or something.
And in movies, they need to make a sound so that you know.
I also love how people are always pumping their shotguns.
And it's like, dude, all you're doing is ejecting a round you didn't fire.
Sure, whatever!
I guess the assumption is in some of the movies they never chambered around in the first place.
Or a shell.
It is what it is.
The story about Obama's film, it's actually not that big.
But when I was looking at it, and I'm looking at the story about cyber warfare, and I'm looking at the story about central banks buying up lots of gold, I had to wonder, what should we be paying attention to?
As they warn that Putin could be deploying nukes.
Well, let me start with the propaganda.
Again, stating, I'm not much of a conspiracy guy, so I don't know exactly why they would make this film other than, it's entertaining and they're woke, so they'll say these things.
But I'll give you the single line where people are deeply concerned, and then we'll talk about what may be in store for us this year.
Alex Jones tweeted out something from Jack Posobiec, and they both basically said the same thing on their shows.
That we may be looking at full-scale war with Russia as the October surprise in 2024.
So, as we talk about post-apocalyptic films, threats of war, and where we're at, I say this.
Take it seriously.
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TheBestSongEver.com and pre-order the song on Amazon, 69 cents, or iTunes.
When you click the iTunes thing, it brings you to Amazon Music, so I don't know if it works.
I'm sorry, it brings you to Apple Music, which doesn't actually allow you to buy the song, but buy the song for 69 cents.
Together Again is the best song ever.
It was written by Jeremy Boring.
I don't know who gets the writing credit.
Smokey Mike and the God King, Jeremy Boring and Michael Knowles, performed this song.
I think Jeremy Boring wrote it.
Daily Wire co-CEO.
And we teamed up on this cover version, basically as a spoof and mockery of the music industry.
So the whole thing's one big fun joke.
And if you want to support us in our efforts of giving a middle finger to the music industry, which is captured by woke interests, go to TheBestSongEver.com and buy the song right now.
Pre-order comes out Friday.
But, uh, let's get started first with this cultural issue.
You know, I gotta be honest.
This morning, as I'm reading through the news, I'm trying to figure out what matters most.
I often do.
And I asked Grok.
You know, this is Twitter's AI.
I said, what's the biggest story of the day?
You know, I think the big news, personally, was the threat of nuclear war that they're reporting.
But why are they reporting it?
Well, Grok says Ukraine and Zelensky's meeting with Biden for money, they want a lot of money, is the big story.
And I said, huh.
When I started looking at this, the Obama backlash over the warning about white people and wokeness, you know what I'm seeing is signs indicating Outside of any conspiracy that culturally, we have a serious concern that collapse is inevitable.
And if that's the case, let's start here.
Now the story, I gotta admit, there's nothing to it.
Newsweek goes on to say that Obama consulted on a film, and the big issue comes in the form of this quote.
They say the scene in question shows a black couple lying in bed as the lines quote, I'm asking you to remember that if the world falls apart, trust should not be doled out easily to anyone, especially white people.
Ex-user Libs of TikTok noted the scene while claiming the scene was demonizing towards white people.
Claiming it literally is!
That'd be fair.
I didn't actually watch the movie.
And that's not really why I'm doing a segment mentioning this because I'm going to talk about a bunch of other things.
But I think it's important to note, you don't know what the context is, maybe later on in the film they're like, we were wrong to try and distrust people based on race.
Sure.
I really doubt it.
The concern, I suppose, is that if we are actually facing the threat of nuclear war, if we are actually facing the threat of a cyber attack, the worst possible thing for this country will be if a cyber attack happens and they divide all of us based on race and people begin fighting on those issues instead of anything else.
Facing China's cyber army invading critical services.
Should there be a blackout, the last thing we want is any kind of cultural effort pitting us against each other.
And it seems, you know, I gotta be honest, it seems like Barack Obama just straight hates America.
I mean, this dude is awful.
Obama's one of the most, like, one of the most evil people I have seen in my lifetime.
The National Defense Authorization Act, indefinite detention provisions, the prosecution of journalists and whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, more than any other president, the extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens.
And look, he consulted on a film.
I don't know that it had anything to do with that line about not trusting white people.
But think about where we're at.
China is invading critical infrastructure, and we have this from the Daily Mail.
Putin could deploy nukes in Ukraine amid battlefield losses and spark World War III if radioactive fallout reaches NATO nations, nuclear weapons expert warns.
I mean, that's the story.
If Putin does unleash his arsenal of 1,816 tactical nuclear weapons on Ukraine, the radioactive fallout from such a strike would threaten the lives of those living in NATO countries, such as Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia.
These nuclear weapons can have yields of up to 100 kilotons, five times the amount of the American atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
You know, and I gotta be honest, I've actually entertained and suggested the possibility myself.
I believe it is entirely possible that if Putin does begin losing, he would use nukes.
Now, that being said, Putin won.
He controls the entire land bridge from the Donbass down to Crimea.
He won.
Now it's just minor resistance.
He's taken the territory that he wants.
If the U.S.
dumps money into Zelensky, and then we escalate this stuff.
In the event of nuclear war, the risk, of course, I don't believe is going to be mutually assured destruction.
I'm not a proponent of this idea, and I've had people tell me I'm wrong, and I'm crazy, and I'm like, you just haven't made the argument, my friends.
