All Episodes
Jan. 26, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show
56:45
Democrats Socialists COLLAPSING, Organization Facing MASS LAYOFFS After Supporting Hamas BACKFIRES

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 Democrats Socialists COLLAPSING, Organization Facing MASS LAYOFFS After Supporting Hamas BACKFIRES Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
51:18
Appearances
Clips
a
abby martin
00:06
j
josh hammer
00:32
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
Make sure to go to TimCast.com, click join us and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do, and you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
Now, let's jump into the first story.
No, I can't believe this.
The Democratic Socialists of America are bleeding activists because they support Hamas?
Oh boy.
Yeah, let me tell you this, my friends.
There are some accounts that I see on Twitter, on X, where they're just like, a little too Israel gung-ho.
And there are people I see who are a little too anti-Israel, and I'm just like, oh man.
Hey man, people have their derangement syndromes.
It could be Trump, it could be Biden, I don't know, whatever.
Tends to be Trump, and tends to be Israel for some reason.
We're having a conversation with Ian on the Members Only Show, and he was saying that his concern was the Balfour Declaration basically creating Israel, it's a colony, and the funding of it and all that stuff, and I'm just like, Please tell me more about these other countries that the U.S.
is engaged in imperialism in.
And he was like, I don't know any other ones.
And I'm like, that's my point.
My point is this.
You're allowed to criticize Israel.
And please do so.
They should be criticized.
And you're also allowed to defend them if you think they're doing things that are correct.
I'm not saying not.
I'm just saying, when some people only care about Israel, either for or against it, I'm just like, a little weird.
So now the DSA, the Democratic Socialists, are facing a financial crisis.
Because perhaps people don't like it when you support terrorists.
Now, I know a lot of these activists are like, Israel is the real terrorist, dude.
Let me tell you how regular, moderate people feel.
They feel a variety of ways, but typically encircled around, hey man, it's really bad that Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th.
I don't know a whole lot about the history of this country, but maybe don't do that.
And I certainly have concerns about Israel bombing civilian areas, targeting Hamas, because Hamas uses human shields.
But man, how do we stop it?
I don't know.
Perhaps the best solution is, it's none of our business.
Of course, you take a look at the history of the region.
The U.S.
is heavily involved in all this stuff.
I just don't think regular people are gonna get so deranged about all this stuff, but this is what happens.
The DSA comes out, and then regular people are just like, hey man, I didn't become part of a mob to, you know, target Jews, right?
It's like that joke from, you ever see The Animal?
With Rob Schneider?
And, uh, basically, long story short, bad things are happening, they think Rob Schneider is doing it, and then Rob's friend is a black guy, says, it was me who was doing that!
And then, like, the angry mob with pitchforks go, whoa!
I don't want to be part of a mob to go after a black guy.
Like, hey, come on!
It's good.
Funny jokes.
This is what we're seeing now with all these DSA guys.
DSA guys. PostMillennial says, facing severe financial shortfalls, leaders of the Democratic
Socialists of America are demanding staff cuts and layoffs, according to a new report.
The New York Post revealed the DSA, which has been leading protests against the Jewish
state of Israel since the day after the deadly October 7th massacre by Hamas, is in a seven
figure hole.
Bye bye.
According to a proposal by members of the DSA's National Political Committee that is
affiliated with its Marxist Bread and Roses caucus, we will cut $500,000 from staff related
expenses.
We will first ask for volunteers from both director-level and bargaining unit staff to have their position cut and receive severance.
If necessary, we will then explore initiating layoffs according to the DSA union's contract.
No.
I believe Here's how it should work.
When you sign up for the DSA to become a member, the contract should read, we get 80% of your income forever, and you cannot break this contract.
You can never leave.
Why?
Well, that's socialism, right?
That's what you want?
You want to opt into socialism, right?
Well, in that system, the government takes your money, probably more than 80%, and you can never leave.
So what gives you, DSA members, the right to leave?
How could it be that a socialist organization is facing a financial shortfall?
Well, as the saying goes, eventually you run out of other people's money.
So, uh, that's just unfortunately the way it is.
They go on to say, DSA members Alex Pelletieri and Christian Schall and Laura Wadlin wrote in the reduction recommendation, DSA is in a financial crisis and staff-related costs account for 58% of our total expenditures and 72% of our projected income.
The current deficit will force us to make seven-figure budget cuts.
This will require us to make painful decisions that will impact all levels of organization.
Given our current financial state, we do not believe we can have a healthy, democratic, and effective organization while spending the amount we currently do on staff.
No!
They should be forced to work for free.
Sign the contract, baby.
I demand.
I demand!
You must, when you're signing up for the DSA, pledge.
Forever.
And if at any point you refuse and don't give your income over, you give the DSA the right to put you in a gulag, to lock you in a cage, and to force you to engage in rock-breaking, back-breaking labor.
How about that?
What's that?
I'm sorry, what?
You don't want to sign such a contract?
Well then stop telling me that's how I should be living!
You scumbags.
Seven figure cuts if necessary.
We will then explore initiating layoffs according to the DSA union's contract, be it resolved.
The personnel committee will be responsible for determining the quantity and type of physicians to be eligible for buyout or layoff.
And they will assist with the logistics and a staff transition plan.
According to the Post, DSA leaders are being blamed for the organization's financial crisis after they supported Hamas terrorists and have long supported anti-Semitic efforts such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel.
Amanda Berman, founder and executive director of Zioness, a group representing liberal Jews who support Israel, told the outlet, DSA long ago fell into the trap of becoming so radical in the name of justice, they abandoned the mission of the progressive movement.
