Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #183 - TWENTY States File AGAINST Texas, Matt Braynard Joins Discussing Voter Fraud

Episode Date: December 11, 2020

Tim, Ian, Lydia, and Luke sit down with star witness Matt Braynard to break down what has happened in the recent presidential election, now that 20 states are lined up in opposition to the 17 states that demand an investigation into what happened in four key swing states.  Support the show (http://Timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My friends, it has been a very, very spicy past couple of days. Last night, we got word that the Biden family, Joe Biden's son and his brother, are under federal criminal investigations. Now, they're trying to pass it off as though it's just, you know, Hunter says it's about his taxes. But now we actually have confirmation that it actually involves potential money laundering and illicit business dealings with China, illicit business dealings that were facilitated in part by Joe Biden, who flew his son on Air Force two to China to negotiate

a private equity deal. We also had a former family confidant, Tony Bobulinski, who said that he believes the Bidens are compromised. The media covered the story up. Social media banned the story when it came out. NPR said it wasn't news. It was a distraction. And now, just about a month after the election, we are being told by Politico it's an explosive political story that will rock the Biden administration. So why did they block us from hearing about it, from knowing about it? Why did they lie? I think this is one of the biggest media scandals in U.S. history, but we actually have bigger news than this. 20 states have filed amici briefings joining, or I should say supporting, the defendant states in the Supreme Court

request for leave. Okay, so this is, I'm not a lawyer, but let me try and break it down. Texas filed, asked permission to the Supreme Court to file a lawsuit against four states for violating the electors clause of the Constitution. Texas wants these four states to appoint their electors, the legislatures to appoint their electors, effectively saying Trump wins if that's what the legislatures choose. So far now, 17 other states have signed a brief supporting this suit. And I believe four or five actually filed intervention asking to be listed as plaintiffs in the case, saying as they have suffered injury as well. And now 20 states on the other side, blue states, as well as two territories, are filing a brief on behalf of

the defendants. What do you call it when half the country lines up against the other half of the country saying that I reject you, your president and this election? I don't know where all this goes, but I think things are going to get absolutely insane. We actually have at least one guy in Texas saying it's time for Texas, a state representative calling for Texas to declare its right to secede from the union. We got a bunch more. Tulsi Gabbard proposing a bill effectively supporting Trump's calls to get rid of Section 230. She says that we have to these companies have to treat people fairly, not censor them.

So, man, we just got we got way too much. Facebook is being sued by 48 states. I don't even know how much we'll be able to get to. But I must say, we have a very, very important guest. We have Matt Brainerd on the show. Matt is I guess you're the founder of the Voter Integrity Project? That's correct. Do you want to briefly explain just, you know, what it is you do? Sure. Well, I'm a political consultant, which is a dirty word in this town,

but I've worked in campaigns all around the country over the last, I don't know, 20, 25 years, going back to the mid-90s. I was the director of data and strategy for Trump's campaign in 2016, at least through the primaries. And after the election, there were a lot of questions being raised. And I decided to create the Voter Integrity Project to try to identify anomalies, potential anomalies. I didn't start with any preconceived notions of what I'd find. I thought, you know, maybe I'll find nothing and it was a clean election. Maybe I'll find a few things that don't make a difference, or maybe I'll find a lot. And those findings have resulted in, you know, become the basis of court cases, become the basis of legislative hearings, and also brought a lot of scrutiny to the election system we have in

this country and how badly managed it is across so many different states. So far, the project's been doing pretty well, but it's about time to, you know, it's in the litigation phase. And I'm just very grateful to all the donors, the folks on my team who helped us put together all this data. And what we tried to do is that if we're going to find something, it wasn't going to be speculation or theories or, you know, some kind of complex mathematical formula, it was going to be actionable material. And now that actionable material is in the hands of lawyers and litigators, and perhaps

it will have an impact on the outcome. There's ongoing litigation in many states, as well as I'm referencing these 20 states versus 20 states or whatever. So there's a lot of things I'm pretty sure you can't talk about because it could theoretically compromise something. But can you call it evidence? I have submitted evidence of potentially legal ballots in six states. And actually, incidentally, more states when we look at double voting. So yeah, all that's been submitted. But I can't get too deep into it because it is involving ongoing litigation.

And but we can speak about generally how the system works. So I can say one thing, and I'll try to be really careful, but there have been some statements made by Matt on Twitter about potentially illegal ballots evidence. And I've reviewed some of this information and independently corroborated what appears to be backing up claims i'm trying to be vague because of the ongoing litigation but i can just say uh based on what i've seen and independently independently verified i believe matt is correct and telling the truth and i guess we'll see how it plays out in court so let's we'll we look for all i know there's a lot of people who are

listening and they're just like get more specific, get juicy. We could theoretically just come out and say like here's everything and publish everything and then you lose the court case and I'm sure nobody wants it to happen. And I think the judge might be – the litigators in this might be upset because we want to make sure we respect the court process. So that's really important. That being said, we're going to read about what's going on with this – the responses. Oh, I want to, can I jump in? Yeah, of course. I hate to interrupt, but all the questions that we can't ask now and answer now, I'm more than happy to answer them. Everything in excruciating detail once the litigation is done. So that's the only, it's not that I don't want to answer. It's just, it's a delay. Right, right, right. Well,

I think it's about respecting the courts. Right. Whether whether it's for or against Trump, I think the judges and the people who are working this process, some of them might not make good decisions, but I respect the courts. And I think, you know, a lot of these judges would would appreciate the respect of us not litigating their case in the court of public opinion. But we're going to talk about it.

We are also joining us again is Luke Kkowski because he lives in my parking lot yes i corroborated the corroborators as we were finding out all the information hi i am the capo behind we are changed.org and yes i live in tim pool's parking lot thanks for having me on i have a parking lot yes you do it's actually a big driveway but you can fit a trailer in it ian's hanging out he's got the crystal ball and the beautiful Aurora Borealis painting. It's gorgeous. It's crushed quartz. Is that what it is?

Yeah. Wow. Cool. It's a quartz ball? Yeah. They crushed it in a laboratory. That's crazy.

Kings would trade their entire treasures, their treasuries for things like this in the Middle Ages, and now we make them in a laboratory for 80 bucks. Right on. Seems like a good deal.

Sour Patch Lids is also producing. I'm here in the corner pushing pushing buttons so if you haven't already smash that like button subscribe hit the notification bell you can find us on iTunes Spotify all those great platforms and give us good reviews to help out the show and share the show with your friends if you think we're doing a good job I think we're gonna have a relatively

spicy conversations but the first big story we're gonna get into it after you smash that like button check this out this is the actual document from Supreme Court dot.gov. They say state of Texas plaintiff versus the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, state of Georgia, state of Michigan, and state of Wisconsin defendants. I don't want to read all of these states. I'm going to read all these states, okay? Motion for leave to file and brief for the District of Columbia and the states and territories of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,

New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington have all been are now party in opposition to Texas. And they basically just say that, you know, they have the right to, you know, they're asserting their right to join the defendants, I suppose, and issue a statement on their behalf. So, I mean, that's about it in terms of the breaking news. But we do have the direct response from these states. This is from AMNY. States respond to Texas Trumpists Supreme Court lawsuit seeking to throw out the results

of the U.S. election. For those that aren't familiar with what Texas is requesting, Texas said that these four states that are listed as the defendants have violated the Elector's Clause of the Constitution, which states the state legislatures have the ultimate authority in who decides the elections and who the electors are. But in these states, the courts overruled in certain circumstances or the governors implemented new rules without permission or confirmation from the legislatures. Therefore, and for a variety of other reasons, I'm not going to get into the full breakdown of their lawsuit is they're basically saying Texas and all 17 states

now either supporting or asking to intervene to join are saying that the state legislatures should be the ones who choose the electors. They're Republican state legislatures. They would very likely vote for Trump or perhaps they would abstain. And if they did, Joe Biden would not reach 270 electoral votes. We would likely move to a contingent election based on House delegations in which Donald Trump would win. Of course, if they chose their electors, Trump would win. So these other states are basically saying no. And now we have half the country lining up against the other half arguing about who the next president is supposed to be. I wonder how that will play out. But the four states had to issue their response by today, and they did. And so A.M. New York says four U.S. states that President

Donald Trump lost in the November 3rd election on Thursday began to file court papers opposing a long shot Republican backed lawsuit filed by Trump supporting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Lone Star State's name at the Supreme Court seeking to undo President-elect Joe Biden's victory. I like how they say it's just in Texas's name. It's like not actually Texas doing it. Officials from Georgia, Maine, I'm sorry, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin already have called the lawsuit, which aims to throw out the results, a reckless attack on democracy. The Supreme Court gave the four states a 3 p.m. EST deadline to file court papers. Pennsylvania was the first to file with the state's Democratic Attorney General Josh Shapiro

saying that the Texas lawsuit was adding a cacophony of bogus false claims about the election. Quote, What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered and rejected by this court and other courts. The lawsuit is supported by Trump and 17 other states. The Republican president has falsely claimed he won reelection and has made baseless allegations of widespread voting fraud. State election officials have said they found no evidence of such fraud. I want to I want to stop there.

Can I ask you about that? About the lawsuit? Well, just about the state election officials saying they found no evidence of such fraud. Is there anything you can comment in that regard? Because I don't want to... I'm not going to comment. I'm going to question. I'm going to question what did they do to find it? What efforts did they make to discover it? Because if I close my eyes, and you come here and take my drink, and I don't see you do it, I don't have any evidence you took it because I closed my eyes, right? But if I'm sitting there drinking that Red Bull.

Yeah. But so that's my question is that what evidence can they provide that they applied scrutiny to what happened? And of course you didn't find anything if you didn't look for it. It's, you know, it's not, it's rarely is it so blatant. It takes a lot of effort. And I, you know, our own little independent project, we crowdfunded about six more than now, but five hundred eighty thousand dollars to sort of fund it on our own using very, you know, tools that were available to us. Why wasn't the state doing this?

What scrutiny did they apply to detect this? I'm actually shocked by a lot of these court cases where, you know, I think in Nevada, the Trump campaign presented actual evidence and the court just said, get out of my courtroom. They didn't care. They didn't even want to look at what was given to them. And then what we end up seeing is officials say there was no evidence. There was there was none. I liken it to, you know, if I said, hey, you guys want to play hide and seek? And then everyone goes and hides. And then I'd like you guys won just like literally right away.

Well, I couldn't find you. It's like you didn't even get out of your chair. Well, you know, I couldn't find you. To what degree am I obligated? I don't know if you saw. Have you been following the lawsuits at all from the Trump campaign? Well, I've been involved with some of them. So right, right, right, right.

So, of course. But the ones not involving, you know, your project or whatever. One of the things that I just want to say and feel free to comment on what you can or can't, you know, just ignore. But in Pennsylvania, a judge ruled that the election law in Pennsylvania says there has to be observers. And Trump's campaign said the observers weren't allowed near the ballots. So how are they observing? And the judge goes, well, I don't know. The law doesn't specify distance.

So as long as they're in the building, it's good, which is clearly not good faith or to the spirit of the law is supposed to do. And that's the gist of what we've been seeing across the board. So this whole thing is freaking me out, to be honest. Now that we're seeing all of these states line up, it doesn't matter. Like, you know, I'm gonna put it this way. These 20 states and two territories that are saying, oh, we reject this. It's, you know, these four gonna put it this way. These 20 states and two territories that are saying, oh, we reject this. It's, you know, these four states have said it's an attack on democracy. It doesn't even matter what their opinion on this is, because they're not going to change the minds of 18 other states. We're at a point now where 18 states have said definitively Biden should not be

president. I mean, well, I should say effectively said Biden should not be president or the electorate. Constitution has been violated. Texas's lawsuit says either the Constitution matters or it's just a parchment sitting in the National Archives. That's a powerful statement with 17 states signing on in support of it, some actually asking to intervene to be listed as plaintiffs in the case, in which case, if the Supreme Court refuses to hear this, then these 17 states have already asserted that would that would be a declaration. The Constitution is meaningless.

And these other states could effectively say the same thing. If the Supreme Court can say no to this election, you know, Joe Biden isn't going to be president because we've ruled it. They'll they'll argue it's the exact same thing. So that's why I just look at this and I'm like, you know, ultimately, it doesn't matter what this one judge said. People have been lining up and they know they're right on both sides. They both say they're right. I happen to think one side is more right than the other.

Obviously, we all have our biases, but everyone thinks they're right. Right. And, you know, let's there are many causes to this. But one, I think the major contributor to all of this is how badly the states manage elections. We've been very lucky because historically many elections are won by somebody by a pretty good-sized margin. And what happens is when there's a good enough margin, the mismanagement is covered up, right? It's concealed. But when the margins are close, sometimes that mismanagement,

and mismanagement comes in other, you know, variety of things. It could be creating clerical errors or preventing potential fraud. So, for example, there's really very little authentication done on mail-in battles, essentially zero,

and very little authentication done on Election Day ballots. We had James O'Keefe show up in D.C. and take the Attorney general's ballot. They gave it to him. They said, hey, I'm the attorney. They used his name. Was that this time around?