The argument is that if Vladimir Putin uses nukes, like, mutually assured destruction is that if you nuke us, we nuke you back.
That I get.
But Putin is not going to nuke New York City.
That's not going to happen.
China wouldn't do that.
It's meaningless.
It doesn't serve a purpose.
In World War II, we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We were directly at war with Japan, they bombed Pearl Harbor, and we said, we're gonna flatten these cities.
Now, with mutually assured destruction, okay, fine.
Perhaps that is the deterrent.
But we're talking about the use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield, not in the continental United States.
There is not a circumstance, in my opinion, where Vladimir Putin fires a nuke at New York.
Now, there is, well, I shouldn't say there's not a circumstance.
There is.
My point is, in reality, based on probability, what I think is most likely is that Vladimir Putin will use tactical nukes around the 100 kiloton yield in Ukraine specifically.
And that's it.
But I suppose Vladimir Putin could say to the United States, it's not even about nuclear weapons.
If we lose in Ukraine and Russia is surrounded, we'll just blow you up.
Sure.
Maybe.
That's something they have to keep as an ace in the hole.
That if you invade Russia, if our border is pressed upon, then it's mutually assured destruction.
But we're talking about control of Ukraine.
And this is why I've said, no, I don't buy this.
I don't believe it.
I get the argument.
This is the issue.
Everybody says, if Putin uses nukes, it's mutually assured destruction.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
And it's not my opinion.
It's members of EU Parliament saying, outright, no one is going to sacrifice New York City for, like, a city in Poland.
I forgot the name of the city, but he made this point.
Vladimir Putin using nukes will be in Ukraine, and ain't nobody gonna sacrifice their country or risk World War III over Ukraine.
That being said, they're risking World War 3.
No, I get it.
I mean, no one is going to risk World War 3 over destruction of Ukraine.
Control of the territory, pushing back Putin.
That I get.
But if Putin bombs Kiev, NATO ain't gonna care at all.
They're not gonna go, oh no, he nuked Kiev.
We better nuke him back.
Nah, they're gonna be like, we don't care.
We just want to control the territory.
We want the resources.
We want control of the Black Sea, etc.
Well, here we go, baby.
Here's the story that Grok says matters more than anything else.
Zelensky to tell Congress Ukraine aid is a matter of life and death.
Yeah, to you.
But you mean to tell me we can't secure our southern border, we can't pay the retirement of disabled veterans, but we can fund war?
They got money for wars, but they can't feed the poor.
Luke tells me that was Tupac.
Volodymyr Zelensky will meet with lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Tuesday for the second time in three months as Ukraine heads into an uneasy winter.
Low on weaponry and cash, and without any sign the U.S.
assistance Ukraine says it badly needs to hold affirmations is forthcoming.
And, of course, the media says, well, the guy was pro-Putin and he was a traitor.
None of that matters.
Doesn't matter what your sentiments are.
In Ukraine, there is pro-Russia and pro-EU sentiment, and they're at odds.
If you are going to assassinate your political rival because they favor support from a different country at a time of war and conflict, Well, you are no longer a democracy, and I don't see what is the purpose of supporting your government.
That being said, we know what's really going on.
The U.S.
wants the territory.
Doesn't matter who's in control.
Zelensky's basically our puppet as it is.
They say Zelensky will first meet with senators, then with House Speaker Mike Johnson, before heading to the White House to meet with President Biden.
The mission, which comes just a week before lawmakers are expected to leave town for the holidays, is critical, said one of Zelensky's senior aides.
Ukraine's military needs help now.
It's a matter of life and death for Ukraine, said the senior advisor who spoke on the condition of anonymity, to discuss conversations with senior American officials.
Time is of the essence.
That's the message.
To date, Congress has allocated more than $111 billion to support Ukraine, but lawmakers have so far failed to heed Biden's request earlier this fall for an additional $61 billion.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I say no, but that's not what I'm really concerned about.
What I'm concerned about mostly is this.
You know, I think it's important to mention The risk of nuclear war.
But I do think a lot of it's propaganda.
But take a look at the actions, not the words.
The reason why I did lead with the Obama story is that I don't necessarily think criticizing Obama over the anti-whiteness warrants an entire segment on its own.
But it is a component of the propaganda of collapse.
Schiff Gold.
Peter Schiff.
He's a gold guy.
My understanding is that he does not like Bitcoin.
But he does have this story on his website.
Central banks gobbled up gold over the summer, and the buying spree has continued into the fall.
Globally, central banks added another net 42 tons of gold to their reserves in October.
China continues to be the biggest gold purchaser.
The People's Bank of China added another 23 tons of gold to its hoard in October, as it expanded its official reserves for the 12th straight month.
Ask yourselves this, my friend.
Why is China loading up on gold?
Well, simple.
The U.S.
reserve currency is about to end.
China is going to stop doing deals in U.S.
dollars.
They're basically all ready.
They're going to start trading for oil in yuan.
And they're going to start backing up their currency with a hard asset, gold.
This means war.
The U.S.
Western forces, the liberal economic order, will not tolerate the rise of China's economy and their expansion.
And thus we find ourselves facing down Thucydides' trap.