Yes, I love about it.
There are these people... You know what I really don't like?
Derangement syndrome.
If a person comes to me and says, Tim, I have concern that there are a lot of people who are Jewish who work in media.
I'd say, huh, tell me about it.
What do you think?
Why do you bring up such a thing?
And we can have a conversation.
If someone then said, you know, there's just a lot of them and I feel like they're doing this, that, or otherwise, and I'd respond with, what about, I don't know, the amount of this group in this area are Asians at Harvard, I'm not going to accept a race or ethnic argument as to the issues.
I believe that if Harvard is 70% Asian, so be it.
They're the people applying and getting in.
Now, of course, if it came to a point where the dean of Harvard, the head institutions, all the donors were all, you know, Chinese, I'd have questions about whether or not we had a problem with bias.
I think it's also absolutely fair to ask the same thing when you have a historically white institution and lower rates than national average of various races.
That being said, it doesn't mean the answer is to respond by saying we should just bring people in based on race.
No, no, no.
We can ask, hey, are there racist people here?
Because we don't want that.
There's not?
Alright, we're good then.
That's it.
So if you have Asian staff and a mostly Asian institution, I ain't gonna cry about it.
Maybe we have concerns and we ask, like, show us how the hiring practice is done or the admissions practice.
It's like, okay, well, you know, just happens to be Asian, so we're getting in.
I'm not gonna cry about it.
Same thing with Jews and media.
My point with all of that, these people, they're so psychotically obsessed with their chosen group that they burn themselves to the ground.
The joke I've often made is, my friends, do you want to figure out which political faction you belong to?
New to the culture war?
Why, all you have to do is decide which group you believe is responsible for all the world's wars.
Which group do you believe is responsible for you having a hard time finding a job?
Which group is responsi- You get the point.
Occupy Wall Street.
The 1% that get us into these elites, the wealthy.
They're the ones holding us back.
They're the ones starting the wars.
And you get white supremacists.
They blame... Well, I guess white supremacists could, depending on the faction, blame the Jews or blame black people or whatever.
I don't know.
The point is, it's funny to hear people say this.
It's the Illuminati!
They start the wars and they... Pick your faction, baby!
All you gotta do is determine which group you don't like and then you can join up with whatever radical political faction you want.
For the DSA, apparently if you hate ze Jews, you can join the DSA, but not for long because their rabid anti-Israel approach is costing them a lot of money.
Let me say this about the Israel-Palestine stuff.
I'm an American.
Don't know, don't care.
I don't know.
Israel can defend itself.
There's a conflict going on.
It's a war.
I'm not here to pick sides because I'm not Israeli or Palestinian.
That being said, The zealous fervor over the issue makes me livid.
When someone comes to me and they go, let me ask you about Israel, I'll say okay.
But I've had this conversation, I had this conversation with Ian.
He's like, we're spending all this money supporting Israel, but why?
It's a colony.
And I was like, interesting.
How do you feel about the other colonies we're supporting?
Well, I don't know.
Well, what do you mean you don't know?
If your concern genuinely is that the U.S.
supports a colony state in Israel, Then you should care about other colony states, right?
You don't?
Okay.
The issue must be Israel.
Yeah, it's a colony state.
unidentified
Right, right, right.
tim pool
You only care about this.
I think it's absurd.
I think it's absurdity.
I think people are weirdly obsessed with it.
I think there's some kind of derangement attached to it.
You can criticize them.
Hamas is bad.
Hamas should be stopped and destroyed.
But it's just crazy to me how overly emotional people get about this one country and this one region.
I'm just like, what is it?
Rick and Morty made the joke about it.
That was a good one.
Anyway, they're going to say, She added that members admitted to bleeding activists and financial resources, and that after Hamas's brutal invasion of Israel on October 7th, DSA doubled down on their strategy of going deep and long on anti-Semitism, thinking it might get them out of the hole.
Instead, this depraved idea dug them even deeper.
Berman continued, true progressives, whether in the grassroots or in the political leadership, will continue rejecting this extremist group and its hateful ideas in the name of true justice and equity, including for Jewish Americans.
I don't care what your background is.
We're in the United States.
So, if you have concerns about foreign spending, I'm there with you.
If you have concerns about racism and whatever and politics, man, let's have a conversation.
But when you dedicate your entire personality on one specific foreign country, I don't care what that country is.
I just think it's kind of weird.
But you're allowed to do it!
Just don't come and argue that I have to as well.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
See you on the tour!
tim pool
I recently saw a video on Axe, formerly known as Twitter, of a professor named Richard Wolff explaining how you are being ripped off by working for hourly wages.
One man said this should be required teaching in this country.
People need to know that if you're working an hourly job, you are being robbed.
Capitalism is a lie.
My friends, I'm a business owner.
I've been an entrepreneur my whole life, from going door-to-door, mowing lawns, shoveling snow, to working fundraising, and eventually starting my own media company.
We now have around 42 employees.
We are a seven-figure-per-year enterprise.
I'm sorry, is that wrong?
I'm sorry, we're an eight-figure-per-year enterprise.
Sorry, I got that one wrong.
Yeah, we make a lot of money here.
I'd like to break down for you my perspective running a business, the philosophy of capitalism, private trade versus socialism, and I want to show you an argument made by Dr. Richard Wolff, where he exploits and manipulates the ignorant for political gain.
The argument he's making about exploitation is either an artifact of pure ignorance, not having any experience actually working in industry, or intentional deception for political gain.
