Alex Jones RETURN Sparks HILARIOUS Woke Media MELTDOWN, WAR Declared On Elon Musk Over Free Speech
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
Alex Jones RETURN Sparks HILARIOUS Woke Media MELTDOWN, WAR Declared On Elon Musk Over Free Speech
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.
The media meltdown is palpable, my friends.
Oh boy, are they going after Elon Musk now?
And I think in response, Elon Musk is just gonna return the favor and go equally as hard in the other direction.
Why is it that Elon Musk reinstated the account of Alex Jones?
You know, I think after the media started bashing him and lying about him and trying to destroy his businesses, he just said, it's war.
Because we got crazy stories.
We got one story where they're claiming that Tesla's recalling every single vehicle they've ever put out in the United States.
Which is clearly insane and not true.
Daily Mail wrote this.
They said, Tesla's recalling 2 million vehicles.
What does it mean to issue a recall?
Now that's the question.
Typically when you get a recall, like we had a recall in our truck, you bring it in to get something fixed.
Yeah, what does a recall mean for Tesla?
What they're really saying is Tesla announces software update.
That's it.
They are really, really going after Elon.
But of course, following this, there are tons of stories about people quitting the platform, furious that Alex Jones has returned.
And I love this one from CNN.
Elon Musk's ex is encouraging users to follow conspiracy theorist Alex Jones after reinstating his account.
Yeah.
What does that mean?
It means Alex Jones is on the recommendation list the same as literally anybody else.
We're winning.
And they're losing their collective minds.
And it's funny.
Oh boy.
Y'all gotta hear the response from Sam Harris.
Cause Sam Harris is a broken, broken man.
You know what I think about Sam Harris?
Sam Harris was intellectual dark web, right?
So he's hanging out with Jordan Pearson, Ben Shapiro, you know, in some capacity.
And this is the space he's in where he's, he's challenging mainstream orthodoxy.
But then COVID happened.
And the dude, a coward, panicked and decided, I better just toe the line for the machine without doing an investigation or any research and just say whatever I think needs to be said.
It's fascinating.
You know, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt early on and think, you know, maybe he's trying to maintain some credibility in a left liberal space to poll people.
Nah.
Nah, Sam Harris, I think, got really scared.
was terrified that he cannot win against the machine and decided the safest path was to stop where he was and just play the establishment neolib card.
Wait till you hear this segment.
Jack Masobic tweets, Sam Harris melts down that Elon Musk let Alex Jones back on X and then appeared on Twitter spaces with me.
Here's what I love.
So we got this new movie that came out.
It's called, uh, uh, The World, what is it?
Like, Leave the World Behind.
And they have a scene where Teslas, and it actually says Tesla, are slamming into cars and, yo, it is wild.
I wanna, I wanna show you that clip.
But, uh, first let's talk about the meltdown following the reinstating of Alex Jones.
And, and I can also point out, I think I have the tweet right here, is it?
Alex Jones has announced new shows to appear exclusively on X.
Oh, well look at that.
That's right.
Alex Jones knows who butters his bread.
Alex Jones is probably thinking.
You know, when they banned him from everything, they cut off his access to the mainstream pipeline.
By being restored to Twitter, slash X, now X, he's got access to the mainstream pipeline, to the public conversation.
He even said, thank you for letting me back into the public conversation.
Doing an exclusive show on X makes the most sense.
It's going to massively increase his reach, or restore, I should say, his reach to a certain degree.
Reinstating Alex Jones on the platform, as Elon did this week, wasn't a principled stand on anything.
It was the quintessence of audience capture.
Elon literally put the decision to a vote on X, and he let his dumb fans, most of whom now live in conspiristan, simply tell him what to do. And then he welcomes Jones back
in a Twitter spaces, along with Andrew Tate and Jack Posobiec. It has certainly... You know what I
When I first heard of Jack Posobiec, I also called him Jack Posobiec.
And then I met him, I started reading more of his stuff and watching some of his clips, and I went, oh, it's Jack Posobec.
But the fact that he calls him Posobiec shows he doesn't really know anything about Jack.
Probably never talked to the guy.
And this is it.
The dude's losing his mind.
Conspiristan.
Uh-huh.
Wow!
It's remarkable to see this is where we're at with Sam Harris.
Oh, how sad.
How sad.
But take a look at some of these stories.
Here we go from NBC Connecticut.
Team Vicky Soto leaves Axe days after Alex Jones returns to the platform.
I love this one because I don't think it's even actually about Alex Jones, but they want to make sure they put Alex Jones in the title.
Just days after Elon Musk reinstated InfoWars host Alex Jones to Axe, formerly known as Twitter, Vicky Soto Memorial Fund announced it's leaving the platform.
Vicky Soto taught first grade at Sandy Hook.
She died shielding her students from gunfire.
I mean, that's a sad story.
It really is.
They wrote, After being on this platform for 10 years, we have made the decision to leave X. On Thursday, it will be 11 years since she died at Sandy Hook.
We never thought we would still be here being harassed, but now as we try to mourn her, the harassment has become unbearable.
Okay.
Well, you know, I gotta be honest.
You've got 69 likes on the post.
Why is NBC writing up this story?
It's because they are desperate to attack Alex Jones and desperate to attack Elon Musk, but the reality is Elon Musk did the right thing.
He made the right business decision.
That's it.
Oh boy, but we got more from Politico.
Civil rights lawyer quits X after Alex Jones' return to the platform.
Sherilyn Ifill said, with the return of Jones on the social media site, it cannot be a place where I put my energy, my ideas, my plans, my joy.
Buh-bye!
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
This is what's really incredible.
Elon Musk asked his audience, do you want Alex Jones back?
Now, Sam Harris says, it's audience capture.
You know, Elon Musk has 165 million followers.
He's followed by like half of Twitter.
Okay.
And the people who voted on this weren't just his fans or followers.
But if you're gonna come to me and say Elon Musk petitioned his own fans and then gave them what they wanted, his audience capture, I'll be like, well, you know, at a certain point, I think 165 million people may actually be a representative sample.
But, if Sherilyn and others do not have public opinion on their side and they leave, who cares?
Does anybody on X care to hear the opinion of this civil rights lawyer?
Yeah, maybe a small amount of people.
I mean, how many followers does she have?
Do they even link to her account?
I'm not gonna pull up her account.
I bet she has a very, very small number.
Prominent civil rights lawyers abandoning X. Blah, blah, blah.
What's her name?
You know what?
Let's do this.
Let me see how many followers she has.
Maybe she has a lot.
Maybe I'm wrong, you know?