That is, when a rising economic power is about to supplant the dominant economic power, war tends to occur.
Historically, we took a look at 16 major events over 500 years and found that in 12 of them, This is what we saw.
So Thucydides' trap is a tendency.
A great tendency.
But it's not an absolute.
And now we're seeing the signs.
And so when I was reading these stories, I thought we'd lead with, you know, let's talk about nuclear war, let's talk about Russia nuking Ukraine or something like that.
And then I saw the Obama story and I'm like, cultural propaganda.
The idea being planted in your mind.
Two very scary realities.
The first, they're making videos Telling you life after a cyber attack.
The grid goes down.
What happens?
What do you do?
Now, I mean, come on.
I don't think zombie movies are trying to propagandize us to prepare for zombies.
But it is interesting that we do get a film like this at a time when there's heightened concern about cyber attacks on us.
And that's why I said in the beginning, it's not just that they're saying, oh, be scared of cyber attack.
It could be saying, hey, I'm scared of cyber attack.
What would that look like?
And the scary component of it is wokeness.
If we are hit with a cyber attack and our grid goes down and the reserve currency falters, you guys ready for it?
Civil War.
Now maybe not necessarily civil war in the sense that we're expecting, but I can tell you this.
My friends, if society crumbles, you will get race-based war like that.
And that's what freaks me out about that film.
This idea that you should not trust people, especially white people.
What do you think is going to happen in Chicago?
Or New York?
Or Baltimore?
Because this sentiment, my point is not that they are telling you to hold this view.
My point is, they already hold it.
And that's what scares me.
TikTok, the expansion of wokeness, the rise of woke ideology, what has it done?
It's racially segregated this country and segregated the country by other identity, identitarian reasons, identity politics.
Imagine this sentiment being pervasive.
Imagine the grid goes down.
What do you think's going to happen?
You walk out of your house, let's say you're Latino, and you have white neighbors and you guys all get along.
And then you come across a group of people you don't recognize who are of other race.
And this sentiment being pervasive, all of a sudden, conflict.
That's the scary reality.
I think if we go to war with China, the biggest concern is going to be... I don't see how we navigate this, right?
The United States had internment camps for the Japanese.
The fear was, as we were going to war, you didn't know whether or not Japanese people were secretly siding with Japan, were spies or whatever.
It's a scary thought, isn't it?
That you could be an American, Japanese, or Chinese, or Korean, or whatever, and if we go to war with China, people are going to be like, are you with the Chinese?
Because we know about like a thousand, what is it, a thousand towns or whatever?
We know about Chinese infiltration and cyber hacking.
This is why I don't think race is a good reason to determine whether or not someone is friend or foe.
That's why this story freaks me out.
To wind it all up together, my friends, central banks are buying gold.
Bitcoin's prices are spiking.
There's a real concern of nuclear war, major cyber attacks on the United States, collapse of the grid, even potential civil war.
And the whole time we are being told this message about race-based conflict, racial segregation, and identitarianism, which all but guarantees that should there be a real conflict, the people of this country will rip each other to shreds.
To shreds, I say!
And that's freaky.
And it's coming from inside the house.
Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory, Ibram Kendi.
Ibram Kendi's got a viral video where he says white people cannot, he says whiteness stops white people from connecting with humanity.
It's psychotic, racist derangement.
So what do you think happens in a major global conflict when that is the pervasive message?
Look, I can only make so many segments about like, oh look, they're claiming there's gonna be nuclear war again.
I think one thing to consider in all of this, that these news stories may be designed just to get you on board with dumping money into Ukraine conflict.
Or into Taiwanese-Chinese conflict.
It may be that the U.S.
is not really facing any of these threats, they want you to be scared.
But I'll tell you what worries me.
Racial segregation and identitarianism.
That's what's freaky.
But we'll see.
There's a lot of stories here in this one, and you know it is what it is.
Talk about what I'm feeling.
So, head over to TimCast.com, become a member.
Support our work by pre-ordering together again at TheBestSongEver.com.
And the next segment is coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Oh man, we got an interesting case brewing up in Texas.
A woman was seeking an abortion.
The court said, sure.
The Supreme Court says, no.
And this one's particularly interesting because it plays into due process rights.
Texas, of course, has more restrictive abortion than other states.
And we are seeing the liberal media, the left, Give us a different perspective.
The argument being that this woman has discovered her baby suffers from a fetal abnormality, and thus, she must get an abortion.
But oh boy, the story is quite interesting, isn't it?
Because the reality is, according to The Hill, the doctor was seeking for pre-approval for abortion before actually even doing a medical assessment, which plays into the Interesting idea of how this stuff rolls out between states that are in favor of abortion for no reason up to the point of birth and states that restrict it.
Now, I've long said I believe abortion could be a major catalyst for civil war.
Why?
You cannot allow states to determine who is or is not deserving of God-given rights.
It must be a federally answered question for this nation as a constitution.
Many people said, Tim, that's Roe v. Wade.
I'm like, you're right.
It is.
But I don't think Roe v. Wade was necessarily correct.
There are a lot of questions about the 14th Amendment, at which point we have very serious challenges pertaining to balancing the rights of two individuals sharing one body.
The issues of consent and how this should be handled.