To clarify my earlier statement, I believe he is intentionally lying to you because anybody who's taken the time to actually explore this and investigate would know what he's saying is not correct about exploitation and hourly wages.
But let's entertain the socialist's argument.
I'll play this video and I will address it step by step and break down for you how socialists are lying to you.
Now, I'm not saying capitalism is a perfect system.
I'm not saying there's no corruption.
And I'm not saying that corporatism is good.
I actually think it is not good.
And many of the criticisms that this man brings up are fair, but misapplied and manipulative.
So let me, my friends, play for you this video presented by Abby Martin in an interview on Telesur.
Let's listen.
abby martin
I wanted you to also just counter another argument that I hear constantly.
I earned it!
You know, we earned this money.
unidentified
The best way to describe this is to go back to Karl Marx and his analysis of capitalism so that we all understand what earning is about.
Let's imagine you are a person looking for a job and I'm the employer that you're looking to get hired by.
So you come in, and you sit down, you fill out your application form, and I look at you, and I describe to you the kind of work we'd like to have you do.
You'll come on 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, and you'll sit over there, and you'll do this kind of work, etc., etc.
And we get through all that, and you're okay with that.
And then we get to that big question, how much are you going to get paid?
And let's say we dicker back and forth.
And we agree on $20 an hour, so I'm going to pay you $20 an hour.
At this point, Marx enters with a smile on his face and says, I'm now going to show you, the reader of his books, that when that deal is done, the $20 an hour, something is going on that you actually know, but you don't want to face, but I'm going to show it to you.
When the employer, when I hire you for 20 bucks an hour, I know that for every hour that you give me your work, your brains, your muscles to work, I'm going to have more stuff to sell at the end of the day because you are added to my workforce.
tim pool
I'm going to pause right there.
Let's address the first issue with this.
And I kind of don't want to, I want to wait a little bit, but the implication is that everything is a manufacturing-based economy as opposed to a service economy.
There's also technology, there's also influence.
The argument about Marx and labor perhaps made sense pre-industrial revolution or at the turn of the century in the industrial revolution.
But to make this argument in the 21st century is to ignore the fact that some jobs are not based on selling products but providing services and some of these are fairly vague and nebulous.
But let's continue and I'll elaborate after he makes his point.
unidentified
Gonna help me produce more goods or more services or better quality goods and services?
tim pool
Ah, he does say services.
Okay.
Alright.
Now there's an interesting problem for him, but let me hear what he has to say, and then I'll address it.
unidentified
Then I would have if I didn't employ you.
So, I'm gonna say to myself, hmm, it costs me to get Abby $20 an hour.
What do I get out of it?
I want, I'm gonna have the output that Abby adds.
tim pool
Notice in this video it says, each worker is paid $20 an hour, but each worker produces $200 an hour of wealth per hour.
$200 of wealth per hour.
My friends, 90%, I mean, I mean, what is that?
That's a thousand percent, what are the margins on that?
For every $20 you pay, you're getting $200, meaning $220 generated, and you pay out $20, your profit is 90- 91%?
90- Are you kidding?
The average business's margins are razor thin!
5% perhaps, but continue, good sir.
dollars generated and you pay out 20, your profit is 90, 91%?
Are you kidding?
The average business margins razor thin, 5% perhaps, but continue good sir.
unidentified
By her labor.
Now that has got to be more than 20 bucks.
So the only way I'm going to hire you for $20 an hour is if you produce more in the hour than I give you.
tim pool
This man is a child.
Or he's lying.
Alright, so here we shall begin.
Addressing the first problem with his argument, and we do have more to present from this man, Dr. Richard Wolff, who I believe is either very, very stupid or intentionally manipulative, as I've stated earlier.
First, let's talk about my business here with Timcast.
We have some jobs that produce nothing.
But there are requirements.
So I'll give you an example for any office.
You need someone to take out the trash.
How much value per hour is produced by taking out the trash?
Do we sell the garbage?
We don't.
But someone has to bag it up, bring it outside, and throw it in the garbage.
Then someone's gotta come and take it away.
How much does that cost me per hour?
Okay, let's say I say $20 an hour for you to take out the garbage.
Well, lo, my friends, the net benefit generated from someone cleaning and taking out garbage is zero per hour.
Oh, okay.
So by that argument, they should work for free.
Well, hold on.
His argument here is, someone getting hired at $20 an hour is producing a product or value greater than $20 an hour, right?
Okay, there is no product, no service, and nothing generated from janitorial work.
But the building's gotta be clean.
The argument would then be, you can't successfully sell your product if your facility is filthy and dirty.
You wouldn't get any customers, right?
I don't have in-building customers.
The keeping this place clean is mostly a regulation passed by government agents who say you can't have piles of garbage everywhere.
But I gotta be honest.
I want the place to be comfortable and I want people to be able to throw their trash away and not have to worry about the tedium of taking out the trash.
Thus, we hire someone to do it.
There's nothing generated for me.
There's no profit there.
What's the argument, good sir?
Not every job produces value, but may be required in maintaining a facility.
The argument, I suppose, of course, could be expanded at this point to say that everyone contributes a little bit to the bigger ecosystem, which generates more per hour.
However, this man's assumption, in the most obvious argument, operates under the assumption the employer does no work at all.
Let's play more.
Let's play more and see what he has to say.
unidentified
So when you feel in a vague way at the end of the day, as you walk home, that you're being ripped off, you're absolutely right.
Or in Marx's language, exploited.
tim pool
Exploited, that's right.