Maybe she's a really, really big account.
Maybe she has 444,000 followers.
It's like, okay, you know, alright.
444,000 followers. It's like okay, you know, all right.
Alex Jones has 1.7 million So if you're going to Elon Musk and you're like Alex Jones
gets tens of millions of views and has Four times the followers that you do
And what do you think's gonna happen?
You're not gonna be able to lord it over Elon Musk.
I'll leave!
If you bring him back, he's gonna be like, well, I gotta be honest, Alex Jones has more views and more followers, so what's the argument?
It's weird.
These people are in the minority.
They don't represent popular opinion, and that's why Elon Musk did the poll.
But it's a fascinating place to be, is it not?
Is it not?
Now, they're coming after Elon Musk.
I love this one.
CNN says, A day after Elon Musk restored the ex-accounts of notorious right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on his website, InfoWars, the platform is actively promoting Jones' account to other users, giving the fringe figure a major platform.
Oh, are you gonna cry more?
Are you gonna cry more, you little babies?
Oh, it's too bad, huh?
Alex Jones, like everybody else, will appear in the who, you know, who you should follow feed.
That's, it's absolutely hilarious.
The same Musk on Sunday also elevated Jones' newly restored profile, which had 1.6 million followers as of Monday, by engaging with him in a live-streamed interview on X. They were joined by Andrew Tate, blah blah blah, so we know about this.
Far-right conspiracy theorist Jack Pasovic, proud Islamophobe Laura Loomer, And, you see the game they play?
What did Elon Musk do?
Elon Musk said, uh, okay fine, I guess, you know, Alex, I think what you said is wrong, but I don't think it warrants a permanent ban from the platform.
They then claimed, he's promoting him.
Promoting his ideas.
Blasting his account out to new followers.
Wait, wait, wait.
Alex Jones exists.
Alex Jones gets tens of millions of views.
He got hundreds of millions of views before he was purged from all the major platforms.
But this is what these people never understood.
Because they're dumb.
They're stupid people.
And we tried to warn all of them.
You ban Alex Jones.
You do not stop him.
All you do is ensure that no one counters him.
So, there was a, what was I watching?
I was watching a video.
I'm not sure if it was from Bill Maher or something, where a guy said, when they started banning hate speech, what happened was we saw an increase in anti-Semitism and racism and hate speech.
Why?
Because the bans ensured that racists and anti-Semites could only talk to each other.
What happens?
There's no, a mash, there's no de-radicalization process.
The argument from... This is really, really fascinating because we've brought this up.
I say we as in those who defended free speech on these platforms have brought this up.
The default position of the left is that the stronger argument rests with racists.
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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
I Don't believe that's true, but that's their position
The left believes that if you were to take someone who opposes racism and someone who supports racism and put them in a room with a bunch of people, the racist would be more persuasive and his argument would win out converting people to racism.
I actually think that is factually false.
I don't think it's a matter of opinion.
Why?
Historically, we can see that racism loses out.
We're not talking about social media platforms in the 60s.
We're talking about public sentiment when people started learning that race doesn't matter.
And they became friends, and they got married, and they had kids, and people started building mixed-race neighborhoods, co-mingling.
Still, neighborhoods are greatly segregated, that's true.
But people ultimately were just like, I don't think race is as big a deal as most people would say.
And this did actually start to occur even with the Civil War.
Granted, during the Civil War, y'all, y'all Americans, everybody were still super racist.
The North, yo, super racist.
I love this.
The idea that the North during the Civil War was like, defending the rights of black people in this country.
They were opposed to slavery, but Yo, we still had Jim Crow and segregation and all of these really awful things.
Granted, ending slavery was an extremely important thing to do.
Many other countries had already done it, and it was a complicated, complicated historical narrative as to how this all breaks out during the Civil War, but slavery, of course, being the principal issue.
The fear that Abraham Lincoln would do away with it, where the North wanted to stop its expansion, there's a lot of stuff going on.
But to act like they weren't racist?
Dude, in the North, We still had, into the 50s, anti-miscegenation laws.
We still had racial segregation.
So, yeah, come on.
People were still like, nah, races, you know, ooh.
But times, they were a-changin'.
The left believes they have to ban Alex Jones.
Why?
Because his arguments are too persuasive.
Huh?
That's your argument?
Yo, Alex Jones went on Joe Rogan's show a couple years ago and said that there were animal-human hybrids and cell phone towers and interdimensional beings and everybody was laughing.
It was insane.
And I'm like, you thought that was persuasive?
People were just being entertained.
And don't get me wrong, Alex Jones has said a lot of things that have turned out to be true.
If you go back and you look at some of Alex's old stuff, it's kind of wild.
Several, uh, what is it, like a year?
I think it was, or was it a few months before 9-11?
Alex Jones predicted there would be a terror attack and they'd blame Osama Bin Laden.
That's kind of crazy.
Alex Jones predicted, sort of, the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I love this one because Russia invades Ukraine, everybody starts sharing this clip of Alex Jones like, how did he know?
And I talked to Alex and he's like, I was just reading the news man, I don't even know, like it's not even a big deal!
Alex Jones was reading like the AP and other stories, and he was like, yo, they're saying there's gonna be a war.
And then people were surprised it happened.
This is the real reason they want to eliminate Alex Jones from public discourse.
And otherwise, I mean, I'm sure.
This is why they're going after Elon Musk.
Because Alex Jones builds a highly persuasive and very large platform where he destroys the establishment narrative and they don't like it.
I do not believe that Alex Jones is right about everything.
I actually think, you know, we have an Alex Jones was right jar downstairs as a gag.
Part of the joke is that he's often not right.
You get it?
If the argument was that Alex Jones was right.
All the time, you wouldn't need a jar to put money in, because you'd go broke!
The point is, every time he nails it, you put money in it, and then you show how often he was right, which means he's not always right.
I'm not saying he's always wrong, or he's mostly wrong, whatever, but he does get a lot of things wrong.
So do I. It's a joke.
It's meant to be funny.
But these people, they cannot handle it.
Look at this one, how... Tucker Carlson!
Helped persuade Elon Musk to reinstate Alex Jones on X. Oh boy.
Got this picture of Tucker.
I just love this timeline we're in.
Here we go.
Now they're trying to destroy Elon Musk.
In a variety of ways.
KennecoTheGreat says, Despite being the only person to view that Netflix ad next to that video, he wrote an article falsely suggesting that Netflix ads regularly appeared next to fringe content on Rumble, pressuring advertisers to drop the platform.
On X, IBM, Comcast, and Oracle had their ads appear alongside fringe content for only one person, the same employee, out of more than 500 million active users on the platform.