Oh, it was a couple of cycles back, but I don't think he got any better. I can't remember that. Yeah, yeah. So the election system has, right or wrong, created a space for suspicion to burn like a wildfire because it's so badly managed. And here's something to think about, right? Potholes on the highway, right? We're kind of used to the government maybe not doing the best job of that.

Your mail getting lost. We're kind of a, you know, okay, yeah, postal service. This is always a joke. It's a punchline, right? Or let's say you're Medicare not paying a bill that it should pay, and you have to fight with them. We're all used to that. But one thing that I don't think a democracy can survive is that kind of government, those kinds of bad management within the election system or with that kind of incompetence in the election system.

Because that's the thing that allows us to potentially fix all of these other problems. So we're okay with maybe the potholes don't get fixed or maybe they mismanage a hurricane, which is horrific, right? But the means we have to fix those problems is the election system. But if that is deemed broken, well, then you're stuck. Then you can't fix any problem beyond it. I always say, if you want someone to be an anarchist, put them at the DMV for a week. And we saw that with the counting that that was going on that showed just wait states can't even count the argument breaks there's well so so let's address that right the left has said uh the democrats the reason why it took longer to count votes after election day was because when people go and vote in person, they walk in and then someone asks

them their name, they're given their ballot, or they go to the machine and they type in things and they press enter. All of that's done right away. When an absentee vote is being counted, they grab the envelope, they look at it, they open it. It takes longer to go through the envelope than it is to have a person walk in, vote and walk out. So the argument is when a person walks in and votes and walks out, it's already in the

tabulation machine. When they're going through absentee ballots, doing signature verification, it takes a bit longer to tabulate that vote. And thus it took a lot longer. But what doesn't make sense in my opinion is then why they dumped all of these batches, you know, at, you know, really early in the morning at once. And it still took more than one day to do all of this. And these batches came in. So if you look at, I think like November 4th, at like one in the morning, there were massive spikes. Well, if they were counting on election day,

as people came in, and they didn't start counting the ballots until election day, why do we have, you know, not the ballots being entered in at a certain point? I guess the argument is they were barred from doing it. I still don't think it makes sense as to how, in some circumstances, Trump received a tiny fraction of these mail-in ballot dumps. That's the big question that I think needs to be answered.

And there was also legal arguments in Pennsylvania before the election asking the government to count the votes that were mailed in early. The government of Pennsylvania argued against that. Well, those are Republicans. Yeah. And then when we look at Florida, I think Florida is the most interesting case, because we saw that they were caught with their pants down in 2000, and then they kind of updated their voting system, and they had the votes in right away. All these other states, we don't have one universal standard, or one kind of voting machine, or one kind of system to count the votes. And I think that's also something

to really think about here. I hear you, but each state runs their own election. Exactly. And I can respect that, but what I can't respect is, let me, based off what you just said, let me give people an analogy.

Would you be willing to get on an airplane if airlines had a 1% failure rate? 1%? I think the answer is a resounding no well there would be no airline industry in that scenario because they'd be paying out lawsuits every day well because no one would fly right i mean so new york times reported in 2012 that the failure rate of mail-in and absentee voting is between one and two percent if i told you there was a one percent chance that if you mailed in your vote it would not count well i think a lot of

people probably about i don't know whatever i don't care but that's a pretty pretty bold bet to make to not having your voice heard in your election so when i when i saw that we there was this and this is a big part of the lawsuit going uh going forward with um mike kelly and sean parnell pertaining to the constitutionality of mail-in voting in pennsylvania there's a few weird things but when i saw that all of these changes have been implemented a year in advance before COVID and then during COVID to have mass mail-in voting, I mean, we saw in Patterson, New Jersey, a whole election was thrown out. A judge actually ordered a new election in Patterson, New Jersey because they found bundles

of mail-in votes from a town over. We now have a whistleblower who's come out and said they drove a truckload of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. I don't know if that's true. You know, witness testimony is often unreliable, but it is still evidence admitted in court. So it needs to be considered. It needs to be investigated. We need to look into these things and not just ignore them. And so I guess I throw it back to what you said earlier.

How hard have any of these people actually looked into any of this stuff? Right, right. And I actually can talk about one court case. I actually won a court case in federal court earlier this year over mismanagement of an election. Because a lot of these states are doing things they haven't done before. Florida, the mail-in ballot situation, they have that down. They've got it down. The voters have it down. They know their role. But a lot of these states that because of the pandemic and other reasons are shifting to things they've never done before, Idaho decided they were going to do an all-mail-in ballot primary, right? And I had a candidate there. I was on the ground. And the absentee ballot request

deadline was coming up. And Secretary of State was going out, you know, telling everybody, you just go to the website until 5 p.m. on the deadline day and go ahead and request your absentee ballot. Well, we were identifying our supporters, many of whom didn't know that, and telling them, yeah, go to the website and request. Well, website crashed, completely went down. Now, rather than owning the problem, right, the Secretary of State fought us in court, we had to sue them in federal court to get them to extend that deadline. And, you know, something to keep in mind is that this system that we're being critical of, the people who are responsible and have the ability to change it, who are running things, they were elected by this system. They're in control of it. And it's what is what put them

in power. So getting them to realize that there's serious problems with it, they're like, well, it put me here. I got this job. I've got this power. Why would I want to change it? I think we see that with Republicans and Democrats. Right. So it's you look at areas that are deep blue or deep red. And I had a guy on the show his name was billy prempeh he's a republican running in north jersey and i think patterson is part of the district he was running in and he was i i don't want to put words in his mouth but my i i want to make sure i'm being careful here but my understanding of the conversation was he was not getting any support from the republican party because they were like it's too expensive to even

bother with a deep blue district and i'm like well if you have an area that's, you know, D plus 20 in an area that's R plus 20, and you don't even bother trying to talk to people and talk about what is important for this country, then they will never change. But I think the real the real issue is that the Republicans are like, no, no, no, no, we don't mess with their safe spaces and they don't mess with ours. So I get guaranteed reelection. And so do they. And we kind of just chill out on it. It not a battleground area why push it and that's my opinion on it there's some evidence that i think it's more of a vicious cycle and that the district looks like no republican win because it's d plus 20 so no good republican run so the only republicans that run are bad candidates who ended up losing by 20 points that's why it's d plus 20 right you

know going back in history, though, I think... Do you remember a guy named Howard Dean? Vaguely, yes. Well, after he lost his presidential race, he took over the DNC. That was a while ago. Yeah, but I think what I'm getting at is still true. Is he the Yeehaw guy? Yes, he is.

I was about to make that noise, too. The thing is, he was a terrible presidential candidate, but a fantastic DNC chair. And he did something novel. He says, look, we're going to have a 50-state plan. We're not letting South Carolina go. We're not letting Alabama go. We're going to invest resources in all 50 states.

And just a few years after that, they retook Congress, winning seats in many of these states. So parties can neglect areas saying, oh, we don't stand a chance there at their own peril. But before you were able to win that district, you had a guy that got a 30% of the vote. And then another guy got 40 and 45 and then 50, and then you built something up there. So I agree with you that mining your own territory, there's certainly something to that. But also it's just this vicious cycle of ignoring areas

that you don't think you can win. Well, it's self-fulfilling. Yeah, when you look at the gerrymandering and some of the dirty tricks in politics that they especially played on individuals like Cynthia McKinney, it was just absolutely incredible to see just the maneuvering, the repositioning, the redistricting that happened in order to get a favorable outcome, even towards their Democratic allies that didn't play along with their kind of party establishment line. And I remember during this cycle seeing what happened in Iowa during the Democratic primaries and thinking, oh boy, we are in trouble. Because if you remember, we didn't have a result from that as well. And that was a Democratic primary.

And I'm like, wait, they can't even get this right? New York was jammed up too. Yeah. I can actually give you one good argument for gerrymandering though. So often what people will show when they're arguing against gerrymandering is you'll have you know like it's like a grid of blocks and there'll be like blue and red and they'll say you know it's 40 red and 60 blue and here's how they gerrymander it to make sure you get more republican representation than democrat however my response that is if 40 of your state is republican and you do districts just by blocks, then you will get zero representation for 40% of the – that's going to breed chaos.

40% of the people feeling like they're not being represented. So there is a good reason for gerrymandering. I just think the actual outcome of gerrymandering is exploitation to manipulate and guarantee seats and jobs and stuff like that. Well, it's funny you bring this up because I actually am a professional gerrymanderer. I work for the nation's premier redistricting firm for about 12 years, and I helped with drawing lines in the city of Chicago, Illinois, Rhode Island, Arizona, all these different places, congressional down to city. And I'll be honest with you. I don't think there's a fair way to draw a line because if you don't,

some people, let's say you draw the line on party, right? Okay. Well, that's, that gives you a favorable outcome to party, but what's the alternative drawing it based on geography? Well, that gives a favorable outcome to, you know, certain geographies. Right. So there's, there's really no way that there's no way to draw the lines that somebody can't say, well, that's not fair because this person's at a disadvantage.

And you can make the case, too, is that if you draw a district that gets – you pack all your Democrats in the state into one district, it's 90% Democrat, and all the Republicans around it are winning by 55%, right? Here's the thing, though. In that Democrat district, the Democrat won by 90% of the vote. 90% of the people there had their choice selected and sent to Congress. Whereas in the Republican districts, only 40% of the people, 55% of the people, 51% had their choice. So, you know, that 90% Democrat district has, well, those people had their choice.

You know, they're happier. The district has a higher level of happiness because most of them got their choice for Congress. Yeah, the reason I'm very familiar with it is because Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney bring this up as an example to how they were kicked out of Congress when they had a big popular support. They were a big kind of populist figures. And according to them, it was gerrymandering. It was this kind of redistricting that got them out of office. And it was used by the Democratic establishment so they wouldn't be in power.

Well, remember, the people who drew those lines were also elected by the citizens of those states they were drawn by state legislators elected by people and the thing is gerrymandering redistricting whatever you want to call it it's like the most vicious political fights you will ever see and the reason they get so vicious is because the press doesn't pay any attention to it the public doesn't care so the long knives come out no one's afraid to slit somebody's throat. Figuratively. Figuratively, of course. Of course. Whereas in the more public battles over policy issues, the press pays attention, the people kind of care. But it's one of the most vicious, dirty, and underhandled battles that you'll ever see, if you see it at all.

Well, they do something like take a 10 zones and then pack all 98 of the republicans into one zone and then so there's nine of the zones win democrat and then one zone is republican or vice versa and then so the democrats have massive power because they stuck all the republicans into one zone it happens both ways and you know there's a sort of a you've got the party thing too but you've got another thing that kind of interferes with that which is the race factor and that the courts think that there should be minority-majority districts. And when you have minority-majority districts, that inherently forces you to pack because of the way they tend to vote, Democrats. And it can't just be 50%.

There's laws, jingles, Supreme Court decision. You basically have to draw a district at least 65% minority. So that's basically a 65% Democrat PAC district. So what you often have is that, and this has happened before, the Republicans in the state legislature and the black Democrats get together and cut out the other Democrats

because the Republicans are happy to give, create plenty of black majority districts for them to get reelected and have more colleagues. The Republicans get all the other districts and sort of, they work together. So it's a complicated process. Weird system. But would you consider gerrymandering to be corrupt or bad inherently, or is it just the exploitation of it? Look, I think it's a little bit overstated, the impact it has. I'll give you a simple example. In 1990, when the lines were being drawn after the last census, Republicans had complete control

over drawing exactly four districts. Democrats had complete control over drawing, I don't know, two. This is basically you have both legislatures and the governor. You can draw the lines however you want. So Republicans had control of four districts. Democrats had control of like 200 or so, and a couple of others were split. Despite that, two years later, the Republicans captured their first congressional majority in like 50 years or so. Yeah, that was in the 90s, right? But those are lines were drawn only,

so what I'm getting at is that it has an impact, but it's not completely dominant. And then back in 2000, Republicans were dominant. They had control over drawing many lines of their own, yet a few cycles later, despite that, Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 so um it has an impact but i think sometimes it's a little bit overstated and people i and i really don't know what the alternative is i mean people want to do a parliamentary system but i think that actually will that would be even worse because then you're

not the representative isn't tied to a geography which i think is most forget party forget race you are from this town you represent this town And I think that's what's most important that we maintain. So let's, well, let's talk about the voter integrity project. Do you want to just explain what it is and what you did? Sure. So in a couple days after the election, I, you know, had some ideas about ways to detect potentially illegal ballots. I shared the idea with a few people privately, but it really, no one really took me up on it. And I didn't want to even,

I initially did not plan to have anything to do with it. It was just, Hey, here's some methods you could use to potentially detect illegal ballots. And I tweeted about it. And at the time I had like 200 Twitter followers or something. And somebody who followed me who had a little bit of influence retweeted it. And then somebody else retweeted it. And somebody who followed me, who had a little bit of influence, retweeted it.