When I decide to hire a cleaning crew to come in here, and I pay them well, and I tip them, and they generate no value whatsoever for my company, Well, that must mean I'm being exploited.
How dare these people come in here and extract value from my system and provide nothing of value for me to sell or make money off of?
I cannot make money off of this place just because they took out the garbage.
Wow, that's crazy.
They should take the garbage out for free!
Makes no sense, does it?
unidentified
So what does the capitalist say?
I earned it!
No you didn't.
He just ripped people off.
The way most corporations work is four times a year, they take the profits they've made in the preceding three months, These people are evil, my friends.
You want to have an honest argument about corporatism, dividends, and profit?
I'll give you an honest argument.
Let's say you have shares in a company.
because you inherited them from your grandma or you stole money and bought
them on the stock market. There are lots of ways of getting them. These people are
tim pool
evil, my friends. You want to have an honest argument about corporatism,
dividends, and profit? I'll give you an honest argument.
Let's say you have shares in a company. Perhaps you inherited them, as he
mentions. But then he says you stole money to buy them?
Oh, spare me, bro.
Perhaps you saved up money and bought some.
Okay, and then you're entitled to those dividends.
See, if he were to explain that the average working class person could set aside money and sacrifice in order to buy stock in something they believe in and receive a portion of the revenues generated, well, that sounds like a fair and equitable system for all, doesn't it?
There is nothing stopping you from being able to buy things.
The argument about inheritance... I'm actually... I'm not a fan of day trading.
I'm not a fan of the idea that someone makes a bet on a product, extracts value from the system by simply moving things around.
But what are you going to do?
Trading is a job and arbitrage actually does help.
The idea that you can move resources from one place to another is an organizational benefit.
But I'm not a big fan of the idea of someone extracting wealth and value and living like a king despite doing very little for the system other than perhaps minor relocation of assets.
I'm not saying it's completely valueless but, you know, I'll make that argument in my opinion.
However, inheritance is simply your parents worked hard, your grandparents, your ancestors worked hard so that you could have a better life.
Why should that be taken away?
Why should we make the argument you are not allowed to work hard and provide for your children so they can live comfortably in a way that you weren't allowed to?
I do believe that often, inheritance leads to people who are very bad.
Like, people who inherit things don't understand the value of hard work, and it's bad for you and your family.
They're gonna have kids, the generational wealth will evaporate, and they won't understand the value of hard work because they didn't have to do it.
I don't see a benefit in that.
I think, if you have kids, you should not be giving them things.
You should tell them, I'll protect you.
You will not die of disease or broken bones.
You will not starve to death.
But if you want things, you have to earn it and figure it out.
And then when you're older, you will be able to provide as well.
Let's play more.
unidentified
But if you have them...
josh hammer
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
unidentified
Four times a year you go to your mailbox in the morning and you get an envelope and you tear it open and inside is a check for your share of the profits that have been distributed to shareholders.
For rich people this is millions of dollars.
They have all that money.
What did they do exactly to earn that money?
tim pool
Well, I'll tell you.
Provided resources up front to the corporation so that they could invest, expand, and generate more revenue.
Next question?
Okay, I'd like to ask you, good sir.
Professor, as it were.
Clearly, you've never run a business.
I want you to work 80 hours a week.
I want you to get paid zero.
I want you to give the money away.
And then, ask me again about what your point is.
Tell me once again.
You see, what I find most offensive about this is there is a strong argument that I agree with as it pertains to corporatism, revolving door policies of government and corporations.
Exploitation of workers absolutely does exist.
And what he's doing here is using the argument of corrupt enterprise.
And quite honestly, I think there could be regulatory solutions.
I am not a staunch laissez-faire capitalist or libertarian.
And saying, all capitalism is bad.
You're being ripped off.
You know what I feel ripped off by?
I feel ripped off by people who don't generate anything I can sell.
unidentified
Hmm.
tim pool
I mean, it's just laughable.
The silliest of arguments.
That a person has to generate more value than you pay them per hour.
That is not true.
There is deficit investment.
I mean, let me tell you my friends.
Let's say, uh, I buy an ad campaign.
I don't know if that ad campaign is gonna generate me any money.
So, you wanna talk about what these people did?
Why is it that they're receiving these profits?
unidentified
Okay.
tim pool
Let's try this one.
Company comes to me and says, Tim, for $100,000, we're gonna put a big ol' picture of your face up on a building.
And I say, OK, that sounds good.
What does it do for me?
And they say, people are going to know about you.
They're going to watch your show.
It's going to increase your ability to sell ads yourself.
And by having more reach and more audience, you'll make more money.
And I say, OK, that sounds good.
I'll spend $100,000.
It's an investment.
Well, lo, it didn't work.
I spent $100,000 and I got nothing for it.
Failed investment.
It's a lot of risk.
I lost a lot of money.
That sucks.
Let's talk about hiring someone at $20 an hour.
The reality is, this man is lying to you, and I'll say it again.
There are many people who are hired as an investment.
There is no understanding about how much they actually will generate per hour.
There is a hope that they will help in generating more per hour than they cost.
It may be due to a large-scale operation, where taking out the garbage does provide value, though you can't directly sell something.
It is a necessity for a business to be clean.
I think that's absolutely fair.
The challenge, I think, people like this encounter is, well, they've never actually run a business nor do they understand investment.
So I'll give you a direct example.
Tim Guest says, we want to produce a comic book.
We think that comic book could generate X amount of sales.
We think we're gonna make $200,000 by the end of the year.
Okay, well, I gotta hire someone to make the comic book.
Man comes up and says, I want $100,000 per year.