The same Media Matters employee has written nearly a dozen articles pressuring advertisers to pull their support from X since Elon Musk bought the company.
It is war.
Look at this.
I don't think that the Daily Mail is part of a coordinated effort to try and destroy Elon Musk, but this is a component of the smear machine.
Daily Mail says Tesla recalls more than two million vehicles to fix systems that monitors drivers using autopilot after a series of deadly crashes.
Really?
The recall covers models Y, S, 3, and X. And I think, really, you should have said models S, 3, X, and Y. And then you can understand why it is that Elon Musk named the cars this.
Haha.
Produced between October 5th, 2012 and December 7th of this year.
I know that they're falsely framing what's actually happening.
Here's the real headline.
Tesla issues software update for all vehicles.
That's it?
That's it?
I get software updates all the time!
Look at this.
Documents posted Wednesday by US city regulators say the company will send out a software update to fix the problems.
Oh.
So, no one will even notice a single thing.
You know what happens?
I sit down at my Tesla, and it says, scheduled update, and you just click, okay.
Or the app will tell you, like, update now.
No, I'm like, yeah, sure, whatever, I don't care.
It takes like, what, 10 minutes?
And then it's like, I don't know.
You get software updates all the time.
And they'll give you a list of improvements and bug fixes.
They are really...
Really out for Elon Musk.
Oh boy, here's my favorite part.
Netflix users mock Elon Musk over his leave the world behind complaint.
This guy didn't watch the movie, one viewer said, after Tesla founder pointed out inaccuracy.
So there's a scene, okay?
I want to show you in a second.
And in this movie, which, you know, this is the movie where they say don't trust white people.
There are some people being like, you didn't understand the point of the film.
The point of the film was that people of different races would have to work together.
I'm like, whatever.
People are pointing out the line.
They don't like it.
It is what it is.
You know, you can interpret whatever you want from the movie.
There's a scene where they quite literally show a whole bunch of white Teslas all crashed, and then they have to dodge Teslas that are just attacking them.
Elon says in a tweet, here you can see the image, right?
They all have Tesla written on it.
I'll show you that in a second.
Elon says, where is it?
He points out that they can be charged by solar panels.
So here we go.
Someone posted the clip.
No, he's saying electricity can exist outside of gasoline.
causing a massive pileup.
Someone posted the clip.
Elon Musk replied, Tesla's can charge from solar panels
even if the world goes fully mad max and there's no more gasoline.
The founder was attempting to highlight that cars could survive
an electric free apocalyptic situation.
No, he's saying electricity can exist outside of gasoline.
He didn't even comment on what the cars were doing.
He was simply pointing out if the grid goes down, the cars can still function off solar,
but you can't get more gasoline.
That's gotta be like produced.
Then people were like, This guy didn't even watch the movie.
He didn't even comment on the movie.
He was pointing out that in a grid-down situation, the cars still drive.
He wasn't making a comment about self-driving.
Yo, I gotta show you how absolutely bonkers this scene is.
So you have Julia Roberts walking around, and there's a whole bunch of Teslas all crashed.
And she's like, here, let me- There's like weird music playing.
So anyway, she then looks down and it's a... Look at this full self-driving and she goes, oh no.
Now they're dodging Teslas that are flying at them, trying to hit them.
Talk about stupid.
I'm sorry.
It's just so stupid.
It's as stupid as stupid can be.
I don't know what else to tell you, man.
It's just very stupid.
Look.
Yes.
There's a possibility that in the future, these kinds of things can happen.
But it's just so silly.
Now, I'm not gonna sit here and claim that a movie making fun of self-driving cars is part of a coordinate effort against Elon Musk or whatever, but the media is coming at him with full force.
But I'll tell you this, I'll warn y'all.
The more you do this, the more Elon Musk is going to double down.
This is why I think Alex Jones finally came back.
In the early days of the X platform, Elon Musk buying Twitter, he says, no, Alex Jones can't come back.
What he said about Sandy Hook kids and all that stuff was horrible.
And a lot of people pointed out that's not why he was banned.
He was banned because he insulted Oliver Darcy, a CNN smear merchant, propagandist.
And, uh, I think the real issue is that Elon was basically saying, I cannot, right now, bring back Alex Jones because it would cause a collapse of the system.
That's what I think he was really saying.
But then they started to gut the system anyway.
And once Elon Musk saw the advertisers fleeing, at that point he was like, well, what's the point now?
Now our best path forward is going to be paying subscribers.
And if that's the case, we must maximize the user base.
If advertisers are going to pull off the platform no matter what he does, well, so be it.
Alex Jones, you're back.
The more they play this game of chicken, the more they will lose.
So, I hope you're having a good time.
I know I am.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
What does it mean that the election was stolen from Donald Trump in 2020?
Well, in the early days following the election where Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden, many people said that it was fraud.
There were wild conspiracy theories about servers in Germany or whatever, CIA shootouts, Dominion, Venezuela, China.
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 That was a very dominant narrative.
2024 presidential election.
We do all that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
A lot of people were posting these wild theories that Trump was secretly going to
be reinstated as president in March, the true election day, and
a bunch of other things that never happened.
Now, since the beginning, I have said Joe Biden won, and there's one simple reason to say that.
And that is, he's in the White House.
He won.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
But we have new information coming out.
It's a Rasmussen poll that finds one in five mail-in voters admit they cheated in the 2020 election.
Whoa!
One in five!
Holy crap.
Now, the real question here is, how many votes were by mail?
Then, if we take 20% of that number, we can make some extrapolation, and then we can even be very favorable and remove the margin of error from this survey.
I mean, we could actually be favorable to ourselves and increase the margin of error, because it could go either direction about three points.
The point here is, Rasmussen reached out to over a thousand voters, asked them about certain practices which would be voter fraud, and surprisingly they found about one in five admitted that in some way they did commit fraud.
How?
Signing ballots for other people, filling out ballots for other people, delivering ballots for other people, things like that.
And thus, this does call into question Whether or not Donald Trump would have won, were it a real vote based on an individual's opinions.
Here's what I think.
You gotta understand what an election is, okay?
If you wanna have the argument to me, if you wanna say, Tim, the election was stolen from Trump, I say, what does that mean to you?
They say it was rigged, okay, but what does that mean?
They say, the system was set up by Democrats and neocons to heavily favor them and to diminish the actual voters of Donald Trump.
That is to say, signature verification and ballot harvesting, and I go, yes, okay, welcome to an election, next question.
That's what elections have always been.
I feel like there's a lot of, you know what I think this is?