And then somebody else retweeted it, and then it sort of exploded. And people were saying, well, you should set up a GoFundMe. Because in the initial tweet, I said, well, it's probably going to cost about 100K for just the data to do this. And I said, okay, fine. I set up a GoFundMe, and we raised 220K.

Wow. Within 24 hours. And then GoFundMe shut the thing down and refunded everybody their money. Whoa. They lied to a journalist about why they shut us down. And I have the record of this and we may have more legal matters to discuss. Can you tell us why? Oh, sure. Yeah. What they said was that we were spreading misinformation. We didn't spread it. All we said was like, here's some tests we want to run. And this is what we're going to do with the money. They told a reporter they'd shut us down for spreading disinformation.

So within a few, you know, I did my homework. We found another crowdfunding site called Give, Send, Go. I can't recommend these guys enough. Their rates are very fair. I knew they weren't going to throw us off. And in fact, they don't make money directly on it. It's just that when you make a contribution to us, they ask you for, hey, do you want to help us out too? And a lot of people do.

So we were able to raise much more. When we hit $580,000, I said, look, we've raised enough money to cover what I think are the expenses of this project. We're not asking for any more money. Any money that's left over after we're done will be returned to donors if they like it any money that's left over after that we'll go to a c3 that um uh a non-profit a non-profit that's basically about voter registration fighting potential voter fraud um and in all those cases no matter where it goes i'm not personally going to take a penny of it um and despite that, people have continued to contribute. We're almost 100,000 beyond where I said, okay, we have the money to cover this.

So you're looking at doing some tests on whether or not ballots may be illegal. Is that correct? That's how we started. And I built a team of a couple of people who have similar backgrounds to my own. And we started obtaining raw voter data from states. So can you explain that? Because that was crazy to me, that you can get people's information on how they voted,

or not how they voted, but that they voted. Oh, well, you can get indications about how they voted. This is, yeah, it's too bad I don't have a screen or something, because I can just pop it open. I know everything that anybody would want to know about every voter in this country. That's at my fingertips. That's kind of creepy.

Hey, that's life. And you know, it's kind of unique to the United States because I've talked about doing political consulting in other countries. It's kind of difficult because they have very strong privacy laws in Europe, et cetera, but in the U.S., I know everything a campaign would want to know. So in terms of voter contact or voter analysis, it's all there. And in this case,

we were able to obtain voter lists from the state. States often release chase files. And that means that every day for like two months leading up to the election, they release a list of all the people who requested ballots or returned ballots, who showed up to vote early. And that's helpful for campaigns because if you have like these 100,000 people you're trying to reach and turn out to vote, if the state says, okay, this person just voted, you can take them off their list. So you're no longer wasting money on doors, phones, mail, and social, anything else to target them because you can take them off your list and focus on the remaining ones. It's called strike listing. So all this is very useful for that. But in this case, we obtained that data to use it to try to detect potential problems. And we use other government

databases to help validate our methods and to compile our evidence. Can you tell us some of these tests? What were you proposing to do during this original GoFundMe and this new kind of fundraiser? Well, initially, we were going to do some traditional analysis, looking at double voters, looking at people who no longer had residency, looking for potential dead voters. And as we got into it, we started to discover other things, other methods that we had not thought of, but then said, oh, that's something we should look into. Because this is unprecedented. This has not really been done before where you go in-depth after an election

because usually after an election, the margin is such that there's no doubt and nobody's got any money left. Honestly, it's Thanksgiving. It's Christmas time. We are unique because we have this long period between the election and when the person takes office. Now, in the UK, day after election,

they're in and out of downing street it's like wow that whereas yeah it's a it's immediate that sounds terrible well i think i think it's already bad enough that we have a couple months because if you really wanted to do any kind of hard investigation we don't have the time to do it and we have months right well rarely have we had the need i think and again it goes back to what I said, the fundamental problem behind a lot of this is that, you know, you remember Florida 2000, right? Nightmare, a couple hundred votes, nightmare. The thing is, I don't think there's any state that would not be a nightmare if the election came down to a couple thousand votes and it was very pivotal. There's not a state,

I think, that would escape finding all kinds of flaws. It's just that those states tend to, they're saved by the victor winning by enough of a margin that it's like, yes, you know, no matter the errors and potential if it existed fraud can't overcome that margin. But here we are.

In some of the lawsuits Trump presented, the judges have said, the amount of ballots you're questioning would not be enough to change the outcome, therefore dismissed. I think that's kind of silly because you add up 10 lawsuits targeting specific different things, maybe, but that's actually been some of the results. Yeah, that's more a question for the lawyers in terms, you know, because I've seen cases where actually the number of questionable ballots did not have to surpass the margin. It just had to

demonstrate some kind of pattern. And that was enough to get it thrown out. I think that was the case in Miami when a judge ruled there was voter fraud down there and threw out a mayor's election. Can you elaborate any more on what the LearnTaggety project has done so far? Or is that off limits? You know, I think my Twitter feed's covered it extensively, but we found all kinds of indications of illegal ballots and other anomalies. We presented them on YouTube.

It's pretty... indications of illegal ballots and other anomalies. We presented them on YouTube. It's pretty, I mean, we essentially ran about 38 tests across six different states. And we put our results out there publicly. Just at this point, you know, for the next short period of time, I think I've been encouraged, you know, to respect the litigation. And, you know. We don't want to, you know, with respect to the judges involved in this case, I think they would appreciate it if we weren't, you know, litigating in public. Right, but once that's

done, you know, we'll crack that laptop up, put a projector up and start showing stuff? Well, yeah, within the limits is that I don't want to dox anybody. Yeah. But there's ways to get around that. I can just interject because, you know know for a lot of people who are just tuning in i have uh independently

i guess you can say independently corroborated at least well you i should i you know i you i don't know what you can say no you sidesat me and i showed you some things and you made an evaluation based on that. After I saw it, I went and did some general sleuthing and was able to independently corroborate through different databases. And it's very interesting, more than once. So I think you found something. I mean, I guess we'll see how it plays out in the courts. But I do think it's shocking. I mean, we kicked off this conversation reading through you

know this response from these other states saying that there's no evidence and that to me is shocking considering i just corroborated something i'll put it that way and i corroborated the corroborators right we play a middle ground here and say how excited or surprised were you from some of the findings we don't have to discuss the findings but maybe your level of uh excitement or shock well i'll tell you you know um i don't think you could i i was surprised by certain things that i found um and not surprised by other things uh i said in on on video without going to detail that i i believe that in enough states there were enough potentially illegal ballots to surpass the margins and thus cast into doubt in my mind whether or not Joe Biden's the deserved

winner. Now, I've said that publicly, so I don't have a problem really repeating that. But there were some things that excited me, and not just about the data, but also the process, this journey I've gone on with the- We'll clarify too. We're not at the point where that's definitive. It's just signs and indications, perhaps. I'll save that one for later. There you go. All right.

Where does this go from here? What's the next process? What are we waiting for? How is this going to play out? Well, right now, it's in the hands of the lawyers, the judges, the legislators. I'm just at the point now where I answer questions about my findings and potentially answer other questions as they come up. So from my perspective, the base research has been done and completed. We're just giving lawyers

affidavits and declarations and potentially testifying here and there. Is this in any way related? I don't know. Feel free to not answer, in fact, if you can't. Is this in any way related to the state's filing suits um i'm not going to answer i can't answer that right now but that's that's a question i'm happy to answer uh with a brief delay right on well it's it's it's uh i'm happy you're here. Okay. But it is – it's walking a fine line because I'm like I would probably be extremely upset if something happened from this show in a lawsuit where they're like, we're going to cite the Tim Casserole podcast where Matt Brainerd said this. And then all of a sudden it's like case dismissed or something. So I guess for the people who are listening, I have no choice. We have no choice but to just try and, you know, graze this as best we can without ruining everything.

I think they support that too because I'm pretty sure people would be calling for my head on – well, I got to be careful about the language I use. People would be calling for – Your beanie and a spike. Yes, my beanie. They said, take his beanie. He had to do this show.

We're observing the Bannon rule here, I see. Yes. Oh, definitely, man. Okay, all the Bannon rule here, I see. Yes. Oh, definitely, man. Well, listen, listen. YouTube has already – so let's do this. This is actually an excellent opportunity to go into – we have big news with Tulsi Gabbard. It's called the Breakup – what is it called?

Breakup Big Tech Act, the BUBTA. She's saying these companies should not have 230 protections liability protections if they're censoring people so just in in we'll go into this in just a brief second this is the uh story from newsweek tulsi gabbard backs trump in section 230 battle accuses lawmakers of kowtowing to big tech so we've already seen and this story is from you know a couple days ago but on youtube right now they just announced a new rule about what you can and can't say pertaining to Donald Trump and accusations of fraud. It's really weird. We had a really funny discussion before the show about like – so I don't even know if I can say the actual criteria because it might be an algorithm just listens and then nukes the show because I said something too similar.

But I'll try and break it up. I actually spoke with Google on the phone. They said two criteria must be met for a video to be removed. You must assert that there is widespread voter fraud or error in this election. The next criteria that must be claimed in the same sentence is that it changed the outcome of the election. And that's i asked for clarification what about changing the outcome in terms of like you know 0.1 versus you know uh you know minus 0.1 like then like the the winner isn't changed but the numbers are changed and they said i think it's basically like if you claim trump actually won because of these reasons and i'm like okay so if i say there is evidence of widespread fraud and it needs to be investigated, but there's not it's not yet been, as far as I can tell, proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it altered the outcome. They said that's OK. Now, I'm not entirely convinced that's the case.

They may still nuke us for even discussing it because we don't know who these third party outsourced individuals who are reviewing, you know, transcripts, what they're going to understand. I get routinely flagged for like ridiculous things. You know, I did a segment talking about, it was about some policy position. The video was like, you know, Joe Biden plans policy around X and they said it was hate speech. And then what I have to do is I have to actually reach out to Google and they do a secondary review and overturn personally because I guess they like me, you know, maybe they won't ban me. But these, they have third party fact checkers. They're, you know, in a bunch of different countries all over the place because YouTube's massive. And they just, here's the rule sheet.

And they say yes or no. Isn't that just bizarre, though? Totally. The political discussion in our country is governed by their third world outsourced. That's exactly it. That they found on Fiverr.com. Their Fiverr.com workforce is regulating our political speech. Or robotic algorithms that take things out of context.

Yes. And can't understand sarcasm. So, you know. Well, they also. I don't know if we should even joke about it. We had a really funny joke earlier. And I'm like, I don't know if I could actually say that. They still might.

Yeah. I don't even know if I can make the joke. Because the joke might still flag the algorithm. It's like a point of power. It's just time to stop joking, I don't know if I could actually say that. They still might. Yeah, I don't even know if I can make the joke because the joke might still flag the algorithm. When you get to like a point of power, it's just time to stop joking, I think. When you talk about certain things. But there's like – so there are certain jokes that are obvious jokes to anybody but not to an algorithm because there's intonation. There's inflection. We should do a whole show on that.

You could say something like – Maybe not on YouTube. You could say – so – Maybe not on YouTube. So I'll give half the joke. Of course Joe Biden won. He's the greatest president in American history. Already. People are going to hear that and they're going to get I'm being sarcastic.

He's not the greatest. So that's the joke I was making in the other episodes with like Joe Biden doesn't campaign and he gets 8 million votes. And just like, wow. Think about the amount of charisma just exuding and aura. It's almost like if you're familiar with dragon ball z how many dragon ball z fans are out there you know that goku and he goes oh and there's like a blast of energy coming out of his body joe biden stood up on that podium and with one wink to that camera it was like a nuclear bomb exploded behind him the charisma was just people sitting in their homes watching their tv got knocked back like stuck against the wall with the amount of charisma. That's how Joe Biden was able to not campaign and win 80 million votes.

How are they going to campaign with when the neural nets activated? I have no idea. When we're all linked in, you won't need to because we'll be the Borg, I guess. You already know who you're going to vote for before they even decide they're going to run. They're going to ban you from the neural net. So you're going to be one of like, you know, one of these,

like, um, I don't know, non-networked individuals and they're going to frown upon you and you're going to be like outside asking people just spare a little internet. Can you Google search something for me? Obviously the process will change leading up to technology like that. So maybe we're just in a fluctual process right now

the the issue is the unpersoning and the and the suspension of political discourse and especially by non-american actors so i'll check this out check this out if you go on reddit.com and you go to r slash politics which is supposed to be it's basically for american politics more than half the people who are commenting are probably in Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. Maybe not more than half, but a good portion. So that means Americans are hearing more from foreign opinions on our elections, and American citizens get suspended. So this is what I find is particularly crazy, and I'll use Laura Loomer as an example.