What I actually said on one show was that if we want to take this to the logical conclusion that the left would want, then this must mean the left and the right.
The compromise is Court hearings.
Every time a woman wants an abortion.
Now, of course, the left says abortion should just be at the doctor and the mom's discretion.
Elective abortion.
But if you actually take the left's arguments at face value, which is for the most part them saying, but the medical necessity, then we're not talking about elective abortion.
If we take the mainstream political debate over consent, over incest, and over medical issues, you would still require a court hearing.
The Democrats tried to pass a bill a couple years ago that would legalize abortion up to the point of birth if the health of the mother was in question.
Whether or not the health of a mother in question is not something that can be so easily answered by a single doctor.
And thus, even if they passed the law, it would still result in states saying, okay, yeah, now you have a court hearing for due process rights for the individual in the womb.
Right now, the court is saying she can't get an abortion.
And the interesting thing is, the baby is not even going to die, nor is the mom.
And this is where the fight begins.
Who has rights in this country?
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TheBestSongEver.com and pre-order our new song, Together Again, coming out this Friday.
We got an extended music video dropping on Friday as well.
This is our big F.U.
teaming up.
With the guys over at The Daily Wire, Jeremy Boring and Michael Knowles, to give a middle finger to the music industry.
Support our work at TheBestSongEver.com.
Pre-order now, because I really do hope this song drops, hits billboard charts, and then we can all laugh that we got a middle finger to the music industry on the billboard charts.
With your support, if you believe in us.
Here's the story from The Hill.
The Texas Supreme Court has ruled against a lower court order that allowed Kate Cox, a pregnant woman whose fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition, from having an abortion.
I mean, I just love how insane these people are when they're writing these stupid stories.
The Texas Supreme Court has ruled against a lower court order that allowed Kate Cox from having an abortion.
Allowed from?
What are they saying?
Okay, hold on.
Let's read more.
What's basically the story is, the lower court said go for it, the higher court said no, stop.
In a seven-page ruling Monday, the state Supreme Court said Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra, uh, Gamble's decision to issue a temporary restraining order last week to allow Cox to have the abortion was a mistake.
You see how they're making this very, very confusing?
Maybe it's on purpose.
She wanted an abortion.
Texas says no.
The court said, temporary restraining order on the law, you are allowed to get an abortion.
Gamble's decision on Cox's medical emergency was put on hold by Texas state AG Ken Paxton, who asked the state Supreme Court to intervene in the matter.
The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the lower court's ruling Friday.
A woman who meets the medical necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion, the court ruling says.
Under the law, it is the doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function.
The law leaves to physicians, not judges, both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.
The court also found that Cox's doctor, Dom LaCarson, quote, Asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion, yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Mrs. Cox's condition poses the risks the exception requires.
These laws reflect the policy choice that the legislature has made, and the courts must respect that choice.
The court sent its ruling.
According to state law, a doctor who performed an abortion procedure could be sentenced to life in prison.
Cox, 31, fled the state to get an abortion procedure amid the legal whiplash involving the case.
Nancy Northrop, the President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has been representing Cox, told The Hill about its client's departure from the state, noting Cox has been to the emergency room four times during her 20-week pregnancy.
Now, The Hill is the worst choice for this one.
Probably should use a different one.
They're basically saying, the court says, a doctor gets to decide if it's going to save your life.
But the issue is, the doctor did not actually attest this to the court.
That it needed to happen.
Thus, the woman flees.
Kate's case has shown the world that abortion bans are dangerous for pregnant people and exceptions don't work.
Northup sent a statement.
She desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by a family.
While Kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not.
Okay, that's interesting.
of two children, sought an abortion after discovering her fetus was diagnosed with
trisomy 18, a chromosomal anomaly that leads to miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of an
infant within hours, days, or weeks after birth. Her carrying the pregnancy to term would have
jeopardized fertility in the future, and she and her husband noted that they wanted to have more
children. Okay, that's interesting because that's not a threat to your life or the baby.
You see where this goes?
I'm not here to assert my opinion on whether it's right or wrong.
Cox's case is the first time a pregnant woman has sought a court order to get an abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year.
Texas and other GOP-led states have either implemented or enacted their own abortion bans and restrictions when Roe was overturned.
So again, I may be getting this one wrong because it's really confusing how The Hill wrote this story up, but the general idea is that the Texas Supreme Court has ruled against a lower court that allowed Kate Cox from having an abortion.
Is it the problem?
From having an abortion allowed from?
I don't know what that means.
They've written this up in such a confusing way.
But I think the general context is, they ruled against a court that allowed Kate Cox to have an abortion.
Allowed her from having an abortion?
What does that mean?
The State Supreme Court said she was wrong to issue a temporary restraining order last week allowing Cox to have the abortion.
So, the Supreme Court basically says, the most important thing, the physician did not demonstrate that anyone's life was in danger and was seeking a pre-approval for an abortion without doing so.
Let's get to brass tacks, my friends.
The 14th Amendment.
No, I'm not a pro-life person.
I would say that morally, I am.
Legally, and in legal jurisprudence, I don't have a good enough answer for you.
I think the challenge is determining the rights of two individuals sharing one body and how we deal with it is really tough.