A lot of Trump supporters are first-time voters, and a lot of Trump voters in 2020, I should say, were first-time voters in 2016, the same thing, and many of them did not pay attention.
Right now, Donald Trump is heavily favored in Georgia and Michigan among people who did not vote in 2020.
This is giving him an advantage.
For many of these people, and I don't mean to be a dick, and if you understand this, I'm not talking about you, but understand, there are many people who did not realize elections ain't about convincing people to vote.
It's about getting a vote.
So here's what I see.
A lot of people don't believe that Trump could have lost.
Why?
The narrative was on his side.
Tremendously.
Yet somehow Biden gets 81 million votes, more than any president ever.
Well, there was also a counter-narrative against Donald Trump.
But more importantly, Democrats and allies in the Republican Party, neocons, teamed up to change policy and procedure to benefit Joe Biden in the election.
That's just it.
And mail-in voting was one of these components.
Now, this is a survey.
This is not physical evidence.
But I do believe it gives credence to the argument that people were defrauding the system through mail-in voting.
I shouldn't say coordinated, but there was a coordinated effort to get universal mail-in voting into the hands of as many people as possible.
That's a fact.
And then, people just did what they wanted to do.
Now, here's what I said.
You want to know why Joe Biden won?
Because mom walks in, and she goes to her 18-year-old, 19-year-old kid, son and daughter, and she goes, OK, we're going to go to Olive Garden and get the endless breadsticks, but you've got to fill out your ballots first.
And the kids are like, Mom, I don't care about voting.
It's so dumb.
No, you've got to fill out your ballots.
And then the kids are like, fine, what am I doing?
unidentified
And mom goes, you put Joe Biden, you put Joe, and now you sign it.
That is, in my opinion, the likely reason that Joe Biden was able to secure so many votes.
But now it appears, and I think many people were inclined to believe this as it was, that many of these parents were filling out the ballots for their kids.
And in fact, we even heard this from one of the individuals on The View who said that they filled out a ballot for their kid, admitting to committing voter fraud.
Welcome to our Brave New World.
Ladies and gentlemen, a new trailer has come out about a movie called Civil War.
Predictive programming, some might say, or it's just in the air.
The fear is here.
You got a major blockbuster film coming out depicting a United States Civil War.
I wonder why that would be, but by all means, Tim Pool has said the magic words, so you may take a drink.
Before we get started and break down all the math, because this is going to blow your mind, and I hope you share this with friends and family, because I'm not here to say that, you know, China, Dominion, fraud, Venezuela.
I'm here to just point out the polls and talk to you about math.
And then you can decide for yourself what you think any of it means.
These are institutions that produce polling.
These are news organizations.
I'm going to show you some data.
You decide.
Before we get started, my friends, I got big news.
Head over to TheBestSongEver.com.
Click pre-order on Amazon.
Buy together again right now for 69 cents.
You can also pre-order on iTunes.
It's a bit harder to do.
But we are hoping that our new song, it's the best song ever written.
You know why I can say that?
I didn't write it.
It was written by Smokey Mike and the God King, and the trailer has just dropped.
That's right, over at TimCast Music, just a few hours before I recorded this video, the Smokey Mike and the God King cover, our cover of Smokey Mike and the God King's Together Again, is up now.
It's a 30-second promo clip, and you can see we got Jeremy Boring and Michael Knowles.
Oh, that's a cameo.
And there's a little snippet of the song at the end.
Pre-order now, and I'll tell you what this is all about.
Jeremy Boring and Michael Knowles gave a big F you to the music industry with a spoofed song called Together Again.
It's a long story, but they basically tried to buy the rights to perform a song, they were told no, and they offered 100 times the market rate and they were told no.
Why?
I'm willing to bet it was political.
We put out a song, and we had a publicist reach out to news organizations, entertainment outlets saying Tim Pool and Pete Parada, formerly of The Offspring, have teamed up, and we actually got people responding saying, F you and go F yourselves.
Okay.
This song that we're putting out is a double F you to the music industry.
I hope you like it.
And I hope that the song will chart on Billboard, and then we can laugh at our success at mocking the woke institutions.
But anyway, I digress.
I'm sure all the family members you've shared this video with are like, what is he talking about with this song?
But it's up at TimCastMusic.
TheBestSongEver.com.
Let me show you this from Rasmussen first.
They say, More than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.
A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and the Heartland Institute finds that 21% of likely U.S.
voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election say they filled out a ballot in part or in full on behalf of a friend, family member, spouse, or child.
78% say they didn't. 30%...
Of those surveyed, said they voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election.
19% of those who cast mail-in votes say a friend or family member filled out their ballot in part or in full, or their behalf.
Furthermore, 70% of mail-in voters say that in the 2020 election, they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident.
All of these practices are illegal, Heartland Institute officials noted.
They're going to mention that the sampling error is plus or minus 3% with 95% level of confidence.
Fieldwork for all recipes and report surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC, and you can see their actual methodology.
Now, I know, I know.
People will often try and deflect, and they'll say, these polls don't mean anything!
Alright, alright, alright.
First, from the Council on Foreign Relations, everyone's favorite organization.
They say the pandemic helped popularize early voting and mail-in ballots.
Americans cast 101 million early votes, 64.1% of the total votes.
The total number of mail-in ballots was 65,642,049.
Now that seems to line up with total number of votes cast and the percentage of people who voted.
So let's do this.
Voted by mail, sorry.
Okay, let's see, where are we at?
This is CFR's 2020 election by numbers.
They say that Biden won 81, excuse me, 0.2 million votes, 51%.
Trump won 74.
That means we have roughly 155 million between the two, and likely, because, you know, this doesn't add up to 100%, we're looking at around, I don't know, let's say you, 160, 170 million votes.
160, 170 million votes.
Now hold on there a minute.
If that's the case, fact, 170 or so, 160 million votes.
And it is a fact that 65 million of these votes came through mail-in voting.
Stands to reason that just north of one third of all votes that came through were mail-in
They found 30% of those surveyed say they voted by absentee or mail-in ballot.
Now, that doesn't line up perfect.
Actually, that probably does line up fairly well.
If we're looking at 65 million, no, no, no, no, that would be more than 30%.
Yeah, that would be close to like 38 or 39.
So there is a decent miss here in terms of the people they've asked.
Less so.
So they interviewed people, they surveyed people, and found in their margin slightly less Of the people they asked, so there's not a one-for-one based on the national sample, so you'll have to extrapolate that and make your determination.