She ran, she won her primary in Florida. She's a very controversial figure, but she's very good at getting press attention. She's been banned from every platform, but she is an American citizen who was running for office and won a primary, still banned from all these platforms. But on Twitter, you can have 100,000 people from Australia telling us how we should vote, what we should think influencing our elections. I'm not saying illegally influencing, but that is worrying to me that these people who don't live here, who don't understand the Electoral College, who don't understand how our representation works, don't understand how gerrymandering works, are influencing people's opinions in negative ways without understanding our country. That to me is terrifying, especially

when you when you consider a lot of these big tech platforms, like the risk we face right now by having this conversation. They've said they'll ban it. Well, that's not going to affect any Democrat. The Democrats are saying Republicans are crazy, but there's evidence and there's discussions to be had. They could ban us. So that's negatively impacting conversations typically of the right. Yet, if you are australian and you agree with democrats you can say whatever you want but an american citizen can't that's insane yeah well yeah i'm absolutely just sick of this like land mine system where you have to be careful with every little thing you say i mean on my channel i have to say the conholial sickness

and the jab instead of the coronavirus and vaccine. And I noticed a significant difference through my videos and the way that they reach people when I say conholial sickness instead of coronavirus. So there's different algorithms. There's different people. There's people in third world countries that are literally hired that have found to have a bias against the LGBTQ community. And there's a big outrage because a whole bunch of trendy, new wave, woke creators were getting censored. And they're like, what's going on here? And it was a guy who was a religious zealot in a third world country who hated them for what they were. When you think about the results of what's currently happening with social media.

So everything I just said about how an Australian citizen has more rights because typically their opinions are more likely to align with the Democrats, right? So the US relative to Europe and Australia is actually a bit to the right. And a lot of people keep saying in Europe, America is so far right. The Democrats are considered like a centrist party compared to Europe. And it's like, I don't, I'm not concerned about the opinions of Europeans because they don't understand our system. They don't live here and they don't under like, there's a of Europeans because they don't understand our system. They don't live here. And they don't – like there's a lot of things they don't get about our history, why we have the certain systems we do. It's not like one day we woke up and said we want to create a broken, weird medical system.

They had World War II. We all had World War II, but they were most impacted, and they were forced essentially to create some kind of system to fix this. It doesn't apply here. But here, what ends up happening is Jack Dorsey on the Joe Rogan podcast said, we have to create rules for a global community. And that means people in America who are to the right of people in these other countries may offend their delicate sensibilities. So Twitter says, what's in the best interest of maximizing our profits? We don't want just American users. We want European users. So we can't offend European users. So ban those who offend European users. Democrats tend to offend them much, much less than conservatives.

So ban the conservatives. Now we can't have conversations in our own country because they've overtaken what's called the commons, the space where we used to communicate and talk about public discourse and and it's and it's not just us and it's not just random individuals but it's also major uh journalistic institutions in the united states like the new york post that are literally having their accounts taken away for days because they release on a story that now everyone is reporting on but because the story was before the election it was about hunter biden it was about the son of the Democratic hopeful at the time, New York Post got censored and totally wiped off Twitter. No one could even communicate with them. policies creating, for example, in this case, a moral hazard. Here's the moral hazard and here's how it was created, is that they have the ability to censor anyone they want, but they don't have the responsibility for what is published on their site. So they have all the power, but none of the responsibility that comes with it.

And the way 230 was designed and all these things you either have one or the other so let's say um let's say you and i plot some a criminal scheme and we talk to each other over t-mobile the t-mobile network right well t-mobile didn't censor us they didn't publish us they're sort of you know so they're not you can't sue t-mobile for if somebody's a victim of our crime they can't sue t-mobile for being part of it right so that's a protection that makes sense for team now if t-mobile started listening on conversations and saying that's not an appropriate conversation for you to have, well, you would think, well, now they have to accept responsibility for what they're allowing and not allowing. But what these socials have right now is they have all the power and all the responsibility. And one of those two things has to go away.

The problem is going to continue to get worse. And that's kind of the 230 reform we need is that look you are either a publisher yeah and you have responsibility which is fine but ban everybody but then if somebody plots some scheme through your site well you're completely on the hook for it and they that's the kind of reform that yeah i think we need to look at so for those that aren't familiar just to clarify section 230 of the communications decency act says that no uh platform shall be considered to be the publisher of someone else's speech. To simplify, if you go on Twitter and post a comment or a tweet, that's your speech,

not Twitter's. I completely and 100% agree with that. Like, if I make a phone call and, you know, if I group call 100 people and then I say some naughty word that's not on T-Mobile. T-Mobile is just a phone company. It's my speech. I said something. If I call people and start defaming someone, you sue me, right?

The issue is, as you described it, translating this to Twitter or to YouTube, actually. YouTube statements about what we can or can't say pertaining to the election is an editorial guideline, not a community standard. Now, they've said it not a community standard. Now, they've said it was a community standard, but that makes no sense. No, if 74 million people agree with one idea and 80 million people don't, we clearly don't have a unified societal concept like what is lewd and lascivious. Section 230 provides what's called a good Samaritan provision for moderation. These platforms like YouTube are allowed to remove things and not be considered a publisher because it's good faith moderation. If someone posts, you know,

adult activities onto Twitter and Twitter doesn't want that, then Section 230 says we're not going to we're not going to consider you the publisher because you're choosing to get rid of these things that are otherwise objectionable. This is where the problem arises. The language objectionable in Section 230. Define it. That's the problem. Well, Twitter or YouTube would say, we think it's objectionable that anyone would question the election. 74 million people would disagree. In fact, probably more than that, because there's been a couple polls now showing that even Democrats believe there was fraud, and most Republicans do. So it's more than 74 million. So when YouTube says we find this objectionable, perhaps under Section 230, objectionable could be a personal opinion, in which case they are granted absolute and total immunity as a publisher to issue editorial guidelines on what may or may not be published and never face liability, which not even the New York Times gets.

You've got to change the word objectionable to illegal. Yes then you got to pick what state that's in and i think right this and typically the law would say like the state at which the company is registered or whatever but yes so that way there is a challenge there right but i think you can define lewd lascivious and we're not going to say a challenge in the election is lewd. That makes no sense. We're not going to say it's offensive. You might be able to argue that, but that still kind of doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And a judge might be like, what do you mean it's offensive?

No, it's not. Objectionable means anything. And that's the reform we need. We need to get rid of that word. So lewd, lascivious, like if someone pulls out their genitals? Well, think about it this way. Let's say uh the example i think we were given by one of the guests was a christian blog a website where christians

and catholics or whatever can come and have conversations and then someone starts posting a bunch of adult activities right well they're going to be like we don't want this on our platform it's not for this it's so that we can have you know our our conversations then they're a publisher then right you can remove all that and still be protected because it's clearly not in the spirit. It's a good Samaritan provision. But if you change it to say, if only illegal content, then they couldn't remove that without becoming a publisher.

Exactly. Well, so if, if you got rid of objectionable with illegal, then they could still remove it because lewd, lascivious, filthy, or otherwise objectionable.

There's a few other words in there. So the, the, the issue I suppose is there is absolutely illegal content you could remove. And I think the simple solution that a lot of people have presented is the block function. If you are on Twitter and someone posts something objectionable, Twitter should just be like, well, you can block them. That's it. I think that advertisers threatening to pull their money is a big impetus for why YouTube's proactively removing content.

That's actually the reason they're doing this. And that's why Google – so when I first saw YouTube's statement about we can't question the election kind of stuff, the full report is actually about like advertisers and friendly content. And so they're like, we're removing things. They're worried that advertisers will freak out upon seeing this. And it's typically because YouTube is scared of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal targeted PewDiePie. YouTube lost so much money. I would love to see this in court.

I would love to see Susan Wojcicki and YouTube sitting there and saying, you can't say the election is a fraud unless it's four years ago. So, yes, right. You can say. But no no i was told you can't say that exactly i was told that the hillary clinton trump election was considered historic so long as the election is historic you cannot question it uh you can't say two criteria the one i explained before one you if you say there's widespread fraud and then two you claim it altered the outcome that is bannable but if you said something like an alien invasion caused you know that changed the outcome of the election that's totally fine but they'll shadow ban you no oh i'm sure they will i mean they'll shadow ban you for everything and they'll derank everything but the point is they will straight remove content if you meet

this criteria didn't you say there's a bunch of stuff about Hillary getting all over? Yeah. I mean, the Atlantic has a video about how the election was stolen. The New York Times, CNN, they have tons of videos about all this stuff everywhere all over YouTube. That's the problem. Section 230 has created this. It's almost like the system they've created tends towards what is considered mainstream and acceptable. And so people are chasing each other as cancel culture starts attacking the right and getting them banned, increasingly accusing one side of being offensive or objectionable.

Then social media gets scared because advertisers get scared and gets rid of it, moving everything further and further, not necessarily to the left towards a broken fractured algorithmic paranoid delusional state so you're the best way you're gonna have to remove shadow banning too if you're gonna shadow shadow banning would be which means you're gonna have to free the software code because you can't know you want well you can't rely on a company to have good faith no knowing what they're doing the courts could review it so they could have to submit to an oversight committee and then who's overseeing it, man? That's the problem. You would need the code because the code is meant to affect a result.

So the result will be the evidence of the code and the policy of shadow banning. You prove shadow banning exists because shadow banning works. But would it need to be public? Would a company need to publish their proprietary code to prove that they're doing the right thing? Well, no, because if they're doing it, it's evident in the results on what you can see. Because what would be the point of the code if it didn't reveal what it was?

But the point of shadow banning is that you can't see it. No, no, no, but you know shadow banning is happening. But you don't know. That's the point. No, you do. It becomes banning when you know it's happening. When you don't know it's happening, there are numerous third-party programs that can verify shadow banning very, very easily.

Like what? So what's the one that everyone uses? It's the European ones. It's shadowban.eu, I think. And you type in a Twitter name and press enter, and it'll tell you every restriction placed in your account. It's that simple. It would be empirically reviewable. The evidence would be that you just set up a couple of other accounts, ask people to follow you, do a statistical analysis of how often you show up in the timeline, et cetera.

It will be – because I follow people who I believe are shadow banned. I have the – it's something you can statistically prove to court and it's pretty much open and shut. Not only that, when they shadow banned, I think, Ronna McDaniel from Twitter search, it was plainly obvious to literally everybody. But like on YouTube, if you're getting 10,000 views and then all of a sudden you're getting 9,000 views, how can you prove that they're not, that they didn't 90% your algorithm? Well, I think you're thinking about YouTube

backwards. YouTube isn't necessarily shadow banning. They're algorithmically promoting some content. And depromoting others. No. Or demoting. Or not promoting at all is a better way to put it. On Twitter, it's a reverse chronological feed, meaning if I follow you and you post at 1059 a.m., I should get your tweet in my feed at 1059 a.m. But sometimes Twitter shadowbans people and that tweet won't appear. So on YouTube, if I publish a video, you should get a notification. That's it. YouTube promotes the content and they choose who they promote. So I actually think, you know, in that sense, YouTube has no obligation to promote me. If people don't watch my content, then I don't know. It does create a problem because they're actively promoting certain content, which makes them, in my opinion, a publisher. If YouTube says, we have identified content that we make sure appears on the front page,

think about it this way. BuzzFeed has a community section, or they used to, I don't know if they still do, where anybody can write and it gets posted, but they're not going to put that on the front page. The front page is where their authors and staffers appear. Sometimes I think community post might, but I don't think so. Buzzfeed community posts. I don't know if they still do it. We're always very much like you could write a story and then publish it on YouTube. Well, YouTube's the biggest site, the second biggest search engine in the world. They are choosing, based on certain criteria, to publish your content to the front page to people who have not subscribed. YouTube is a publisher and not a platform.

And even when all your people that you're subscribed to, if you're subscribed to a thousand accounts, YouTube chooses which of those thousand accounts you're going to see. And that makes them a publisher. Absolutely. Well, you know, there's a counter. We were talking about Reform Section 230. Unfortunately, Representative Gabbard, she's out. She didn't run for re-election.

Right. So somebody's going to be taking her seat. Yep. And she's done. But there's other means, because you brought up the advertising angle. One thing I've advocated for is that there are a lot of states out there with large constituency who don't like people with conservative viewpoints being just banned for perfectly legal speech. I don't see a reason why states shouldn't start implementing laws that the state itself and all of the municipalities within it are forbidden from buying advertising on platforms that censor legal speech.

Wow. So that would maybe get there. That's a bold law, though. Is it or isn't it? Because it's pretty straightforward is it and it's very justifiable is that look i in the state of south carolina i'm a let's say i was i was living there i'm a taxpayer right and i'm funding the government do i want that government handing money to buy advertising you're saying that the government can't buy advertising the

government cannot buy advertising and and politicians well i don't know about elected officials that that's that's more of a free speech issue. But any government agency, because they spend a lot of money on these socials. They promote advertising. No government agency within the state is allowed to spend money if they censure the speech of our constituents. I'm paying money to the state government. YouTube or Twitter is banning me because I said, I don't know, there's only two genders or whatever. And they'll ban you from that.

Right. And then they're giving – my money is going from the state to Twitter. That's unconscionable because they're censoring my legal speech. Okay. Upon clarification, you are 100% correct. And I think every state should implement that. Of course, will any of them actually do anything? I'm not entirely convinced.