Then I say, okay.
We're not selling anything.
But this person's gonna drop the comic book.
Okay.
So we hire him.
He makes the comic book.
At the end of the year, we can't sell anything.
We sell no comic books.
Nobody buys any of it.
I lost $100,000.
Why is that acceptable?
Why is it acceptable that I hire you as an investment in this company, taking on the risk of giving up my money?
I earned it.
Well, I did.
I did not make my money off of having people sell sandwiches for 5 bucks, paying them 5 bucks, but making 20.
I didn't do what he's describing.
I worked, personally, exchanging my labor for money that I saved, started a company on my own, generated revenue, and then began hiring people.
We actually pay here decently above market rate.
So what is this argument?
I'm gonna tell you.
What's frustrating to me, and what I've seen in business many, many times, and it's people like this that plague the minds of the working class into tricking them into not understanding what their true value is, how they can improve their lives, and instead wants you to wallow in refuse, complaining about things, and never making life better.
This will result in your termination.
It will result in you struggling to get ahead.
It will result in you failing to run a business.
And... for what reason?
Economic destabilization?
Or maybe this man is just dangerously stupid.
I'll tell you one of the most frustrating things for me is running a business.
How often I hear...
I'd like to do a job for you, Tim.
Will you hire me?
Okay.
How much do you, uh, how much do you want?
I want $100,000.
I say, okay, well, what you're proposing only makes $80,000.
But I, oh, I deserve, I deserve it.
I'm like, that's great.
Why would I give you money for free?
It's the weirdest thing, isn't it?
The weirdest thing in the world to me, that I have seen people at companies, I had, I'll give you an example, Fusion, where I worked, the media company, and it was an investment operation.
The company was not generating profit.
They were not, in fact, making more than they were paying per hour.
As this man argues, a company has to make more per hour than they pay you.
No they don't.
Sometimes they're investing in hopes they can recover their losses.
Someone had to do work.
Someone had to generate revenue.
And then they had to take on risk.
Fusion was a huge risk and they lost all the money.
These people were getting paid despite not generating any value.
That's a fact.
That's why the company no longer exists.
And so one day what happens is a friend of mine, I'm talking, and I hear that they're trying to unionize.
Scumbags.
Not the employees.
The unions.
They come to these employees and say, Listen.
Unionize and pay us a portion of your paychecks.
And you'll make more money.
Why?
unidentified
Why?
tim pool
So I asked my friend.
How much do you generate in revenue for the company?
Well, it doesn't matter.
My labor is worth this.
So if they want it, they have to pay this.
I said, okay.
They'll fire you.
What do you mean?
No, if they want me to be here, they're gonna pay me what I'm owed.
I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.
But like, you understand, you don't actually produce value.
Huh.
So what happens?
They tried to unionize.
I told my friend, go to your boss right now and say you don't agree with this.
You do not want to be a part of the union.
Let them know what you can do and maybe you'll save your job.
They didn't.
They said, that's wrong.
Unions are good and I deserve more money and health benefits.
300 people got laid off, I think.
Why?
Because you're asking for someone else to give you their money for free.
It's fascinating, isn't it?
I have a question for this here Richard Wolff fan of Karl Marx.
Why is it that I, as a businessman, who... Here's what I did.
I started independent, doing fieldwork, and asking people to pay what they will.
Contribute to me if you like the work I'm doing.
People would then say, you know what?
I will.
What's funny is, These leftists are trying to attack you, saying you're a grifter for asking for donations for your work.
I could charge for it.
I could say, if you'd like to watch this video, you have to spend money.
Yeah, we have a combination of that.
We have the members-only show.
But no.
I went, pay what you will.
I'm gonna give you the news and information and stuff and work for free.
I just hope that enough of you will contribute so I can keep doing this.
And they did.
Eventually, I got a job at Vice.
Vice said, we're going to pay you a salary up front in exchange for your labor and the value you bring.
Great.
They made way more money off me than I produced, but I could not have pulled off the deal that they pulled, and what they contributed to it benefited me.
I got what I wanted out of it.
I feel they gave me a good amount, but they failed me in many ways, and I took a job at Fusion.
Fusion says, we like what you bring, and we're going to pay you X amount of dollars.
Fusion paid me substantially more than I generated in revenue.
I know that's a fact.
Because they wanted the investment to try and, they took the risk.
Well, I used that money that I earned.
unidentified
Wow!
tim pool
Hold on, does that mean I exploited them?
Hmm, interesting.
And I started a solo operation that generated money, and I did all the work myself, and I made a bunch of money.
Now here's my question to these communists, these socialists.
If someone is entitled to the fruits of their labor, as he describes, you're being ripped off, then are you also entitled to the liabilities of your failures?
I say yes.
Deal, good sir!
I propose to this socialist professor here that we come to an understanding, an accord, if you will.
I accept your terms.
If someone comes here and they generate They generate revenue.
I will pay them their share of that revenue.
So, let's start here.
If someone makes 20 bucks an hour... If someone's getting paid 20 bucks an hour, and they're making widgets...
Nebulous thing to sell.
But I then sell for $25.
And I'm selling one of those per hour.
That's a $5 profit.
Alright.
Alright, first, what's my cut?
You made it, but I sold it, right?
What's my cut of the profits for having sold the widget?
Um, perhaps making the widget is harder than selling it?
We can argue that?
Okay.
But I think I'm entitled to a portion.
Like, someone should be paying me for doing sales, right?
Okay, let's say this.
No CEO.
There's a manufacturer and there's a salesman.