If this 30% is nationally representative of voters, or is it, you know, representing the national voter bloc, and one in five individuals say they committed fraud, we are talking about around 14 million, or 13 or 14 million votes That may be fraudulent.
I mean, if we go by the hard numbers, quite literally.
Now, let's say there's a three-point margin of error.
Because the margin of error could go north or south, I think it's pointless to actually try and give the data, but we could be saying something along the lines of 12 to 15 million votes, based on the... I mean, I guess technically more than that.
Because, no, it's probably a fair estimate.
I mean, look, we're dealing with large numbers.
It doesn't matter.
Trump did not lose by that many votes.
And even if you give the benefit of the doubt and subtract 3% for the margin of error, we're still looking at an election where Trump would have actually gotten more votes than Joe Biden were it not for mail-in voting fraud.
But I will stress, the survey by Rasmussen is not proof that fraud was committed.
It's a survey of people claiming they did.
Maybe many of these people lied.
Why would they admit to committing fraud?
I mean, that lady on The View did.
That was pretty wild, if you ask me.
It's hard to know for sure.
Following this arrest, Musin was slammed by a denial-of-service attack.
Very interesting timing.
They say, while we remediate our apparent denial of service attack, here for our readers on X is a message from today's 2020 mail-in voting survey sponsor.
Please share.
And, uh, you know what?
I'll just go ahead and click that repost right there for you guys.
This is yesterday.
This news breaks.
I'm surprised the story wasn't larger.
Now, there's more data to consider.
Rasmussen is considered a highly credible agency when it comes to polling, and their methodology is considered to be fairly standard, but fairly accurate.
As of right now, according to the RealClearPolitics average, Rasmussen has Joe Biden beating Donald Trump by four points.
Now, that seems to be an outlier.
Seems to be an outlier because all the other polls, save NPR and PBS, have Trump winning.
YouGov has a tie.
But Trump is currently enjoying a polling average spread of plus 2.3.
Meaning, Donald Trump be winning.
At this time in the previous election cycle, Biden was up 7.5 in aggregate, and Clinton in the previous cycle to that was up 4.3 in aggregate, implying Donald Trump is dancing his way to a 2024 re-election.
And the important thing to consider here when it comes to the voting patterns in universal mail-in voting is it's not breaking them down by state.
The only thing that really matters, of course, is the swing states.
And Donald Trump lost by 44,000 votes in 2020.
If we're talking about people voting by mail and committing fraud to the tunes of millions, it doesn't give us a whole lot of information because a lot of this may be California, New York, or Illinois.
Meaningless.
But, if we were then to extrapolate the same data statewide, we'd still find a 1 in 5 margin of people admitting they committed voter fraud.
In which case, 1 in 5 votes?
Yeah, I'm gonna have to tell you, that means Donald Trump wins.
Because I think the split by some states was like, if Trump won even 3 points in some of these swing states, he won those states.
Again, this is not proof that Donald Trump won.
This is simply an interesting survey suggesting that there are a lot of people who committed fraud and got away with it.
How do you investigate these claims?
Well, again, you had a lady on The View outright admit to committing fraud.
Let's pull this up because we want to make sure we get all the facts right.
Here's Reuters.
The View co-host Sonny Hostin did not admit committing voter fraud.
Really?
Let's read.
Social media users are misrepresenting ABC talk show host The View, Sunny Hawson's remarks on her experience with dropping off her son's absentee ballot for the U.S.
midterm elections.
They say she admitted committing voter fraud, but Representative Verhoesen denied the allegations.
Laws in New York, where they live, allow for designated family members to legally drop off other people's ballots.
On a Facebook video set, did Sunny Hawson admit to committing voter fraud on behalf of her son?
In the clip taken from the popular show, Hauston said she had trouble actually voting for her son's absentee ballot today and that made me very concerned.
She went on to explain her experience with a poll worker who asked her to place the absentee ballot in a bag on the floor and had to ask if there was an official election box that clearly says absentee ballots or something like that.
The clip appears to be from a November 8th episode of The View.
Users online are taking her quote of voting for her son to mean she fraudulently filled out a ballot and cast it on his behalf.
But a rep for Haasen told Reuters there was no illegal activity.
Sunny and her son abided by the law.
She was the designated person he assigned to drop off her ballot.
The rep also confirmed her resident in Westchester County, New York.
In New York, individuals can vote by mail with a valid excuse, which includes being blah, blah, blah, blah, and... That's weird.
Hold on.
Westchester County specifically designated a person can pick up or deliver a ballot based on their behalf.
The voter must designate... The voter must designate that person on their ballot application.
Okay, well, I'm confused here, Reuters.
How did Sonny Hauston's son fill out the absentee ballot while not currently in the state, resulting in Sonny Hauston having the physical ballot to go drop off?
Are you saying that Her son received an absentee ballot where he was, I think he was in, was he in Pennsylvania or something?
So he's out of state, he receives an absentee ballot, he then drives there to fill it out, and then you dropped it off?
Because is that what happened?
Or did he, uh, receive it, fill it out, and mail it to you?
You see why people are saying that, um, she committed fraud?
But you know what?
Fine.
I don't know exactly what she did.
But the assumption here is, she received the mail-in vote, she voted for her son and tried to drop it off.
Voting for her son.
Sure.
But this is the point.
Many people are admitting to having done something like that.
Maybe she didn't do exactly that, who knows?
Fine, whatever.
But then, we're dealing with, hate to say it, voter fraud.
Now how do you get an investigation on something like that?
I don't know.
But I want to make sure I give you more facts!
I have this article from Scientific American from March 15th, 2004.
15th 2004. How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people
with only a 3% margin of error? Andrew Gelman, a professor in the
Department of Statistics and Political Science at Columbia University explains.
A 3% margin of error means that there's a 95% chance that the survey result will be within 3% of the population value.
To put it another way, you would expect to see less than a 3% difference, this we understand, blah blah blah.
The point here is, it's quite simple.
This is Scientific American basically saying, yes, a poll of 1,000 Americans can represent the entire country.
There are a lot of people who don't seem to understand this.
Ian Crossland on TimCast IRL, no matter how many times you say it, his brain can't comprehend the concept of a Sudoku puzzle.
But I'll break it down for you.
You ever play Sudoku?
You probably did.
You got a grid.
It's 3x3x3.
And you're looking at a bunch of empty spaces.
There are a few numbers in there.
Every line has to have 1 through 9, and every box has to have 1 through 9.
This is effectively how these polling systems work.
You take a look at the data and then you infer the empty spaces.
The polls here, quite simple.
You are given a Sudoku puzzle.
You are given maybe like 10 numbers in the whole block.