I believe that – I'm working on some projects in the upcoming year. I think that that will be on the agenda. I believe there are at least several. Look, if you can get a state to sue another four states in the Supreme Court over a presidential election, I think you can get a state to, on the sovereign level, say that, look, we're not spending any more money on any social network that censors legal. They don't have to even name the places.

They just have to establish that standard. And it's like, well, you know, the only thing is— But then how do they determine which falls under the criteria? Would someone bring a complaint to the state saying—so, you know, you'd go there and say, hi, I was banned by Twitter for this. And they would say, therefore, by this one tweet, all advertising is canceled to Twitter. I think that the legislation could work around that to fundamentally get at the general ideas. They may only have to cite the policy of Twitter saying that that's what they do or a well-publicized case. And we've seen this before because you remember the state of California, I think, banned doing any business with the state of Indiana or any state that had a bathroom.

Right? So no, I think it was a bathroom or something like that. I think it was gay marriage. I thought it was bathroom, bathroom but maybe it's whatever it's probably all of them actually maybe yeah but i like this idea i don't want tax dollars going to financing some of these companies that clearly do have a bias and do have an agenda another thing to really kind of think about here especially when it comes to the advertisers and supposedly these companies bowing down to the pressure of the advertisers in the mainstream media is that advertisers have a choice to make when they choose advertising.

They could choose to advertise on, let's say, the Alex Jones show, or they could exclude them. Just like me as a producer, I could go on my AdSense and I could say, I don't want any McDonald's, Monsanto, US military, politician ads on my channel, which I did before when I was still in the partner program, advertisers could still do that themselves. And I don't know why there's not a bigger emphasis by saying, hey, if you don't like them, just put them in your Google AdSense account that you don't want to advertise with them.

And then you don't have to ban that person. You could just block them. Imagine 10 years ago, someone listening to your phone calls and shutting off your phone service because they didn't like what you said. This is the society that we're going to it's dangerous and there's so much power by these individuals that needs to be checked immediately well you know where it came from is that left-wing activists gathered together rabble rousers to target companies with just hit them with emails phone calls tweet at them the company not realizing in most cases these people are not only not their customers, but would never be their customers,

start to panic. And they're like, and then they call YouTube and said, Hey, we can't advertise with you anymore, because all these people are blowing up our timeline. So you got to stop, you know, having, you know, this guy on your YouTube channel, because he said something controversial. And then they know, that's how we get to this policy. Because honestly, if no advertiser ever threatened to pull ads from a social media network i don't think jack dorsey those guys would but but they could just easily say okay guys if you if you're if you're coming on me we're just going to make sure we never advertise but hold on you're missing one extra component after the email campaign the activists will then send a tip to an ally at a news organization who will then write, did you agree that the racism on your advertising was bad?

And so what happens is they'll get a bunch of emails. And I've seen these threats. We were putting on a speaking event last year and Antifa called a self-identified anti-fascist threatened to burn the theater down. So naturally, these people freak out. But one of the calls that went to a local business was, we're going to make sure the news finds out you're supporting white supremacists. So what happens then is this company goes, I got all these emails. They then told me I was doing something wrong.

They then said they're going to send it to the press. One of these activists, I mean, they all work in media. They got jobs there. We'll then be like, ooh, here's a juicy story. And then they'll email this company and say, so I actually I actually broke this story where a reporter for Slate sent a what I would describe as a veiled threat to a bank to get the Proud Boys, a principal Proud Boy member banned by saying, why is it that you support white supremacy? Is this a known thing, something that affect? And the bank was like, no, no, no, no, no, we don't, we don't, we don't, we don't, it's gone,

it's gone. Because the journalist is essentially saying, I'm going to write a story accusing you of supporting white supremacy, and then watch people panic and sell your shares. The other thing that happens in this is that if conservatives do the same thing, you know, the journalist will write a hoax campaign by fringe far-right extremists targeted this company and they valiantly defied them because the right doesn't have a foot in these cultural institutions and because a lot of these ad buyers just read the new york times the wall street journal the right can't counter it the same way the left does and i think that companies like vanguard state street and black i think it's black rock is the name of them there's three largest investment firms in the world own 20% of Alphabet or Google. So it's not just like Toyota that would pull their ads from Luke Rutkowski's videos if he mentions the Federal Reserve.

But it's BlackRock and State Street will pull their funding from Alphabet, and then that company will fall apart. These companies own 8% of Apple, 8% of Microsoft, 8% of Google. Yeah. BlackRock is one of the largest asset management firms in the world. They have about $7 trillion. And they just recently started investing in the Chinese stock market. So literally, people's pensions and retirements and money in their bank account literally is investing into China right now.

Yep. And the Federal Reserve is bailing out black rock with any loss they have the federal reserve is just making sure that they get covered socialism for the super rich when they make a profit they get to keep all their income they lose federal reserve literally steps in and is funneling money into them black rock is a big institution that we should talk about let's combine our disdain for the activists in media with our uh disdain for big tech censorship with probably one of the most consequential stories of our generation. Hunter Biden is under criminal investigation for possible money laundering and illicit business deals with China that was partially facilitated by his own

father in his role as the vice president. This story was suppressed, was censored and blocked across social media. NPR said it wasn't really news. It was a distraction. Politico said, in fact, 50 intelligence official, former intelligence official said it was Russian disinformation. CNN said the same thing. And so did MSNBC. And now Politico has the gall to publish the story that, oops, Hunter Biden, Justice Department's interest in Hunter Biden covered more than taxes. So here we finally get it. And I love this when they say it is a powerful, well, I guess they updated the story recently, but they say it was an explosive, explosive political revelations. Revelations that the American people needed to know about before they cast their ballots

and revelations that the media, as well as big tech companies suppressed. That is probably the most um i don't know dystopian thing i've ever a story i've ever read think about that right now in in the time frame we are in we are being told vice uh former vice president joe biden is the president-elect he's not until january 6th the official uh uh you know youtube has said that there's enough electors to you know determine that he is and there's enough electors to, you know, determine that he is and whatever. On January 6th is when officially under the Constitution we get our president-elect. We're sitting here being told that's the case.

And now we're being told, oh, and by the way, we knew he was crooked. We knew he was corrupt and compromised. And we didn't tell you and we're telling you now because we want you to sit here and wait wait for a month knowing that we royally you over and that you are going to have a crooked corrupt crony compromised politician running the show and there is nothing you can do to stop it that i think twitter um censoring the new york post was the most scandalous thing they've ever done yeah and it's important to note here the new york post was the one that released the story they're the ones who came out and said hey the oldest newspaper in this country yeah and then what was the response the mainstream media obfuscated it ignored it laughed at it made up total lies out of nowhere no evidence needed

former intelligence officials say it's russian disinfo exactly it's russian interference and literally there's no merit there's no evidence. And literally, there's no merit. There's no evidence. There was no data. There's no documents. There was absolutely nothing. Do you know there's photographs of Hunter Biden getting off of Air Force Two? Yeah.

And it's not just Hunter Biden. It's also the federal authorities are also looking into other relatives, including Joe Biden's brother, James, who the federal authorities are looking into and asking about a specific bankruptcy when it comes to another business that he had. We got the story right here from the New York Post. The feds are probing Joe Biden's brother, James, report says. It is the Biden family. And Tony Bobulinski, a former confidant of the family, said in no uncertain terms that he believes the Biden family is compromised by China. So they suppressed this story. And there was a poll that was put out one by the media research center and another, I can't remember. It was more of a, you know, more bland poll from like ABC or something where they found that a decent amount of people, a small percentage, maybe four to five

said they would not have voted for Joe Biden had they known what his son and brother had been doing. But the media suppressed the news and helped Joe Biden, a corrupt politician, win. And now what are Americans supposed to do when they come out with this information? I'll tell you, if the news just broke right now and they were like, we just found this out. I mean, that would be shocking. But when we know the media said, well, we suppressed the story, we lied about it, and Big Tech censored it to make sure he won, even though they knew he's a criminal. It wasn't even that MSNBC didn't run a story on it. Twitter took, they deleted stories about it.

They suspended the New York Post's Twitter account for weeks. So they couldn't report anything because they dare oppose the machine. And they told the New York Post, delete the tweet. the article you'll get your account back they didn't they luckily stood up to their morals but for how long were they taken out of business out of commission from even people seeing and sharing and understanding this larger news which was important context to understand especially on the backdrop of the beijing professor that came out and hinted that chinese authorities were the ones that he said it yes he said who built biden's wealth and then everyone laughs and he goes got it yeah specifically talking about hunter and his son and trump's criticism of it which is major no no not to guild the lily here but we actually had

this exact situation in reverse not that long ago but the media reacted very differently you may recall when sarah palin was the vice presidential nominee her emails were hacked yep and leaked newspapers assigned reporters round the clock to go through every single one of them and report on every single possible detail that now they didn't find anything at all because just completely clean it's just you know dance recitals and whatever for kids. But they went armpit deep in that. Whereas now, the laptop shows up, right? Legally, the possession of the guy who shared it, the shop owner, he legally owns that laptop because of the lien. Biden didn't pay it off.

And it's just what happened here, I think, is part of a reaction to what happened in 16, where coverage of the FBI investigation was what they think through the election to Hillary. And no journalist wanted to be that one journalist who came out and reported this story and potentially do the election back to Trump. The peer pressure among them was so strong. I remember communicating with journalists just in a couple of weeks leading up to the election. I'm often trying to seed stories or pitch stories and get stuff out there. And there was one story that would have made Biden look very bad. Not too bad, not laptop bad, but in that realm, right? And ordinarily, a story of this nature would be snapped right up. But there were no takers. And I talked to some very serious...

They're supporting the democrats it's clearly is and we can't we can no longer suffer under the illusion that the media is uh you know some kind of non-biased the referee here um it's it's almost it's almost redundant it's almost tired of hearing these people making the case that oh look at what you know of course you know the double standard yeah yeah it's like wwe right where it's like the ref joins in the fight like two guys are fighting and then someone accidentally hits the ref and the ref gets in and now the ref is fighting you're like what's going on it's just not real right the new york times is is not a newspaper it's a pr agency for hard left democrats yes it's a pr agent so is cnn mc they're all their pr agencies so uh

and anyone feel free to answer this. If I if I would have told you two years ago that if I said in 2018, you know, in a couple of years, half the country, 20 states and two territories would be. states were suing to effectively change the results of the 2020 election and 20 other states filed briefs challenging them paying half the country against the other half would you believe i would have believed you you would have yeah especially if you told me there were mail-in ballots no no i just just that the states are lining up i would have believed you it's not about the election as divisive as trump was i would have believed you what about you guys i mean there was a lot of street fights between left-wing and right-wing people so there was indications that there was going to be a larger conflict but not

this big not somewhere where states are going after when i was talking about the potential for conflict people kept saying the states will never be against each other it makes no sense you know and now they are i bring this up because the media does not represent the people. They represent their side. We have states aligned against states. 20 plus two territories against 18 on the other side and the president. You have a media apparatus that is lying left and right about everything. And the big tech companies defending those lies.

Dude, I got to amend my statement. I would have thought you were fear mongering. There's no way I would have believed you. I would have been like, Tim, come on. This is what people – That's excessive. I remember earlier this year. It's funny.

What's funny to me is there's a Tim Pool bingo card. It's like when Tim Pool says something, take a drink because there's like a handful of things I will bring up. Civil War was one of them. Yeah. And so when I mentioned on the show, I think, you know, two months ago that I think I've talked about civil war in specific videos, a dozen, a couple dozen times. And in passing, maybe a couple hundred times, I had these leftists, you know, put up all these, you know, claims saying Tim Pool's lying. He's obsessed with civil war, whatever, and accused me of like, you know, just fear mongering or whatever. And it's like my response was the narrative started with a princeton professor who was a democrat who said we are in a cold civil war and i was like wow that's crazy so i talked

about it we had uh analysis from several uh security advisors excuse me who i can't remember if it was a new yorker the atlantic where they said ranging from 30 to 90 possibility of a civil war based on the tensions. And the aggregate analysis, like when they averaged out everyone's opinions, it was like a 35% chance. And then we saw the street fights. We saw Charlottesville. We saw all of this chaos and conflict. And if after all of that, I said in two years, 20 states, 18 states would be filing a suit against four and then 20 would join in to counter that because they refused the results of the election. People absolutely would have been like, you're insane. You know, I had people telling me that

the Proud Boys fighting Antifa would stop there. They're like, you don't get it, man. You think that this is going to escalate? It's just the Proud Boys and Antifa. They're fringe groups. And I said, what happens when people who know them, who know the Antifa guy, hear the story about what happened and then blame the right and the people who know the Proud Boys. So Proud Boy goes home, he's got a black eye and he says, oh, these Antifa guys attacked me. Now his friends hear it. It spreads to family and friends. Then what do we see in New York? Regular New Yorkers were throwing bricks and rocks at cars flying Trump flags. And a woman went up to a vehicle and pepper sprayed children. And they still say to me, yeah, but that's just regular people fighting.