The compromised position would be that if a woman ever gets pregnant for any reason and ever wants an abortion, she would have to seek a court order justifying the suspension of rights of the fetus.
The 40th Amendment says, uh, blah blah blah, nor shall any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.
The question then becomes, what is a person? Well, the 40th amendment separates citizen from person, two
distinct terms.
It says all persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Notice, persons stands alone before born and before citizen.
The concept of persons exists irrespective of birth and citizenship.
All persons Born or naturalized United States.
One could make the argument that what they're saying is a person who is not born is not a citizen of the United States.
A person who is not born or naturalized is not a citizen.
Well, okay.
But they are making the distinction that the unborn is a person right there.
It goes on to say, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S.
Semicolon.
Nor shall any state deprive any person.
You see the point?
Ah, people don't really like the abortion thing.
The issue here is, we need this to be adjudicated properly, and there's no easy answer.
I think the problem for a lot of women is, for a lot of people, because I mean men as well, when it comes to abortion, is elective abortion.
Under the understanding of Roe v. Wade that we had, and the laws of many of these blue states, women, many women, I think 90 plus, were given no reason for their abortions, and often it was just contraception.
The termination of a life without due process, the termination of a person's life without due process, for no reason other than whoopsie daisies.
Therein lies the big problem with the pro-choice argument.
But again, I want to stress this.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
Okay, then let us ask the inverse.
And it's an argument, I'm not saying it's absolute.
All persons not born and not naturalized in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction are not citizens of the United States.
You see my point?
In which case, the question then becomes, all persons not born and not naturalized would not be citizens.
Therefore, the unborn person is not a citizen.
However, the 14th Amendment is not making an argument for due process based on citizenship, but on personhood.
Make the argument, my friends.
You tell me.
I am not making an argument morally for or against any of it.
I'm making the point of the constitutional rights and how do they extend.
When I've come to arguments with the left on abortion, the only thing they ever say is it's not a person.
And I'm like, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
It's not true.
Okay?
The unborn is a human being.
It is a life.
It is a person.
End of story.
The question is the rights of two individuals sharing one body and the challenges in enforcing these laws.
And I don't know how to do it.
So I lean more towards the pro-choice side.
However, the traditional pro-choice was always safe, legal, rare.
Meaning, at a certain point, you can't get an abortion.
And I don't... I have serious challenges with how we enforce and block elective abortion.
I think... I think abortion as contraception is wrong.
But I think the point right here... You get it.
Make your arguments!
Let me hear it.
Next segment's coming up at 6pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
California is one heck of a failed state, my friends, but Disney gets to bear the brunt.
If Get Woke, Go Broke could be exemplified, I believe this is the best way it could be exemplified because this extends beyond just the company's bad decisions.
It extends into their support for woke policies, which turns into law, which turns into their destruction.
The news, my friends.
California approves equal pay lawsuit against Disney.
9,000 women to sue for alleged compensation violations.
Oh, I am so excited for this.
The end result is gonna be communism.
The only way you actually get equal pay in this circumstance is going to be if everyone's given a flat rate no matter what they do.
Meaning, you could be Robert Downey Jr.
and, no, we could only pay 100k.
It's the law.
Maybe.
That's what they want.
But I don't know that it would just stop at $100K.
It could potentially be several million dollars.
But I assure you, if they're going to pay a superstar, say, $50 million to appear in several films, like three films, they are not going to pay $50 million to lesser draws for the same amount of money.
Or for the same role.
Wait, wait, no, no.
They're not going to pay a major star $50 million.
They're not going to pay a lesser star $50 million.
And if they have to bring down the rates because they have to be normalized no matter what, they pay everybody less.
That's my point.
And that's what we're seeing right now in this story from Bounding Into Comics.
They report, it seems as if the time for Disney to put their money where their mouth is
regarding their progressive virtue signaling has finally arrived. As thanks to approval from the
state of California, 9,000 women will be allowed to proceed with a class action lawsuit against them.
On the grounds, the company knowingly paid them less than their male counterparts. Oh boy,
I love it. The largest such legal action to ever go forward under the state's Equal Pay Act,
and covering employees from the company's Disneyland Disney Cruise Line film TV, ABC,
Marvel, Lucas Vision division, Lucas Film division. The lawsuit was allowed to move
forward on December 8th after LA judge Elihu M. Burrell, In making her... Let me pause this one.
In making her failed argument at the court, Disney attorney Felicia Davis declared that such pay discrepancies existed due to the fact that two employees sharing a similar position did not necessarily mean that their actual workloads were substantially similar.
Per Courthouse News, following Judge Burrell's decision, Plaintiff attorney Loris Andrus told the media, quote, Oh, I love it, I love it.
The end result, of course, can only be communism.
for four years. Today, we were they were proved wrong. This case is not about nine individual
plaintiffs. It's about all the women in California who work for Disney and who are fed up being paid
less than their male counterparts and who are seeking fair treatment. That's all. Oh, I love
it. I love it. The end result, of course, can only be communism. Obviously, when it comes to acting,
we're hiring people based on draw. Robert Downey Jr.'s.
is the big star.
He does a great job.
Everybody loves him.
I want you, Robert Johnny Downey Jr., in my movie.
He says, well, I don't want to do your movie.
I say, I'll give you a million bucks.