Maybe it's hard.
And you can say, based on these numbers, I can accurately predict where every number will be.
100% accuracy.
There are some Sudoku puzzles that are really great where it's like there's only a couple numbers and you're like, wow.
Tough.
I guess they have these blank ones or whatever.
You can just fill it out yourself, I guess.
The point is this.
The starting numbers of Sudoku are equivalent to the data in a poll.
It doesn't show you everything guaranteed.
You don't know exactly where the numbers are, but you can easily figure out what those numbers are going to be based on the data you have.
When we survey 1,000 Americans in a representative sample of this country, we target key areas where we can see big numbers.
An election happens.
We can say Heartland voters did this, Southern voters did this, Western voters did this.
In these regions, we see these patterns.
You can then survey a family or two in each area, talking to only a thousand people in the whole country, and find a scientifically accurate representation of voting patterns in this country.
There is a margin of error.
Thus, my point here is quite simple.
This is tremendous data that Rasmussen has put out.
It warrants further investigation, especially as we're heading into another election cycle.
But you know what?
This is why the most important thing any of you can do is vote.
Now, of course, There's no COVID this time around.
Maybe there'll be something.
And thus, mail-in voting will be less prominent, but still powerful.
And there are a lot of people who will likely try to play dirty.
If this polling is correct, I think this warrants some kind of task force to prevent voter fraud.
Not that we've proven anybody has committed voter fraud, but we've proven that there are a large number of people who express the desire to commit voter fraud.
Well, that being the case, I think we should probably say, okay, well, how do we prevent that in the event it does happen?
Because if we're not looking for it, tracking for it, or preventing it, it will happen.
Imagine one day you woke up and your cash register was empty, but you didn't lock your doors and you have no security cameras.
Well, what do you expect was going to happen?
And then you go, I don't know, money's gone.
I guess we'll have to figure it out later.
Or you can investigate and try and figure out what happened.
The issue here is, the store clerk walks in, the money's gone, and goes, I guess Joe Biden must have come and pick up the money.
Okay, I guess.
Or in this instance, Donald Trump did.
And then Trump goes, I never got paid.
And he goes, yes, you did.
The money's gone.
No, you got to investigate this stuff.
It's going to be interesting, I tell you that.
I don't believe Democrats will ever allow for any kind of task force or investigation.
Swing states are the real battleground, but as I was saying, go vote.
You know why?
Let's say you've got a 20% disadvantage in the mail-in voting, meaning you need to overcome like 10 million votes that are going to be fraudulent.
Well, if you're not going to get a task force, and you really do want to win, then what you need to do is 1.
Prepare for lawfare.
Lawsuits and investigations into mail-in voting.
Using this data, as well as evidence from 2020.
Step 2.
You must register everyone you know to vote.
Or get them to register, I should say more accurately.
And get them to vote.
Make sure The margin is crushed.
With Donald Trump's victory in these swing states, it was only 44,000 votes.
Only 44,000.
If everyone who listened to this got two or three of their friends to register to vote, and to vote, Trump cannot lose, especially with the current sentiments in this country.
I hope y'all are paying attention to what's going on.
It's crazy stuff.
It is crazy stuff.
It's not the evidence of voter fraud people have been claiming, and that's kind of my point.
Ballot harvesting and universal mail-in voting, as I've said, is what got Joe Biden the victory.
And I maintain it.
Now, this is not evidence fraud happened.
It's a suggestion that people are willing to do it.
And for that, I believe this warrants investigation.
So we shall see.
Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Now is not the time to despair, my friends.
Now is the time to celebrate as we claim more and more victories entering 2024 and the big news coming out today.
Is that the Supreme Court has granted cert to a January 6th case which could overturn many of the criminal convictions and charges against many of those on January 6th, including the president himself.
The argument stems from the obstruction law.
As many of you know, those on January 6th, many of them were charged with obstructing an official proceeding.
The argument goes, this law is specifically intended to go after those who are destroying documents and are interfering directly in a process.
I guess the argument would be more so you are in Congress and throwing documents in a shredder, shutting down their ability to do their jobs.
Not that you were in a building causing some widespread security issue that inadvertently resulted in the proceeding being shut down now.
Their arguments.
I don't know how good they are.
And we'll see.
And being granted cert just means that SCOTUS will hear the arguments.
The question is, which way do they go?
It's very possible the Supreme Court says, look, you stormed into the building.
Everybody got evacuated.
It's unambiguous.
You disrupted an official proceeding.
It's also possible, they say, the people who were walking through the building on that day cannot be said to have obstructed an official proceeding.
Because many of them were let in by police.
There you go.
So this should be interesting.
Here's the story from CNN.
And as I bring you this story, which is good news for Trump and Trump supporters, I also bring you this story.
This, my friends, is what we call winning the culture war.
Does it mean we've won?
No.
Does it mean we stop now?
Of course not.
Now we yell charge.
The enemy has broken ranks and we will take the center of this battlefield.
Take a look at this from CNN.com.
The Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will consider whether part of a federal obstruction law can be used to prosecute some of the rioters involved in the January 6th attack on the U.S.
Capitol.
How the Supreme Court defines how the obstruction law can be used related to the Capitol attack could impact hundreds of criminal cases, even the pending case against former President Donald Trump, who was also charged with obstructing an official proceeding.
The specific issue in the case involves a catch-all provision of a federal criminal statute that makes it a crime for anyone, quote, who otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.
And what the government must prove with regard to the intent of the January 6th rioters.
The DOJ has used the charge as the cornerstone of many of the more serious Capitol riot cases where defendants were outspoken Hold on there a minute!
There was a story.
I think this is in Dinesh D'Souza's film, Police State.
A woman said that her son showed up to the Capitol like an hour after everything had already happened.
Had no idea what was going on.
No barricades.
Doors are wide open.
Walks in and looks around like, what's happening?
Then leaves.
Several months later, charged with obstruction.
Well, hold on there a minute.
How do you prove this person intended to, or in any way, actually obstructed?
There are many stories of individuals who showed up an hour or so after the breach and after people fighting with cops.
I've met some of these people.
And they said that they went to the Capitol, that they walked up the sidewalk, no fences, nothing, went to the doors that were wide open, looked around, one woman said, for a couple minutes, and then just walked out.
And now they're going to jail for a year and a half because of obstruction.
Supreme Court may say, only those who engaged in physical violence with police were the ones intending to obstruct anything.
And simply charging anyone in the building for simply being there with obstruction is not the way the law is supposed to be used.
That could be huge.
Worse, they could say, a riot's a riot.
You were part of a riot that was intending to do this.