And then I say, but listen, now it's going to the highest levels. They're trying to impeach the president on ridiculous, meritless grounds. They have put a former general in the crosshairs of prison, Michael Flynn. This is one of the highest ranking military positions in the country. And they were going to lock him up for nothing, for lying to the FBI in a potentially informal meeting. And when one side, when the DOJ said, we're going to get rid of this, the judge said, no, you see from the highest levels, they're trying to arrest a general. And at the lowest levels, you have people fighting in the streets and now 20 versus 18 states in a lawsuit saying, that's not my president. I don't know where this goes.

And maybe it stops right now. I'm just saying. I think because of the context, it's not as bad as it seems with the pandemic. People are nuts because they've been locked up. They don't hate each other, really. Charlottesville. There's going to be that. There was no pandemic.

We had years. There's going to be, especially in the United States, where you're allowed to go out and protest and own guns, there's going to be little bits of explosive anger and violence. Only a few months ago, a man stalked two trump supporters and put two bullets like in some countries that stuff couldn't happen because the government would crack down kill and arrest everyone involved and you'd never see any so perhaps we have that weakness in that strength yeah i mean you could well it depends the government decides what protests to crack down on and they have been selective about that when it comes to

particular protests they like they let it happen if they don't like the protest they crack down on do you think so so listen i want to say this is what i want to be very clear here at a certain point when i'm saying i think street violence is going to spread and it's going to affect people and the culture war will exacerbate people say no i think you're crazy then it happens and they And they say, well, Tim's still crazy. Then I say, I didn't predict 18 states filing a suit to challenge four states, which would overturn the election and 20 states firing back. Or, you know, Michael Flynn, they're trying to lock up a general. That's like trying to arrest and imprison a general because he essentially ratted on the Obama administration's illicit activities in the Middle East. And then he went to work with Trump.

I mean, this is some highest level stuff all the way down to the lowest level. My point is, when we then get to a point where you have 20 versus 18 states, I don't know if it escalates further from here. But I can say for the time being, I was right about the escalation. Every step of the way. There's an ominous parallel for you. I'm not sure where it goes. It the vision in this country is um very dangerous but you may recall the last time you know there was a civil war in this country and you may recall that uh just look at

the language there were two sides right what was it how would you define the two sides there were the what states in the what states the pro and anti-slavery. Right. Now look at where we are now. Have we developed that terminology all over again? Another dichotomy? What is it? Red states and blue states. We've built a division into the country that's been festering since 2000 where it starts. It wasn't any longer.

They used to call the states in the southeast the former confacy, and for a while they were solid Democrat states, and that sort of changed, and it became—now we've got a new phrase to divide ourselves, just like the Mason-Dixon slave states, free states. We have a new dividing terminology that was not around in the 80s or 90s. There was South Carolina, Kansas, Georgia. Sometimes the Democrat won them, sometimes they didn't. But now we have this firm division. We have blue states, we have red states. And there's more. People don't understand what a civil war is

because they're tainted by American history. In American history, we had states which were part of a union. And so there was an alignment on some issues and not. In many other countries, actually every single country. Civil war was like pockets of urban areas versus rural areas. And then there were fights over territories and control of one government. In the United States, you actually had a secession. And then the union saying, we're not going to let the country break apart. The South wasn't necessarily trying to take over the North. They were trying to get into DC

to effectively end the war, but they wanted their states to be out of the Union. Very different from what we've seen in perhaps the Spanish Civil War. One of the key components in civil conflict, whether it's a civil war or tribalist feuding and fighting or whatever, is a view that the other is irredeemable and evil and wrong. We have, as I mentioned, 18 versus 20 states right now. And I'm sure many people on the left and many of these people have repeatedly said nothing's happening over and over again as things have escalated. I'll say it again. Maybe it stops here. OK, but it's crazy to me that from two years ago till today, they kept saying it won't happen. It won't happen. And it keeps getting worse. But here's the most important point.

A hashtag was trending today on Twitter. Seditious 17. And Esquire magazine has wrote, has written this article. The Republican Party is now a seditious organization. These authoritarian yahoos believe the Supreme Court will ride to their rescue and disenfranchise millions of people whom they don't believe should be allowed to vote anyway. They are now officially stating that all of these states are seditious that's like some crap news organization esquire magazine yeah somebody owns that trying to make a bunch of money off of it it doesn't matter the sentiment now exists he already mentioned you know matt mentioned red and blue states the tribes basically exist there have been attempts at breaking down what

the left and the right is and it makes no sense because policy agreements don't define it. My policy was on economics. I'm actually decently left. But in terms of cultural issues in the culture where I'm clearly right. So where am I? Well, heterodox, I suppose. But clearly there is a dividing line between the factions. Both are calling each other traitorous and evil. And I just got to stress this, you know, to the utmost degree when people talk about this.

Has anyone I think we're in the pot boiling. And so we don't realize how serious it is that they tried to put a former general in prison. Like that right there should be a huge indicator that something is seriously going wrong in this country. They said that Donald Trump and when he had the rallies chanting, lock her up, that's terrifying. They're going to go after a political rival like that. And then it was Michael Flynn who served this country. And as Luke pointed out in the other episode, I guess the Obama administration was mad because he exposed that they were arming rebels in Syria. Is that correct?

Yeah. So, of course, he was he's the one that whistleblowed. He's the one that got fired as the national security advisor under Barack Obama that exposed the whole game that was happening there, that solidified everything. And we have to really think about the kind of longer, bigger terms, perspectives here, because if you're a force or if you're an interest and you want to take over another nation or country, what's the best way to do it? Do you divide and conquer the population? Fifth-generation warfare.

And that's why I've been talking about this for 10 years. I've been saying, watch out for this hyper-partisan nonsense warfare. And that's why I've been talking about this for 10 years. I've been saying, watch out for this hyper-partisan nonsense bullcrap that's leaving truth and any kind of logic out of the door. We have to, more than ever, keep an open mind. We have to, more than ever, pay attention to the truth. It matters. But it doesn't matter to the special interests that, of course, bastardize it to push this larger context war against us. The point is, there is no truth. Clearly, I think one side is more correct than the other. And we run the risk of getting banned for even having these opinions.

What I'm saying is on the left, they're under the impression that Donald Trump is illegitimate because he was propped up by Russia and that he's a corrupt criminal enterprise. And Bill Barr is his hatchet man. Clearly not. And they just believe what they're told from the media who's clearly lying because they've allowed hunter biden and joe biden to get away with this very very serious story be careful not to fall into the trap of left and right it's not left or right those are tribal indicators i don't mean anything anymore but

when you just said those on the left that was you falling into it no it's a tribal indicator yeah it's you giving into the brainwashing without realizing it. If you sit on camera with 100,000 people. No, I fully understand. It's easy to become the demon that we fear. So we should not be talking about the left and the right and the red and the blue and the Republicans. We're all one people. Sure, but they clearly exist and are easily identifiable. Everyone knows what I mean by the left. So when we had Jen Perlman on the other day,

she was very lovely. She was awesome to talk to. We disagreed on some issues. And she said, I'm with the real left as the economic left. I agree. Economically, she supports cooperative markets versus competitive markets. It's very left in terms of a political compass sense. But in terms of what people in the chat were especially critiquing is the left doesn't mean the same thing as it used to. It's now just tribal indicators, red versus blue, left versus right. And although you can look at the left

and see that there are some people who aren't super woke, but still align with them. And on the right, you have people who are disaffected liberals or intellectual dark web types who are hanging out with conservatives and agree with them. And on the right, you have people who are disaffected liberals or intellectual dark web types who are hanging out with conservatives and agree with them. The separation, I think, is built upon, are you a follower of what Michael Malice calls the cathedral, the establishment system, or are you an independent individual who seeks that information on your own? Both sides have independent free thinkers.

The right, in my opinion, and again, this is my bias, tends to have more independent free thinkers. It's why you get people who used to be left walk away and not the other way around. Although you sometimes get people who are, you know, voted for Trump and then say, oh, no, I reject that. I'm left now. It happens. On the left, you have people who watch the mainstream media and have no idea what they're talking about. On the right, you have regular

people who have known about the Hunter Biden scandal the whole time and are angry the media has been lying about it. Granted, on the right, you get people who go too far and read crazy, you know, conspiracy theories, and then they kind of lose it. But I don't think that's the majority. Mainstream news, as you mentioned, is essentially functioning as a PR apparatus for the hard left Democrats. It's been weaponized. Well, you know, there's a bunch of different reasons why this has happened. And I can talk about algorithmic manipulation. So I wanted to cover a story.

I'll let you guys in on a secret. In my opinion, I'm being very careful here on the data I analyzed in the story I was covering years ago. The New York Times seems to reuse URLs to manipulate and game Facebook algorithm, Facebook's algorithm to make more money. What they'll do is, in my opinion, this is why they do it. They'll publish a story. It's a hot new story. Breaking news. Donald Trump does backflip. It immediately gets 100,000 shares. Because of that, YouTube says, I'm sorry, Facebook says this is a hot link. Keep showing it to people.

But eventually the breaking news doesn't really cut it anymore because everyone knows Trump did a backflip. What do they do? They change the entire article to an analysis piece about how Trump is racist to give it an evergreen longevity outside of breaking news so that while Facebook is promoting this hot news story, instead of having the link die, it gets picked back up and survives. That's huge, right? Right.

So that's a big story that I was going to be covering. But the point is, for monetary reasons, they're going to build an audience, they're going to sell a story, and it's going to keep pushing this divide. You know, I guess to simplify what I was trying to say to Luke, it would kicked off this conversation is when you say we got to find the truth. I agree. But I think there is, there's a reason why they call it red pill and blue pill. I think Michael Malice describes it as the red pill is you've awoken to the reality outside of corporate controlled media narratives. If you if you watch mainstream news, you're getting contradictory information every other day that makes no sense.

So people end up thinking crazy things. But for those of us who have been actually investigating and looking and reading the news, we knew Hunter Biden was crooked because we saw the emails. But people who watch CNN was told were told it was Russian disinfo. What are they going to think now when they're now being told by CNN that CNN was actually the ones investigating the story the whole time? I think it was Oliver Darcy who said, we've been really going at this story to try and figure out what's really going on. So now those people who are convinced it was Russian disinfo are now being told by the very

same people. Actually, we were the ones who uncovered it in the first place. Either these peoples that are not interested, they're not capable cognitively to understand what's going on, or they're going to snap from cognitive dissonance. Well, Tim, don't you know we've always been at war

with East Asia? Yeah. Yeah? Well, also, this back and forth also makes people very stupid. 1984 reference. Oh, okay.

Oh, yeah. You got it when I said it the first time. Sorry. No, we have to understand a lot of these people are just being brought into total delusion so many different levels where they I think there is a force doing it. There is a force, there's a power that wants you fighting and hating each other based on your skin color, based on your orientation, based on your age, based on whatever you choose to do with your own life. those differences have been exemplified and empowered to such a level

where you see another person, you're taught to see someone that you're going to dislike or be angry about and to be dysfunctional. There's a lot of different fingers that we could point to people who benefit from that, whether it's the corporate world or another geopolitical threat out there. But the most important aspect is to first understand that it's happening before even pointing fingers at who's doing it. Well, it's that division that we see being encouraged in so many different places, causing division, breaking national unity. And I recall in President Trump's first inaugural speech, he had a wonderful line, and it's that through loyalty to our country, we will rediscover loyalty to each other.

And that there says everything, because everything that we've seen, whether you have people disrespecting or what do we have that unifies us, right? The flag, right? So you want to create division around the flag, have people kneel or be disrespectful during the national anthem, right? That's dividing people further, taking our national things that unify us and bringing us a part of them, tearing down old monuments or disrespect or rewriting history to cast our founding fathers as villains. The things that are uniting us are the things that are most under attack. And I'll just go a little bit further, though, in terms of what's really the left-right divide, and maybe you guys see it differently, but this has been in human history for a long time, and the best way to define it in contemporary terminology is that there are those who embrace

what we now call postmodernism and those who reject it. And I find that's a very clean line of the different ways of seeing things and thinking things. I disagree a bit. I've heard throughout the past several years of the culture war about what it's really about. I've heard people say it's nationalist versus globalists. I've heard people say it's libertarian versus authoritarian or postmodernist versus, you know. Anti-postmodernist.

Anti-postmodernist. And I don't think any of these cleanly describe what's happening. I think it's just world perspective. It's your echo chamber, I suppose. And so the way I think Andrew Breitbart said, I'm probably going to paraphrase this incorrectly, but the general idea was that you have to walk towards the fire. You think it's dangerous and it's painful, but when you pass through it, you see there's freedom on the other side.

It was something like that. So you have people, it's the allegory of the cave, who live in the cave and people who don't. I think that's, so there are certainly, we've had people on this show who are decently woke, you know, and have advocated for, you know, rather social justice type positions, but are not what would be described as left. It's kind of strange. And a lot of people in the chat will like not like them. But, you know, we've had people here who have supported Trump, but also supported social

justice initiatives that you typically would not find on the right. So not necessarily postmodernist thinking, but that could be a strong indicator. I started to fall into postmodernism really hard when I was like, I can I'm creating reality with my thoughts. We are, you know, controlling our reality in like 2008, nine. I really but then something I was able to kind of pull out of it. I know that it's not a deep, dark pit. Check it out.