I don't need a million bucks.
I got a lot of bucks.
I go, OK, how about 10 million?
10 million's OK, but I don't need it.
OK, 50 million.
50 million, really?
OK, I guess I'll do it.
That's how it works.
Then you go to Scarlett Johansson.
I say, Scarlett Johansson, I want you in my movie.
And she says, I don't want to be in your movie.
I say, I'll give you a million bucks.
She goes, well, A million bucks is pretty good, but I am- I believe Scarlett was the highest paid actress, you know, last year or something like that.
So you say, I'll give you 30 million.
She goes, okay, I'll do 30 million.
Guess what?
They're different people.
Extremely unique individuals that do different things, will have a different amount of screen time, a different amount of films they're contracted to be involved in, and thus, they get different rates.
But by all means, you wanna play this game where you gotta pay them the exact same, everybody goes down.
But I know this is not just about actors and actresses, but it's also about people who are doing, you know, PA work, or camera operating stuff, or you're a gopher and you're getting a coffee.
Either way, the end result will be the same.
Communism.
Because people have to negotiate for themselves what they want.
The point I made about Robert Downey Jr.
and Scarlett Johansson applies to the mailroom all the same.
And now, a lot of these companies are loving the law because they can go to, uh, so here's what happens.
Dude comes in for a job and says, yo, I want a job in the mail room.
I can handle your mail.
And the company says, okay, we pay 15 bucks an hour.
And he goes, 15 bucks an hour?
That's too low.
I'll tell you this.
I can go to IBM and get 20 bucks an hour.
And they go, no, you can't.
Because the law doesn't allow it.
You get 15 bucks an hour.
And the guy goes, wait, what?
Well, okay, give me 16.
No.
We can't.
Because the law doesn't allow it.
The guy rushes over to IBM and says, can I work on your mailroom for 20 bucks an hour?
And they go, no, 15.
You mean I can't negotiate anymore?
No.
But you know why?
It's because women don't negotiate, so the law must solidify the wages for everyone at a single rate that no one can negotiate.
And it's already happened this way.
Communism.
No, not like... It's not like overnight communism happens.
I'm saying this is the path towards.
Where industry will all just say, the government sets the wage.
Have a nice day.
How fun will that be?
As detailed by the aforementioned Courthouse News, Andrus claims that female Disney employees not only received an average of 2% less in compensation than men in equivalent roles, but that their bonuses and other such incentives were distributed in a confusing and unfair fashion.
Could it be that women were negotiating in different ways?
Hmm.
Or their agents were bad?
I think Disney's defense is going to break down.
Because here's what they're going to say.
Oh, well, she should be paid less because blah blah blah.
She should be paid less because blah blah blah.
Because if you do that in front of a jury, you're dead.
There's no way that's going to be acceptable to a California jury in 2024.
And that's right!
Absolutely.
I suppose that's not really the argument they're going to make.
The argument that Disney is going to make is they're going to say, uh, La Ronda asked for this wage.
And we said, okay, well then why did you pay the men more?
Well, John asked for $50,000 and La Ronda asked for $45,000.
Should we just give La Ronda a raise or penalize and give a pay cut to John?
People are allowed to negotiate their own salaries.
You get what you ask for.
Why is it then that women make less?
Because women are more agreeable.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
Oh, man.
Peter Pan, Christopher Steele, makes up a new rule about the Lost Boys in order to calm Tinkerbell down in Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep 2009.
What is this?
What do you mean?
I never said girls can't be part of the gang.
I love how they did, uh, what is it?
They did a new Peter Pan, but they added girls to the Lost Boys.
And it's just like, oh, it is so cringe-inducing.
And now I guess Doctor Who race-swapped Isaac Newton?
Come on!
Dude, whatever.
Adding to her thoughts during a later interview with IndieWire.
Andrus further asserted, These are important cases for reducing the wage gap and exposing discriminatory pay practices.
We are honored to represent the brave women who have come forward to tell the stories of so many women who are treated like cheap labor.
We are pleased the judge saw through Disney's tactics.
Fairness is the goal.
That is all.
Sure.
Press, pressed by, pressed by for comment?
On Judge Burrell's ruling by various outlets, Disney simply provided a written statement stating, As of writing, Davis is referring all inquiries regarding the gays to Disney proper.
Meanwhile, Andrew is reportedly working to file another but similar lawsuit against Disney for supposedly violating the California Fair Employment and Housing Act protections of a further 12,000 female employees.
I absolutely love to see it.
Politics is downstream from culture, ladies and gentlemen, and Disney built this culture up.
Disney's the one who pushed the insane lies.
Why?
They thought they'd make money, probably.
Some of the people who are pushing are probably ideologically driven.
And then it made its way through their own media productions into the law.
Where in California they say, yeah, we should make it law that men and women have to get paid the same.
Well, the reality is people negotiate for different salaries, but they're taking that away.
And as I mentioned earlier, I've already seen this.
Working in the media industry, I've seen these companies where they say, our policy is not to negotiate.
I've actually encountered this and I just laugh.
And I tell my friends like, dude, if their policy is not to negotiate, you don't work there.
Give them the garbage staff members they beg for and go work somewhere else.