They both work together.
One guy makes it, one guy sells it.
How do you divvy up those profits?
Who gets paid what?
I agree to pay you 20 bucks an hour.
What if the salesman can't sell?
He gets zero.
Your widget's worthless.
So he takes the risk.
Or, he can opt for, we'll split all of the money.
You'll only, manufacturer, you get paid half, I get paid half, but only if it sells.
But then the guy manufacturing says, hey, no, no, no, no, I'm doing all this work.
You pay me up front.
And then the guy doing the sales say, okay, I'll assume all of the risk.
If I can't sell this, I starve.
But I'll pay you a flat rate.
That's fine.
Here's my deal for you, buddy.
I agree to those terms.
Somebody wants to make $20 an hour, and they generate $25 per hour in value.
The remaining $5 will be my share for my labor.
I don't think that's fair, but fine.
And then, here's the best part.
You have the lion's share of the debt.
So, you assume 80% of liabilities, I'll assume 20% of liabilities, you get 80% of revenue generated, I get 20% of revenue generated.
Fair deal!
I will take those odds.
Because you know what that means?
When the worker takes $20 an hour, but they can't actually generate any profit above $20 an hour, the worker then has to pay the company the loss.
What's that?
You don't want to do that?
These people are scumbags.
They are evil.
They are lying.
And socialism and communism is a lie.
But again, I'll stress this one more time for you, because I want to drive this point home.
I will gladly pay you 100% of the revenue you generate, minus the share of other individuals.
Oh, let's attack that argument another way.
Let's say there are two people.
One guy makes the widget arm and one guy makes the widget body.
There are now two people producing something.
What's his argument?
If you are doing labor and getting paid 20 bucks an hour, they have to make 40 bucks an hour to cover the cost of the production of the widget.
You're being ripped off!
Implies no one else had to work on that product.
And that you made Widget by yourself and it was sold for more.
Did you sell it?
Did you do the cold calls to find out who's gonna buy it?
You didn't?
Okay.
Let's say you're the owner of the business and you make the widgets.
You can pay yourself whatever you want.
Person, you want to pay yourself $20 an hour?
How much do you agree to pay the guy doing sales?
You need a salesman, right?
How much are you going to pay him?
You say, I'll pay you $5 an hour.
He's going to go, what?
I can't live off $5 an hour.
Well, I want $20 an hour because I know that's what I produce.
And then I'll give you a portion.
You see, these people are such scumbags.
They're so full of it.
They operate under the assumption that no one else but them does any work.
Dude, you're working an assembly line.
It takes 10 people to make one product.
Everyone gets a share of that.
And then you say, yeah, but there's a profit generated.
Why does that go to someone else?
They did work too.
Well, what about the shareholders?
They took risk providing the capital so that you could eat food before a sale was made.
That's what I'm just sick of.
You know what I'm really sick of?
You know what we deal with in business that these people don't understand?
Greed.
Extreme greed from people like him.
He deserves everything from you!
Your labor is nothing!
This is why socialists want to steal everything.
It's why they want free healthcare.
It's why they want free houses.
They don't want to work their lying to justify why they get to steal from you.
Because you know what I've dealt with?
I'll tell you what I deal with here.
I get an invoice in the mail.
Here's a contractor we worked with.
$20,000 invoice.
And I say, what?
I look at it.
A whole bunch of garbage added to it.
Because they just want to steal.
They're hoping that, you know, big enough companies fall for this all the time.
They've got a lot of money moving around, they can't keep track of it very well, and they know they can over-invoice.
Come on.
You know everybody does it.
We're not big enough of a company.
I have to sign off on these things.
I will terminate anyone who tries to overcharge me thinking they can slip it past me.
But this is the scumbaggery you engage in.
These are people who, you know, these people try to act all high and mighty, but they are liars, they are cheaters, and they are thieves.
The reality is, every portion of enterprise requires risk or labor, and to varying degrees.
You want to start your own business?
You're going to be engaging in serious risk and labor.
You're entitled to 100% of what you can generate from that labor.
You want to engage in only labor with zero risk?
That's called a salary.
And that means you get no benefit.
You agree, look, I'd rather work for 20 bucks an hour knowing I'm getting guaranteed pay and not having to worry about whether or not the car sells.
But by all means, I love bonus structure.
We'll split the risk.
I'll pay you half of what you expect in salary, but I'll give you a portion of the profits.
We always hear these stories about celebrities like Robert Downey Jr.
And instead of negotiating a salary up front, they negotiated points on the back end.
What does that mean?
If the movie makes a billion dollars, I get 6% of all the revenue generated after budget.
They end up making substantially more money.
It's your choice.
But it's a gamble.
What if the movie bombs?
It makes no money.
Now you're getting paid nothing.
These people don't want to accept risk.
They want you to do all the hard back-breaking work.
They want you to deal with the regulators.
They want you to deal with the organization.
They want you to sweat.
They want blood, sweat, and tears extracted.
They want you to engage in sleepless nights.
And they want ALL of the value from the product they made.
And they want to pay you ZERO.
Let me put it in the simplest way possible.
He's mentioning the guy who makes 20 bucks an hour.
Whatever it is you do, 20 bucks an hour.
Let's say you're making energy drinks.
You as an individual can produce an energy drink.
It costs $25 to buy.
And you say, I should get 100% of that money.
But someone else should do the work to distribute it.
Good luck.
These people are saying, if they were the boss, They would pay you, the manager, the janitor, the salesman, zero.
You would be a slave.
Because I made the widget, I should get all of its value.