I want to talk about this link changing thing at a different time that you talked about. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is a huge... That's a big deal. And it was killed by a guy who now works for the New York Times. We should probably make it illegal at some point. Another thing that I really... Just to go back real quick.

Yeah, yeah. I want to go back to what we were talking about. So to break down what you're saying about postmodernism, are you saying people who believe in objective reality and people who don't? I think that that's an indicator. But I actually would – putting it aside is that when we were – I was doing the analysis for the original – for the first Trump campaign on what would make somebody favorable to support Trump and oppose him. A lot of people were trying to do that, too. And a lot of them had sort of these second-rate ideas about, you know, it's basically uneducated poor people, or in other cases they'd say, you know,

it's basically racist or something. And somebody actually did a pretty good study that found that it really did come down to whether or not you were an embraced postmodernism, which is—we're getting in trouble with some philosophy types here, but I think it basically comes down to if it feels good, do it. And by extension in politics, if it feels good, it must be right.

Versus those who utterly reject that, those who have, I like to say they possess the wisdom of the Old Testament. But there are many people on the right who don't like, like in the culture war right who aren't fans of Trump necessarily. Well, but just think about the reasons why. It's because he's had three wives he's very brash he doesn't he has uh he is exhibit like what they would consider conspicuous consumption and i'm not

saying those are my christians those are the ones that you might find the people who are very uncomfortable with him because he seems so an uncouth brash new yorker right those are the objections right uh you know they've they've been calling me right wing for quite some time because i've continually been defending Trump. And I think it's part of the trope of please stop making me defend Trump. The more the media lies to support the Democrats in their narrative. You know, I think I think my, you know, true like descent into the culture war started with I worked for Vice. I worked for Vice.

OK, I was the founding member of Vice News. And what did we do? Luke and I, even after Vice, we went japan and we went around and we interviewed people in fukushima and we got to like experience a natural disaster it wasn't hyper political or anything like that when i worked for vice i went and covered conflict and crisis in other countries it wasn't u.s politics in america but while i was at fusion it's where this you know one of these guys said don't report on the fact that the New York Times is essentially doing this extremely unethical behavior. What the New York Times did when they would change links like this resulted in two of the all-time top posts on Reddit, number three and number five, getting deleted for a violation of the rules.

I thought that was a huge story. I mean, Reddit was one of the biggest social media sites in the world. Two of the biggest stories ever posted on the site were deleted because the New York Times was altering stories in secret. And he said, don't report that because we do the same thing. He now works at the New York Times. So I kind of lost my train of thought because I wanted to tell that story. Well, another aspect that I kind of wanted to intervene here, I've been waiting to say, and whether this is happening on purpose or an accident, we have to understand that a lot of this division is also being fueled by big tech social media algorithms that promote certain behaviors and demote other

behaviors. So when we look at something that's very hyperbolic, whether it's intentionally or not done intentionally, we are seeing the worst elements of our society being presented to us almost every single day. That's going to have an effect on your psyche. That's going to have an effect on your brain. It's being programmed. And when you're at war, if you can get your enemy to fight itself, it weakens them. Like if they kill, if you have 5,000 troops and 5,000 troops and they fight each other and they kill off 2,500 and 2,500, now you only have to fight 2,500 troops or 5,000 troops

instead of 10,000. That's what they're doing to us. You know what the easiest way to win a war is? Get your enemy to kill themselves. I guess. Yeah, that's a better. I was going to say, get him to stop reproducing at all or get or subject. Yeah.

Yeah. And if you look at the fertility numbers and if you look at the reproduction numbers, if you look at the marriage numbers, they're all down in the decline in the toilets. I'm not saying it's intentionally being done. I'm just saying. I think it is. I think that some for some reason the u.s constitution is such a threat to globalization or or you know global socialism or whatever great reset can't happen that they're using post-modernism to inflame people through social media and it's

like black rock and state street these global funding organizations are using this psychosis and they're like driving us against each other. The Pope has come out in support of the Great Reset. But the problem with the Great Reset is that the United States has a constitution. They can't do anything about the constitution. I mean, I think there's only one thing that would actually get rid of the constitution, and that's a civil war. So, you know, I mean, if you're talking about dichotomies here, I think you have another dichotomy that you're really hitting on. and we're all kind of dancing around this word that – expecting somebody to say, but I don't. But you have, on one hand, nationalism, national identity.

On the other hand, we have something that can't exist at the same space, but has a tremendous amount of financial vested interest and energy and power behind it, and that is consumerism. Those two things can't exist in the same place. Capitalism. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. Well well there's a difference in capitalism i like consumerism because capitalism encourages bold thinking revolutionary change um creative disruption whereas consumerism basically they they just want you to have an earthworm existence where you consume excrete consume excrete and die well the the great reset is opposed to that. The Great Reset wants people not to own anything.

Well, if you don't own anything, but you have to pay everyone forever. You have to pay that rent forever. Right, right, right. You can buy a cell phone, and guess what? You don't even own it, and it's going to be replaced in five years because you don't stop paying. When you go on the World Economic Forum, you see a lot of generalized, bland language like fairness, equal outcome, the public good. But essentially, when you deep down and you look into more of their text, what are they talking about?

More taxes, more regulations, more free trade agreements like the TPP, which, of course, benefits the corporate billionaire wall street banking class which is in cahoots with also other foreign governments that they greatly benefit of when they subvert other people's individuals will and sovereignty and freedom that weasley language you cite that is concealing that yeah that is the biggest tell yes of how malignant and uh and uh malevolent it is but you hide it, because our U.S. Constitution, it's incredibly explicit. There's no doubt, there's no weasel words like that. It says exactly what it means, and you know what it means,

whereas those buzzwords you're throwing out, it's like, oh, it sounds good. The equality, sustainability, the fourth industrial revolution. Especially equality of outcome, that's the dangerous, because you have equality of opportunity, which is great,

but equality of outcome is not great. That's where you force people. Do you guys know that in the U.K., they announced high-value individuals will be exempt from quarantine? which is great we all but equality of outcome is not great that's where you force do you do you guys know that in the uk they announced high value individuals will be exempt from quarantine i'm not surprised by that it means that if you're a wealthy and successful business person you're free to do what you want travel where you want to go i bring this up because maybe a lot of people don't know this you know the planet has people who have reached a certain level of wealth they're completely they can buy their way out of jail.

I don't want to put it that way. They don't exist in the law in any capacity. So one way to put it is they can fly in a private plane and land in an airport without passports. They don't need any of that. They can go where they want, when they want, for any reason because they're rich and powerful. And I've actually met some of these people

and they've told me the stories about how they do it and why they do it. And once you reach a certain amount of wealth, it doesn't matter if the United States is imposing a lockdown. It won't affect you at all. In fact, the Great Recession would be greatly beneficial to you because while everyone else would lose ownership of everything, you'd have free access and free reign to do whatever you want indefinitely. Yeah, especially individuals like Bill Gates that promised to donate all of their wealth to charity 10 years ago, and now has doubled his wealth. He's also literally on CNBC talking about how vaccines have been his greatest ever investment, and how it's a 20 to one return for him personally. So so I do believe that when you mandate them, exactly when when and this is again, Bill Gates, the person pushing for a lot of these policies and also pushing for the global reset, a part of the other big players here that are calling for this and are saying we got to do this.

Essentially, they do care because it does essentially work out for them in certain ways, like the Bill Gates. Very, very powerful interests. The World Economic Forum has publicly stated they want a great reset. They published this. The New York Times then wrote a story saying it was a baseless conspiracy theory. We're past that point now where we're seeing articles from like the Guardian where it says the great reset is being maligned. So now they're like openly just being like, of course, we're going to do this. Of course, it's our opportunity. The Constitution's in the way.

So they're going to own stuff that we're going to rent from them? No, no, no, no. We have a Constitution. So it's been very, very difficult. I mean, you look at the Republican states and they've said no. You look at Pennsylvania and Michigan and the Supreme Courts, I think of even their states, have struck down their attempts at locking down. This is what they want is a world where no one owns anything. They don't mean everyone owns nothing.

They mean that most people own nothing. They're going to own it and we're going to rent it from them. And they're all going to do it in the name of equality and sustainability by pushing again, more controls, more regulations. So independent people can't start their own businesses, can't have their own businesses. All the competition against them and their buddies is totally wiped out. And they call this redefining capitalism. Have you seen the video of the woman in California from the Pineapple, was it Pineapple Hill?

Where she's, the Hollywood has set up these picnic tables and benches and then she can't have hers? What did she say? She said, everything I own is being taken from me. Yes. The rich people are doing fine. I mean Bezos, Bill Gates, these wealthy individuals have made so much money in the past year. The Amazon stock has skyrocketed. Why?

Because small businesses shut down and big box stores are allowed to to expand so i feel like we're heading towards idiocracy we're gonna have one store you know you might have you guys in the movie where it's just one big costco that's gonna be amazon when you want goods you're not gonna go to the store you're gonna you're gonna go to amazon it's it's only the only way to get stuff well let's talk about the monopoly of facebook and how they're looking at breaking up the monopoly, talking about big giant corporations. Facebook is, I mean, Facebook is in a different vein. There, it's, I don't know.

But specifically, when we look at that article, when you say you won't own nothing, it was from an article from the World Economic Forum about their vision of 2030. And it specifically said, you will will own nothing you will have no privacy but you will be happy in in other words human slavery is going to be back they're not wrong and our friends are going to benefit from it ignorance is bliss to some people i would argue against that in so many different instances no no ignorance is bliss it's it's true right so i'll put it this way if there was a uh a space colony floating in orbit where everyone who lived there was, you know, advanced a thousand years of technology and they of freedom and liberty away from the individual, then they won't long for what they don't know exists. So they want to take away ownership so that you're happy and complacent in the future, not even thinking it can exist.

I think the human spirit and human will naturally goes towards liberty, towards freedom, towards sovereignty. What did Harriet Tubman say? I have freed many slaves slaves and i would have freed many more if only they knew they were slaves that's true uh there are instances where you could look at the pessimistic aspect of it and there are aspects of it that you could look at the aspects that propelled humanity and progressed us forward in positive ways and that road is always the road of freedom, the road of freedom. If you look at civilizations and how they stifled, they stifled when there is a lack of freedom, there's a lack of communication, there's a lack of dialogue. And now us getting this dialogue taken away from us is the first warning shot that I think people would really

need to pay attention to. Because once we can't even talk to each other, once we can't even be able to listen to what's really going on there, we've already lost. You know, when I grew up at that step, I used to listen to a lot of punk rock and there's a song by a band called Anti-Flag called Underground Network. And one of the lines is Underground Network,

alternative communication. I think it's really funny because that was a very left thing back in the day. And now we are at the point where it is the right. YouTube has explicitly stated, if you believe in specific things about this election that would be beneficial to Trump, they will remove your content from the platform. An overt and outright benefit to Joe Biden, just like censoring the story of his family being crooked. And he, look, Joe Biden facilitated his son's trip to China to negotiate one of these deals. got what was it a five million dollar uh forgivable interest-free loan they called it

billions i mean forgivable it it means you don't got to pay it back okay so it's a gift it was just a bribe no no no no you can't accuse them of taking a bribe that would be that would be a defamation is there any punishment to not giving back a forgivable loan? So a forgivable loan could be like, hey, Ian, I'll lend you $100. And if you bring in the Amazon boxes when they come, I'll forgive the loan. So there's a condition that can be met that makes it so you don't owe me any money anymore. Wow, and it can be any condition. Tony Bobulinski said he told him not to take the money, and they got rich behind his back, and he thinks they're compromised.

The media suppressed this, and just like youtube is now telling us they're going to suppress information i'm i'm really interested to what happens at the out the result of some of these lawsuits pertaining to fraud if something favorable happens for trump and a judge asserts that what youtube said you can't say is in fact true and when i asked them about this they had no answer they were like you can't make these claims and i said what happens if a judge agrees and says it's true well you know our policy says i have a question for you does does your policy uh prohibit you from questioning uh kennedy's victory against nixon really yes so illinois you can't discuss the fact yes so that's actually a historical uh uh conspiracy i guess like there there are accusations that uh the mafia helped jfk i guess is that what the story was well

there's a lot of people like anything that moves far enough back in time you start to get experts who re-review things and find oh maybe this was the case or you know i don't know it was a homosexual or something just reviewing it and saying, well, maybe academic research. But asserting it as fact. So I think a researcher would say we found evidence that suggests as such. And I guess that's fine. Let's assert this is awesome then. I've never heard anything about this.