You bear some responsibility.
They're going to say, Joseph Fisher, the man at the center of the case, was charged with multiple federal crimes for his role in the J6 attack.
A federal judge agreed to throw out the specific charge brought against Fisher under the obstruction law.
A federal appeals court divided on the matter earlier this year, with the majority holding that the broad terms of the obstruction statute were satisfied as applied to individuals who forcibly entered the Capitol on January 6th.
The Supreme Court will now decide the issue this term.
See, my question is, How does that appeals court ruling apply to other individuals under active criminal prosecution?
The Supreme Court, I get.
Supreme Court issues a decision, and then bang, it hits everybody.
A federal appeal might be useful and could be used, but I'm not sure how that would play out.
But they are saying forcibly entered, and that matters.
That the court is intervening now suggests that the justices are interested in providing general clarity on an issue that has caused at least some confusion in a subset of January 6 cases, said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
The justices move Wednesday represents the first time the high court has agreed to examine the prosecution of someone involved in the Capitol riot.
It comes the same week that special counsel Jack Smith has asked the court to review Trump's claims of immunity from prosecution for his role in attempting to subvert the 2020 election.
Federal prosecutors said video footage showed him running at a police line outside the Capitol and yelling, charge!
A patrolman with the North Cornwall Township Police Department, Fisher allegedly yelled, MF'ers, as he clashed with police on January 6th.
During the scuffle, Fisher allegedly tried to help an officer who fell down and said, I am a cop, I am a cop, according to police body camera footage.
One day after the attack, he allegedly sent a private message to an associate saying I may need a job because word got out that I was at the rally.
Well, I don't know how much that matters.
He said the FBI may arrest me, etc.
They go on to say, The federal appeals court that decided Fisher's case earlier this year, which was decided along with two similar cases, said obstruction can include a wide range of conduct when a defendant has a corrupt intent and is targeting an official proceeding, such as the congressional certification of the presidential election on January 6th.
The broad interpretation of the statute encompassing all forms of obstructive acts is unambiguous and natural.
Judge Florence Pan of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote in the two-to-one majority opinion.
A decision is expected next summer.
So what I've heard is that some people are arguing the obstruction law was supposed to be about you as party to the process or something like that interfering directly in the process.
Specifically, let's say that they're like, okay, let's bring in the documents so that we can all vote on it, and then you shred those documents.
You cut them up, you destroy them or something.
That has interfered in that process.
They're arguing that fighting with cops outside the building and screaming was not obstructing directly.
Now, I don't know about that.
I honestly, I don't know how this could go.
I don't know the exact arguments outside of that.
But if they're outright saying that you cannot legally obstruct an official proceeding, I would argue that storming into the building and fighting with cops and then seeking out those chambers where the proceeding is happening does obstruct it.
But therein lies the main argument.
They didn't actually go into the hearing and shut it down.
They didn't sit down screaming.
They didn't destroy documents.
They were outside.
They were trying to get in.
I suppose the argument could be made attempted obstruction.
It should be interesting.
I don't know how good their argument is.
I don't know.
I'm on the fence on this one.
How about that?
But I will tell you.
My friends, don't be sad.
Be glad.
Because it's not all bad.
Into 2024, we are getting tremendous victories.
The Post Malino reporting that many far leftists, including a journalist, have been sentenced to federal prison.
Why?
Because in Arkansas, in Little Rock, in the summer of love, they were firebombing with Molotov cocktails.
Wow.
Four of the five defendants, I'm going to name them, were each given federal prison terms, varying between 17 and 66 months.
And they were ordered to pay huge fines.
A fifth defendant, a 34-year-old Brittany Dawn Jeffrey, was informed of her fate in 2022 and received the shortest sentence and lowest fine at 17 months.
So that is to say, they're all going to prison.
Take what you can get.
I don't trust the DOJ, but this federal case, I think it's important to break down.
D.C.
is not Arkansas.
The FBI working out of Arkansas is not the same as the FBI working out of the D.C.
field office.
And that's where things are getting dicey.
Did you see the trailer for the new film, Civil War?
Oh yeah.
I have many thoughts on how this could play out.
But I decided to leave my thoughts on that trailer for the next segment coming up at 6.
Because big breaking news out of the Supreme Court.
Many J6s are celebrating.
Saying that this could effectively end their prosecution, free them, or overturn their convictions.
The big question will be, are they gonna side with you?
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.
It's the moment you've all been waiting for.
News dropped that a new film is coming out in 2024 called Civil War.
And what is it about?
Oh man, you better believe I'm excited.
It is a film about a civil war in the United States.
And I gotta say, based on the trailer, I'm gonna go, meh.
It is funny that this trailer drops and I get all these people tweeting at me being like, Tim Pool, what do you think?
Yo, let me start by saying this.
The reason the movie exists has nothing to do with me.
The reason I talk about Civil War is the same reason someone made a movie about it.
It's the same reason Stephen Marsh wrote a book about it.
It's the same reason why numerous news outlets have written the same thing.
We are all looking at an ever-expanding culture war, division among states, And many people advocating for national divorce, including elected members of Congress.
So, you may watch my show and think Tim Pool talks about this a lot.
But I gotta be honest, I probably talk about it less than many in the corporate press.
As a large brand, several of these news outlets have way more articles about Civil War than videos I produce.
I'm a single person.
But if you only watch my show, or you mostly watch it, you'll see stories about Civil War pop up or the conversation happen.
Somebody invested a lot of money into making a movie about Civil War.
Why?
It's on the American mind.
It's in the media.
It's in books.
It's coming from the mouths of Princeton professors.
And that resulted in me saying, hey guys, I think this might be right.
Now, The Verge writes, The next film from the director Alex Garland looks like quite the action-packed dystopia.
A24 just released the first trailer for Civil War, which is set in a near-future version of the U.S.
that, as you can probably guess, is in the midst of a violent civil war, with forces from Texas and California making their way to the White House.
It's hard to glean too many story details from the trailer, but it features a small group attempting to infiltrate a heavily fortified Washington, D.C.
It also features the tagline, All Empires Fall.
So they got a lot of people in it.
I'm gonna- I wanna pull up the trailer here, uh, for ya.
And I wanna- I wanna- I wanna actually, uh, let's- let's re- let's review this thing.
Let's talk about it.
Before we do, however, my friends, if you wanna help win the culture war, go to thebestsongever.com.
Pre-order together again.
This is our new song.
The reason it's the best song ever, and I can say that, is because it wasn't written by me.
It was written by Smokey Mike and the God King.
I don't know the writing credit goes, so I gotta ask.