No.
The value should be distributed among varying degrees of those who did work to sell, to build relationships, to create trade lines, and those who took the risk.
I'll put it this way.
Let's talk about pure risk.
You say, I want to make energy drinks.
Okay.
How much will it cost to produce an energy drink?
unidentified
$20.
tim pool
Okay.
Make the energy drink, come back to me, I'll see if I can sell it for you.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on.
Hold on.
I don't actually have the $20.
Okay, well go get a job, save up some money, provide your body, blood, sweat, and tears to someone else in exchange for guaranteed income.
Use that money to invest.
And they say, well, I don't want to do that.
Okay, I'll tell you what.
I'll give you 20 bucks.
From my blood, sweat, and tears.
You can use that to make your energy drink.
But you better pay me back.
And you're gonna have to pay me back more than what I gave you.
Because why am I gonna work and then just hand off my value to someone else, taking a risk I could lose it?
There's gotta be some benefit there.
And they say, okay.
Congratulations.
That's called the dividend.
After he sells the energy drink, he then comes back and says, here's what I owed you.
Plus a little lecture for the risk you took.
If, you know, people call it usury.
Interest on loans.
If there was no benefit to me giving a loan, only downside.
Like imagine this.
You go to a casino, and they say, would you like to play blackjack?
And you go, yes, I would.
And they say, okay, here's how this version of blackjack works.
You can make a bet, and you can lose if the dealer wins the higher number than you, close to 21 without going over.
We get your money.
And you go, okay, great.
What do I win?
Nothing.
Best we can do is push.
Tie.
You keep your money.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
I'm gonna gamble my money?
See some cards roll out, and then I just can only lose or tie?
Yeah.
Come on, who in their right mind would engage in such a stupid idea?
And people make stupid moves.
It can happen.
But I saw this video, and this guy Chris Munn said this should be required teaching across every school in America.
No, it shouldn't.
Well, actually I take that back.
It should.
Followed by this video.
Mike Cernovich says, I've been a W-2 and the guy signing the checks.
It is a lot less stressful to have a job.
I am psychologically unsuited for normal life, let alone clocking in and out.
It is what it is.
If you want existential stress and dread, start a business.
See how easy it is.
And then he put a laughing cat emoji.
And that's exactly why I wanted to make this video.
These people, these communists, they've never run a business.
They've never taken risk.
They've never found themselves failing and sleeping in a car.
They've never realized that their hopes and dreams were too hard to attain and they've lost.
They expect to be able to walk into your house, take from you.
It's exemplified by everything they do.
We should get free healthcare.
Who pays the doctor?
The government can print money that strips buying power through inflation from people's savings account.
They just want you to do labor for them for free.
Well, there's a lot more to say on this, and I'd love to debate it.
But I'll leave it there for now, because we went a little long.
I don't know if there'll be another segment coming up.
Maybe there will be, but I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
We will see you all, at the very least, tonight.
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
8 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
We'll see y'all then.
So, in other words, the New York Post, a woman got pregnant.
You know, we gotta break this down.
The first thing I would say is I'm a fairly libertarian person.
I think that if people want to engage in body modification, in any sense, as long as they're an adult, you know, I'm for it.
I do think, however, that there is a serious crisis that we are facing.
When you have affirmation of DSM-5 mental disorders?
Ask yourself this question.
Anorexia.
Someone thinks they are fat when they are in fact thin.
Should we affirm that?
Should we tell them, okay, well, you know, um, you're right.
You are fat.
Stop eating.
Well, no, that's horrifying.
We try to help these people by giving them food.
What about somebody who suffers from pica?
P-I-C-A.
Maybe you've heard of it.
I've talked about it recently.
It's a disorder where people try to eat things that are not food.
Now someone could be eating their hair.
Do we affirm that?
We don't.
And now what about, most importantly, body dysmorphia?
In any sense.
I know a lot of people who experience this and you may not know because they find ways to cope and overcome it.
These are people who try to become super ripped.
You may meet a guy who has just got massive muscles and you think that guy looks great.
He could be suffering from body dysmorphia where he looks into a mirror and he sees a frail gaunt man and he's trying his hardest to improve himself.
That's an issue.
Do we affirm that?
It's interesting because in a case like that, you'd be like, he's just making himself fit and healthy, right?
I think the reality is that regardless of what it may be, people need the ability to attach to reality to improve their lives.
And so I have questions here with this story and with the issue of gender ideology.
The New York Post says, A transgender man who underwent a mastectomy while transitioning in Italy was found to be five months pregnant, joining a rare group of so-called seahorse dads.
The parent-to-be, referred to only as Marco in Italian media, already had a breast removal operation and was preparing to get rid of the uterus when the pregnancy was discovered at a hospital in Rome.
Having discovered the pregnancy, the first thing to do is to suspend hormone therapy immediately.
Now I have questions.
Honest questions.
I try to be respectful.
I don't want anyone to feel bad.
Halting of the therapy is not immediate.
There could be consequences, especially in the first trimester of pregnancy, which is
an important time for the development of the baby's organs.
It's difficult to talk about it in abstract terms, but it all depends on the timing of
the suspension of the dosages of testosterone that the person is taking.
Now I have questions.
Honest questions.
I try to be respectful.
I don't want anyone to feel bad.
I don't like, you know, suffering.
A trans man, this means biological female who is pregnant, had her breasts removed.
you Five months pregnant.
Okay.
Honest questions, guys.
Honest question.
Does this mean that this is a gay trans man?
I'm not being silly.