Now, I suppose sooner or later, more and more companies will adopt this practice, and then y'all screwed.
That's why we gotta win the culture war.
I remember I had a friend, uh, you know, I give this lecture to everybody, the lecture, I give this advice.
You wanna make more money?
Here's what you do.
You, uh, or actually, no, no, no, let me ask you a question.
I'll ask you a question.
Uh, where do you work?
Okay, right, next question.
Let's say you get a call, and it's a McDonald's on a phone.
And they say, we want you to work the register.
Or better yet, they say, we want you to clean the bathrooms.
We want you to take a full-time job cleaning our bathrooms at our location on the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
And do you want to do it?
What's your answer?
What do you say to McDonald's when they offer you a job cleaning their toilets now, first?
We'll keep things a little nuanced.
If you're out of work and you're in desperate need of a job, you can say, okay, there's a minimum wage, I guess.
But you can expect a certain rate based on market standards.
But you know what's funny is that most people will say the wrong answer.
Well, they're probably not going to say yes to that, but hey, what if they do?
Well, then you take a job and get paid $100 an hour to clean a bathroom.
Unless you don't really want to.
Some people really enjoy their jobs.
Some people choose to make less money because their job is fun, and it's something worth doing.
That matters.
But I always tell people this, because I had a friend who said, you know, he got offered a job at a media company, and he was like, I don't really want the job, man.
I appreciate the offer.
And I was like, you don't want the job?
It's an immediate company job.
Like, what else are you doing?
Like, I don't know, whatever.
I'm living off savings.
I'll go work somewhere else.
And I was like, well, how much did they offer you?
Okay, for those that don't know or care about Baldur's Gate, let me start from the beginning, because this story is wow.
So we get a new video game that comes out, I think it came out, what, like, um... Was it August or October?
I don't know.
It's called Baldur's Gate 3.
It's an RPG video game.
There's multiple characters, multiple storylines, you can customize your character, make them whatever you want, and the game is fairly woke.
It's not overly woke, it's kind of fine, but there's woke elements in it.
One of the issues that I took with it right away, Is that, when you're making your character, you have the option to choose between body types, not male or female, and gender identity, and non-binary, which is just silly because there's certain dialogue in the beginning of the game, that for no reason, and in a strange context, results in a guy referring to you as a man or a woman.
Like, it's just, you know, nobody talks that way, but sure, fine, whatever.
But the bigger issue is that when it comes to video game character creation, you will want to make an avatar that represents you or represents a character you want to play.
I don't think that means... It's kind of weird to me, actually, that people think they're playing themselves.
Like, when they do a custom character, like, this is me, and I'm like... I mean, there's male and female characters preset in the game.
You can choose to play as them and follow their storyline, make whatever character you want, I don't care.
The issue is, because all of the woke stuff creates this non-binary gender spectrum, you can click randomize character, and normally that's what I would do.
Like, when I play the games like Fallout, I'm just like, just give me a dude, make him whatever.
And then it makes like a random guy, and I'm like, there you go.
But in this game, it'll give you like, basically, an amalgam of a man and a woman, no matter what you do.
Because it creates like weird characters, like brutish male faces on female bodies and things like that.
Ian Crossland called it making abominations.
I mean, you gotta see it.
Like purple haired orc with like man face with big teeth and gigantic boobs and just like... Okay, you know, whatever, man.
Separate the male and the female character creation.
That's what I'm saying, but you know, fine, whatever.
So here's what happens.
In the video game, there's a character named Dame Alien.
And I despise the character.
Uh, the character is self-righteous, and it makes sense, like, spoiler alerts.
So in the video game, this is a character, immortal, daughter of a god, uh, lesbian, and, uh, trapped in this, this, this void for a hundred years.
Because she's immortal, they trap her in something called the Soul Cage, so that whenever this, so this dude is bonded to her, so if someone tries to kill him, he regenerates using her immortality.
That's the, that's the story.
Welcome to the game.
You can free her or kill her.
If you free her, it turns out that she's actually in a lesbian romance with a young woman who is resurrected.
Now, look, I really don't care.
It does seem a little ham-fisted and out of place in the story, like it doesn't need to happen, and you're like, okay, we got it.
So, but anyway, this character kind of sucks.
And again, I suppose if you're imprisoned for a hundred years in solitary confinement, your mind would break too.
But she's just like this insufferable character.
So anyway, here's what happens.
Somebody decides to modify the game.
To create something called the Sir Alen mod.
Where you can see here, you have this female with long hair.
And what they did, was they made it into a dude!
And it's actually great work.
I mean, this character...
Uh, in the beginning has a beard and then later on doesn't so someone did all the voice acting and then the other thing too is there are modifications made to the game where other characters referencing Dame Aelyn will say he instead of she.
Nexus Mods, which is a location where you can download game modifications.
So if you're playing on PC, or whether or not you can do this on PlayStation, I don't know.
I think they have mods now.
But if you want to modify games, people will develop programs that can change your video game in certain ways.
So, one of the things I did with Baldur's Gate, after I beat it 800 times, is I added a level modifier, so that the level cap of how strong your characters can be increases, and then you can play the game in different ways.
It makes the game more fun, it makes the game last forever.
This modification turned the lesbian character into a dude, making the relationship heterosexual.