Jeremy Boring, most likely.
And it's Jeremy Boring and Michael Knowles of the Daily Y wrote a song.
We did a modern version of it.
It is, I would guess it's like synth-pop.
Promo is up on my Twitter account.
And if you wanna help us stick it to the machine and the man, and have this combined FU to woke-captured industry, Pre-order the song now.
It comes out on the 15th.
It's gonna be a lot of fun.
But let's check out what's currently going on in American media right now.
We have the Civil War trailer.
Alright, alright.
Let's play this and see what's going on.
unidentified
The White House issued warnings to the Western forces as well as the Florida Alliance.
So in the first scene, they're in a clothing store and the woman working the clothing store says, let me know if you want to try anything on.
And he's like, you do know this is a civil war, right?
It's an interesting thing that would never happen.
In reality, when war happens, there will be no circumstance where someone walks into a store and is shocked and goes, you're still selling things, but there's a war.
They're doing that for you, because you're thinking that.
The average American has no idea what war is like.
But as those of you who've watched my show know, in war, industry doesn't stop.
I mean, it stops where it's blown up, But, uh, take a look at videos coming out of, like, Syria during the Syrian Civil War all so long ago.
I mean, like, what, ten years ago now at this point?
And you'll see that people are walking through blown-up streets and rubble everywhere, and they're carrying goods.
Why?
They need to eat.
I tell this story all the time when I was in Egypt.
I'm staring down from the Hilton building watching a revolution take place, and right down at the base of this building is a McDonald's with some dude watching soccer.
Like nothing's going on.
We're in the middle of a revolution in Egypt.
We take a car to Heliopolis and go to the mall.
And it's people walking around, they're eating kebab, they're buying cell phones, as if nothing was happening.
And nobody stopped to ask about it.
They went on with their lives.
Let's play some more!
So I guess Kirsten Dunst plays a journalist.
You have this flag with two stars on it.
I love this.
I guess the argument is that California and Texas joined forces?
Impossible.
unidentified
of America, the so-called Western forces of Texas and California.
Texas and California will not be part will not be a unified alliance with states between
Why?
Dude, Alex Garland, whoever made this movie, maybe they answer this.
Maybe they create some kind of circumstance that makes sense.
Fine.
So be it.
Perhaps it's just Deus Ex Machina.
God from the machine.
They said it, so it's true.
But if you actually read about the American Civil War, you'd know that Texas joined the Confederacy because of geography.
Texas didn't actually, I mean, I'm sure there was still sentiment for Texas, but the issue was basically, we are surrounded by the Confederacy.
We cannot be a union state, we'll be conquered in two seconds!
In the initial stages of the Civil War, we didn't call it the Civil War, it was called the War Between States, but even before then it was called the Rebellion.
The Confederacy didn't actually think there would be a grand-scale war, and if they did, they would have taken Washington, D.C.
immediately after the First Battle of Manassas, which they did not do.
It was only as things got worse and escalated that the Confederacy decided to actually march into Union territory, and oh boy, did they fail miserably.
Gettysburg, everybody knows how that went.
Texas, being in the South, geographically was like, well, what choice do we have?
If they remain a Union state, how will they connect to other Union states and transmit supplies?
What does this even do for them?
Now, you could argue the Union would have ease of access to entering Texas, and thus, you would have a pincer move on the Confederate states.
But the issue is actually simpler than that.
When the states were seceding from the Union, Texas, nobody thought it was gonna be full-scale war.
They just thought, well, our neighbors are the Confederacy, so, you know, we're gonna side with them.
The idea that California and Texas could come together?
How?
They wouldn't be able to be unified in anything.
They're separated geographically.
unidentified
I've suffered a very great defeat at the hands of the United States military.
Every time I survived a war zone, I thought I was sending a warning home.
Don't do this.
How many veterans have said something similar, man?
But I do have questions, I do.
And I suppose it remains to be seen, right?
As to why the Western forces are trying to storm into Washington, D.C.
I got news for ya!
Occupying a building does not a government make.
Have a nice day. In a real civil war, there's no reason for California and Texas to be unified,
and there's no reason for them, even if they are, to actually try and take Washington, D.C.
Now, if you go back to the Confederacy and the old civil war, why was that different?
Well, as I stated, if the Confederates took it seriously and actually thought civil war
or wide-scale war was likely going to happen, they would have, after winning the Battle of
of Manassas, the first battle of Manassas, they would have just stormed into DC.
They were very, very close.
But they thought that repelling the Union out of Southern Territory was enough.
They were wrong.
See, the thing is, back in the day, occupying buildings did matter, and occupying cities did matter, because you scattered the capability of individuals to organize, and they would struggle to then reorganize.
Once you controlled a physical space, you could put pressure on other locations and crush morale.
Your capital has fallen, we have your buildings, you no longer have the means to organize.
The Confederacy didn't do that.
Today.
Why would that not work?
Because the federal government is digitally organized.
In the event that a Capitol building falls, all they need do is send a text message, everybody organize here, the government stands.
Communications is one of the most powerful, powerful tools in warfare.
Considering there's field offices in other places, there's a building in other places.
But it matters to a certain degree.
You would have to... An enemy force attacking the United States would have to flatten all of DC.
Basically eliminating every single HQ.
Taking away organizational capabilities.
Yeah.
With modern communications tech, it'd be fairly easy to recover, to be honest.
But there are still some materials that would be lost, and that matters.
That matters.
It's not the same as it used to be.
Even in the event the Confederacy took D.C., it would not have been the end of the war.
But it probably, who knows, it could have been a decisive victory.
When the South took D.C., if they took D.C., they could have easily then rallied support internationally because it would appear that they were winning on the verge of winning and And that matters.
Never forget, in the War of 1812, the British burned down the White House.
The U.S.
forces were trying to steal Montreal.
And, uh, for that reason, D.C.
was unprotected.
But that didn't mean the United States government fell or anything like that.
I'm actually really excited to watch something like this.
I think the imagining of what it could be like and how it would go down would be particularly interesting.
Give me a reason why Texas and California would be unified, though.
I mean, they're today very much at odds.
I think even someone who was writing this two or three years ago would recognize California and Texas are very much at odds.
And if you go further back, they're even more at odds.
Also, how do you transfer resources between the two states?
And that being said, they mention that 19 states have seceded, so I wonder if they call it the Western forces of Texas and California, not because they're unified together, but because California and Texas are the largest states among the 19 that seceded, and they're considered major strongholds for the Western forces.
I think it'll be fun, and I think it will be enlightening to a lot of people, some of the concepts they present in this film.