In terms of gender ideology, a legitimate question, this is a biological female who had intercourse with a male, resulting in a pregnancy.
Would this mean that this female, who wants to be a trans man, undergoing surgery and hormones, is a gay trans man?
Meaning, female wants to be a guy but likes to be with guys.
Because they do talk about trans lesbians.
Biological males, attracted to females, but want to be female themselves.
The reality is, I would say this.
So long as this is listed in the DSM-5.
I always get the acronym wrong, so I just try to double-check.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition.
DSM-5 lists gender dysphoria among them.
I do not believe that we should be affirming this.
I believe that instead of cross-sex hormones, perhaps same-sex hormones are probably appropriate.
I'm not a scientist, so I don't know for sure.
But I do know that in this instance, I don't see how a female who is about to give birth with no breasts is in a good position.
I don't understand why you would remove these healthy breast tissue for no reason.
There's a question about body modification, however.
If somebody wants to get their finger removed, would we allow that?
I think the answer is no.
If somebody wanted to get their nose removed, would we allow that?
In fact, they do it.
They do it.
So there are serious moral questions about the limits of body modification, and ultimately where this leads to.
And, I gotta be honest, it's not so much about the trans issue.
It's well beyond that.
It's the transhumanist issue.
Now, of course, they're pointing on the article that cross-sex hormones to a pregnant person, woman, is a bad thing, and so they have to stop.
This female will have to give birth under the current laws in Italy, but wants to be a man.
I don't... I don't care to rehash all of this stuff.
It's another story, and you can debate all that stuff.
My question is the next level.
What happens beyond this?
So right now, you have an individual who has had her breasts removed, You've had individuals who've had their noses removed.
I am not exaggerating.
You can Google it if you want.
They get their nose removed.
Weird.
They get their eyes dyed black.
They get their ears removed.
They get horns implanted.
I believe that if we, if we can go in one of two directions, the total libertarian, hey man, live your life, do what you want to do.
But there is a slippery slope that will happen.
And then there's the, no, we won't allow it.
I don't know how you facilitate... I don't know how you... Man.
There's no easy answer here.
If somebody wants to get hair transplant, for instance, would we say no?
That's body modification.
It's acceptable socially, though, because people have hair?
unidentified
Hmm.
tim pool
So if somebody wanted to get, like, a nose job, is that acceptable?
We say, okay, sure, it's fine, because you still have a nose, you're just getting a nose job.
Even though I think a lot of plastic surgery looks bad.
Then someone says, get rid of it, more, more, more, more, and then there's no nose left.
Where's the line?
How do you draw that limit?
Somebody wants to modify their body, do we say yes?
Okay.
Now let's talk about the slippery slope.
For those that are more libertarian, and have said outright, yes, we will accept this modification.
Eventually, you will end up with the slippery slope.
A man will be walking down the street with gigantic metal spikes coming from his head.
He will have his, uh, his cheeks removed and hollowed out and replaced with plastic or some kind of attachment so you can see into his mouth.
Things like this already exist.
When it becomes more and more available, eventually you'll be confronted with what the left does and they're doing now.
You will be walking with your children, and there will be a man with no cheek flesh, carved out, and you can see his bone and his tongues coming through, and he's laughing.
There have been people who have gotten holes put in their lips.
They get a piercing here, and then they can stick their tongue through it.
And what do you say to your kid?
Your kid's gonna ask you, what is that?
What has this person done to them?
Why do they look that way?
And then you will introduce them to these concepts and these ideas.
The argument being made by the left right now as it pertains to LGBT issues is that they're simply teaching the children that these people exist.
Conservatives had said back in 2008, if you allow same-sex marriage, sooner or later schools are going to be teaching it.
And they said, well, you're crazy.
We're just saying let people live their private lives.
And now what are they saying?
I'm a teacher in a gay marriage and I want my husband's photo on my desk and I can't tell kids what that is?
That was the point.
Because now the idea is spreading.
And you know what?
I say there are age-appropriate things.
Some parents might say it's not appropriate for kids.
I think it's fine that kids know that gay couples exist.
The point with Florida was like, don't explain to them the mechanics of it.
So if a kid comes up and says, who's that?
The teacher could say, it's my husband.
And they would say, but you're a guy.
Well, you know.
Yeah.
Maybe you should talk to your parents about what that means, and I don't think it's something that I should be teaching you about.
It's for your parents.
It's really that simple, isn't it?
But when it comes to extreme body modification, you will come to the point now where your children will ask, and these things will spread.
The issue is, of course, when it comes to extreme body modification, pertaining particularly to mental disorders, we do not want to affirm it.
I saw a post, someone made online, where they were talking about getting extreme surgery.
And they said, I had doubts.
I don't know if I should do this.
It feels wrong.
And what happens?
Thousands of people who populate this forum, they begin commenting, I believe in you.
You can do this.
How insane and creepy is that?
Imagine someone standing on a rooftop saying, I'm scared, maybe I shouldn't jump.
And a bunch of other people crowd around saying, do it, jump, do it.
We don't affirm that!
We try to help people.
This is where we're currently at, my friends.
The affirmation of self-harm.
It's a horrifying prospect.
I think we'll have to recognize that there will become a moral hard line where we say we do not allow extreme body modification.
I'm not just talking about trans stuff.
I'm saying, like, people want to get their earlobe removed or whatever.
There are people who will do it.
They might do it themselves, but at least we say we don't facilitate that.
We don't allow it because you're hurting yourself.
And we need to set limits.
Because Slippery Slope is real.
Well, anyway, heck of a story.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Export Selection