I will point out the one funny thing here is that the armor design still has like breast like like boob plates I don't say breast plates because like armor has breast plates but no it's got like outright boobs so like here's a guy wearing this armor and there's boobs so it's like whatever but let me play a little bit so you can you can see exactly what the game is like and let me make sure we get the the audio.
unidentified
You there, Sharon.
By the fires of your camp's hearth, we will discuss all we must.
I'll be ready.
Whatever you have to say had better be worth your life.
Now you must excuse us.
We must take Saka in one another's bodies and words.
We'll see you later.
We must take sucker in each other's bodies and words.
So they tried, they did what they could, and all the mod does is make Dame Aelin into Sir Aelin.
They didn't say anything else about it.
But Nexus Mods was offended because they said it's taking diversity out of the game.
Dude, if you- I love this.
Dame Aelyn and Isabelle celebrate their reunion with a kiss.
Sorry, I don't like it.
I really don't.
I gotta be completely honest.
I don't like any of the sex stuff in Baldur's Gate.
I think it is in poor taste, ham-fisted, and stupid.
One of the big complaints about the game was that whenever you meet a character, they're like trying to have sex with you.
And everyone's like, dude, I just want to fight dragons, man.
I play this- I don't- I don't know about Baldur's Gate 1 or 2, I never played them.
I play Baldur's Gate 3, it's a new game.
Fine.
Here's what I'm looking to do.
You can play as, like, a vampire guy, or a warlock guy with one eye, or this, like, cleric who worships, like, this dark goddess.
You can make your own character, you can play the son of a dark god, or whatever.
And I'm like- or- or the child of a dark god, or whatever.
And I'm just, you know, let's explore the game and see what's up and fight goblins and ogres and do that silly video game stuff.
It's a strategy game, so it's kind of fun.
You make your characters, you build out your characters, you can multi-class, give special abilities.
It's strategic.
You can say, I want a character who's good at this thing and good at this thing, and these games like this are fun.
That's all I want.
The game is basically, you have this overhead view of your characters, and then everyone takes turn fighting on this battlefield, and so you have your four characters.
You could do mods to have more, but you could have between one and four characters.
You choose the actions they take, and you're basically playing what I would describe as like an advanced version of chess.
Like, you move a character here, he does this move, and you know, you get it.
You get RPGs.
That's all I care about.
So when I'm playing this game, and I'm sitting there, and then all of a sudden some character's like, let us go and sleep together now, I'm like, oh, come on, can I skip this?
And it happens a lot.
In fact, there's one point in the game...
Where you go to the house of the devil.
He's not like THE devil, there's a bunch of different devils, but he's one of THE devils, because there's like nine.
And you go to his house, and you have the option of killing his, I don't know, his sex slave or something?
Or having sex with the incubus.
I don't know if it's an incubus or a succubus, because it shapeshifts or whatever.
But I'm like, this is so unnecessary, dude.
I really... It is the worst thing in the game.
I tell you, if there was one mod that I would totally go for is remove all romance from the game.
No character romances.
No- Dame Aelyn and Isabel, they just don't kiss at all.
They're friends, that's all.
And nobody has a relationship, because it's pointless.
Changes nothing.
And you know what the biggest letdown was?
It's like, finally, okay, fine.
You know, I'll have this character, this character romance.
It's like Shadowheart and Hysterian.
And at the end, it doesn't do anything.
It doesn't change the ending.
It was a pointless- It was a big waste of time.
And this is what you get.
They said, they banned the mod and the user, Because they said the mod was antithetical to their operating principles of diversity and inclusivity.
Dude, it's a video game mod, are you nuts?
That's crazy.
That's just so crazy.
Through the course of adventure, you learn about this character, blah blah blah, she's completely insufferable, I hate them both.
And, uh, they removed it.
There you go.
It's funny because it seems like most players are of the mindset of like, dude, use the mod if you want to use the mod, who cares?
But you see, the thing is, they want to propagandize.
They want you to be forced to see a lesbian relationship.
I gotta be honest, I don't care if it's lesbian, straight, gay, whatever.
I don't like any of it.
I just want my angel lady to fight the evil elf guy.
That's it!
They don't need to, like, make out or anything.
This is what pisses me off about so much wokeness, is they have to, have to make you have sex with everything in this game!
I heard the same thing about Starfield 2, and I'm like, dude, make me a mod that removes all romance.
From every, every element of the game.
Be done with it.
Now, I got no problem if there's characters in the game that are like a married couple and they have kids, because that happens too.
But like, the, oh, like the, it's just so stupid.
After the first act with Minthara, it's like, she just is like, now we will go share our bodies!
And it's like, oh shut up, man!
Dude, I just want the drow lady to kill the tiefling guy.
I don't want to go have to have sex parties afterwards.
This game is so frustrating in that regard.
But if you ignore it, it's still a very fun game.
And for the most part, you can choose to ignore that component of it.
However, it is stupid.
And it's really funny how, like they said, originally when the game came out, everybody was just banging everybody.
And they got so much backlash, they were like, oh, it's a bug, it was an accident.
No, it wasn't.
That's what they intended.
Creepos?
Anyway, the issue isn't so much with Baldur's Gate, fine, they can make these things in the game, but Nexus mods.