Can you talk about this? So I think there's only one president who lost Florida and Ohio to not get elected. Just two presidents. I could be wrong about this. But I'm pretty sure Richard Nixon in his race with in the election with Kennedy

Nixon won Ohio and Florida but lost the election. And Donald Trump. Donald Trump won Ohio and Florida but lost the election. What year was this? The Nixon-

60, was it 68? No, it was 60. 60 flat. Oh, 60. It was the end. No, it was 60. 60 flat. 60. Oh, 60. And the end of Eisenhower. Those are cool debates because Nixon was all sweaty. I mean, he just lived like some of the first debates.

But what YouTube said is you can't question the outcome of a historical election. if you said that there was widespread fraud that resulted in you know and this is the second criteria i'm being trying to avoid the algorithm just because it's hypothetical uh that resulted in kennedy you know winning or nixon losing that would also be a ban of bull defense what about in another country i wonder yeah i was just thinking that does this apply to north korea right during the north korean elections can you not detest the north korean right i think i think YouTube saying historical election criteria is just a manipulation where they could give themselves an excuse. What is historic election? Every election is historical. We number the presidents and have lists of them.

They go in history books. Yeah, they go in history books. They go in the encyclopedias. So that's a ridiculous bar. I think YouTube should build a zone where we can talk about this stuff. No, you don't get it, man. Like the conspiracy zone and then just don't monetize it. Isn't it kind of crazy, though, that they want to do something right, but the language they came up for it was just so pants on head stupid.

Isn't that surprising? Wouldn't you have expected them to come up with something a little bit more bulletproof or something you couldn't just pick apart so easily? I think the issue is— That's the best they came up with is, oh, these are the rules. Yeah. Yeah. They're trying to find a way and a right time to stop people from talking. What they're doing is over the way described it is there's run a large island with sheer cliffs on every side.

And over time, the cliffs have been eroding. And it's all, you know, from the right for the most part. Well, it's also a chilling effect, which is also important here, because i remember when the hunter biden story came out i had to make a decision i'm like you know big news organizations are getting canceled for this if i mentioned this i could get canceled do i even talk about this and i have to say yes but i could imagine there's other people in my position who would say no i'm not going to talk about it because i want to play it safe and some of them did get banned yeah tons of the the the videos uh tons of i think 8 000 channels this year were deleted just outright with no strikes just nuked some of them because they were questioning uh covid

guidelines and restrictions so just gone some of them with medical doctors and professionals with literal phds and pathologies looking at scientific data and breaking it down so people understand it were banned because they went against the procedures and protocols of the World Health Organization, which keeps flip-flopping and changing their official stance. I think I like YouTube better now than 2008 because we can stream live on it. They didn't have the tech in 2008. But in 2008, you guys check out Warren 25. Go look at old War in 25 videos.

People said crazy stuff. You could scream anything at the camera as long as it wasn't explicitly illegal. YouTube has become, for all intents and purposes, like, I don't know, Netflix. In 2013, I know people who work at Google. In 2013, I had a meeting with some Google employees, and they said, Netflix is our biggest competition. And I said, what are you talking about? I was like, you represent individuals who can make channels, and they talk to their friends and their families, and it creates a decentralized network from the smallest audience to the biggest. What makes you think you're competing with Netflix?

And it was simple. They said, look at Vice. When Vice.com came on the scene, they were getting tens of millions of views on their documentaries. When Netflix went digital and started allowing streaming, YouTube lost that viewership, but more importantly, vice documentaries dropped by like 80% in viewership. Millennials were going on YouTube to look for content to watch, to stream. So Netflix launched a high quality, you know, streaming content, and then people chose that over YouTube. So YouTube's ever since then been prioritizing Disney Channel-esque type content.

Well, they changed their algorithm to promote long-format videos rather than short-format videos because, if you remember, back in the day, it was two-minute videos, four-minute videos that were the most popular. Now it's 10 minutes plus, and you see— Because they hurt you if you don't. Yes, exactly. So that's another incentive that's that's i should say they only promote 10 minute plus the algorithm doesn't promote you if you don't follow these like and there's a and there's a ton of them that you have to follow which is absolutely crazy and insane one i wonder if netflix will start allowing you to flip on a camera and stream live and get ad revenue because it's the other way around youtube's gonna eventually take that right away uh you think they'll get rid of it i think it's youtube's biggest value is being able to flip a camera on and get paid no you can't get paid

yeah you get ad revenue luke's not in the partner program well not right now i got kicked out you can't get back in well and they're supposed to review it within a month it's been it's been 10 months now well then they should review it do you know do you want to know why the only reason uh well i don't get too specific but i can get a youtube channel uh monetized rather rather It's been 10 months now. Well, then they should review it. Do you want to know why the only reason? Well, I don't want to get too specific, but I can get a YouTube channel monetized rather quickly. I have to meet the criteria of, I think it's like, what, 4,000 hours and 1,000 subs? Yes. And then I have to actually just call Google and be like, hey, I've got a channel. Can you guys monetize it?

And they'll say, we'll get back to you. So did you say you thought YouTube was going to get rid of that feature? YouTube has already gotten rid of the Open Partner Program. It's gone. Oh, yeah. It's not open anymore. But I wonder if Facebook's doing it right. I think we're going to come to a point in a year or two where YouTube disables user uploads without certification.

So in order to upload, you'll have to submit your ID and then wait a month and then they'll approve you and then you can publish to YouTube. And then to get into the Partner Program, it's going to be, you know, they're going to have to wait a month and then they'll approve you and then you can publish to youtube and then to get into the partner program it's going to be you know they're gonna have to wait a year they're probably going to put like you have to be a user uploading content for six months so we can review your content submit your id and verify your identity give us your tax forms six months later brain chip vaccine vaccination certification you don't want to make the barrier in your neural link so we can scan your brain entry too hard because it'll be too easy for other people to go on their own website and stream live and take monthly subscriptions.

That's almost here. Hold on. Why is it that... I think you're right. One thing that keeps YouTube dominant is the partner program. So long as people know, if I go on YouTube, I make money.

If I go on Minds.com, I don't. You get crypto. You can get crypto, but they turn their back on what made them great. What made YouTube great was individuals coming together and just, without the corporate squeegee clean PR, corporate approved talking points, just were natural, just were real. It was organic. It was something to really watch and to be surprised by and to really kind of progress yourself and to really expand your mind with all these different opinions and different talking points. And now it's just like, here's Disney Plus and all this other nonsense and crap that

you see everywhere regurgitated in the same format and way. I think Steven Crowder is, so the way I described it is the cliffs are eroding. So two years ago, there was the far right edge of the cliff and the far left edge of the cliff and the far left edge of the cliff actually did face some erosion. They were actually suppressing some content, and they did ban a bunch of creators recently. There was actually a trend. Well, this happened on Twitter. So in the general free speech conversation, a bunch of leftists now got banned.

And like I said, I said they're useful. What did they say that got them banned? Nothing. They were just one day just gone. So I think it was their usefulness to the establishment had had had is gone. Expired. So now while they were allowed to stay on the platform and advocate for certain things, once the election happened, they got rid of them. But anyway, the the right end of the cliff has been eroding for years.

I was actually interviewed by Oliver Darcy of CNN about the troubling nature of banning the alt-right from social media. And I just, my point was they can have, you know, deplorable opinions so long as they're not breaking the law, calling for violence, inciting violence, or advocating for, you know, horrific, you know, crimes, then they're allowed to have their opinions. And I actually, you know, Oliver Darcy of all people. So they get banned. Now we're at the point where if you question the election in a certain way, you'll get banned. Well, I think Steven Crowder is the one who's now standing with his tippy toes to the edge of the cliff as it's eroding because, I mean, he's absolutely going after these stories and interviewing people and challenging them. And then we're standing right behind him.

I mean, especially having you on the show, Matt. Yeah. What these conversations are. Thanks, Matt. You're welcome. Well, you know, we're going to have probably our biggest show. Please don't say anything, anybody, because I'm going to – I think we're going to have one of our biggest shows tomorrow. And I'm really poking the bear. So I have my limits.

I've said it over and over again. If I get banned, I'm going to go skateboarding. I'm going to go fishing down by the river. And, you know, there's only so much you can do as the cliffs are eroding before you, before you say, I will not retreat. I will not retreat. I will not. You can re-divert lava flow from volcanoes to build more landmass if you need more cliff space. Sure. I don't know how that analogy works.

You said the edges of the land were eroding. Let's build more edge. Do you not have a backup platform plan where you would go if something happened to you on this? YouTube owns the space. They own all the ad. They've monopolized the ad revenue and everything. So what we're doing right now is we're building a proprietary website so that users can subscribe as members and then get, you know,

so a more traditional business model on top of what we have. Because I think we're going to do one of our biggest shows, probably our biggest show tomorrow. And I don't think it i think it could result in a first step towards possibly getting banned because i'm just you know because i i think it's possible i think mines is really great i co-founded mines um a decade ago but we can't we don't have video streaming yet and there's no fiat you can't get paid with fiat yet either it's just crypto youtube is subsidized by google youtube loses money and

always has and the reason this happens is that youtube costs ridiculous are you familiar how bandwidth expense how expensive bandwidth is sure so right now we have uh 58,547 concurrent viewers the most we had was around i think we hit like 60 61 61 000 That means for the, what do we got? We got like 98,000 watch hours. Three megabits per second up means YouTube is sending out three megabits out time. Well, they probably compress it. So maybe a megabit times 61,000, 58,000. That's free for me.

I'm not spending any money on broadcasting all this data to people. YouTube loses money. But Google monopolized the space. So what they're doing is by subsidizing YouTube, they make sure no competitor can emerge. Why? Look, I, my videos automatically sync to bit shoot. It's a great safety because I've had videos taken down and then people can still watch them, but I can't make ad revenue on bit shoot, which means if I focus on that or even Facebook, yeah, what's up with Facebook? Can you get ad revenue on Bitchute, which means if I focus on that or even Facebook. Yeah, what's up with Facebook? Can you get ad revenue on Facebook now? So Facebook Rev actually is not that bad.

Nowhere near as good as YouTube, but it's not worth pursuing because listen, when I first started doing YouTube, this was back in 2011 or whatever, and I was getting like five bucks a week doing a video every day. And I said, if I can't survive on this, I'm going to run out of money and then I can't do anything ever again. But once you get enough money to invest in yourself, to start the business, get the ball rolling, and then make just enough, you're good. YouTube allows you to actually live. I'm not talking about even living well. Like YouTube is the only platform where you can actually pay your rent and keep working. Buy mansions. Used it for me.

When you get to a certain point, you've got several gold YouTube awards and you have a certain level of viewership, you make a lot of money. There's no way that I could make anywhere near as much money on any other platform. So it's also like this. What people need to realize when they're like, Tim, you've got to go to an alternative platform. If YouTube bans me, I'll have to fire everybody. That's it. Everyone's fired. There's no money to pay bills

so this you know youtube controls they own it that's why the big move right now is we we are working on putting together a proprietary website so that people can become members and get access to premium content the idea is going to be that we'll do a show when we wrap up the live show we do a bonus 10 minute segment for members only and and you know give a value proposition to everyone you know so people who are already members um well we'll have to figure it out because I want to make sure everybody gets access to it. It's not super easy. But maybe using the membership thing on YouTube and then also having our website. If YouTube bans us then, we'll have paying subscribers. But then there's a whole marketing aspect to it, user growth and things like that

becomes very difficult and stagnant. My bigger concern is, you know, we, this, this is a company. I have people who are, you know, staff employees. And if I get banned, then I can't have no money to pay anybody. Maybe YouTube's the monopoly then. Yes. Well, it's Alphabet. It's Google. It's Alphabet. They're nailing Facebook with a monopoly charge, which I think is maybe foolish because if I was saying this before the show, if Zuckerberg has access to all that code and then he has to give up WhatsApp and what's his other company, Instagram,

Instagram and WhatsApp, they'll just, they'll rewrite that software function for Facebook prime. And then, right. So it's, it's, it's,

you know, they tried that with Snapchat when they did, I forgot what's called Facebook, like disappearing messages and it didn't work stories. I forgot it was called if, if disappearing messages, and it didn't work. Stories. I forgot what it was called. If Facebook created a Snapchat clone, it did take off. So they tried buying Snapchat. Snapchat wouldn't sell.

They tried cloning. It didn't work. So it could be if Instagram is broken off from Facebook, they won't be able to recreate what Instagram is because Instagram has the community. They'll have a do not compete clause along with the the sue without with the breakup. I don't know. I just think that conservatives aren't going to go away. You can ban Stephen Crowder. And I don't think conservatives are going to be like, well, I guess, you know, that's it.

No, they're going to I think Parler might be the biggest indicator of just they can't get rid of this faction you know youtube twitter uh the democrats would love to absolutely erase the populist right and and the general right from existence in terms of public communication they can't and and you know they can't control parlor now too many prominent individuals are on it and i'm surprised donald trump hasn't been using it he absolutely needs to go on there if donald trump only made posts from parlor at this point on the media would do nothing but say parlor parlor parlor there's another one called rumble i keep hearing about it's a video video hosting library is another one where you can get crypto does parlor kyc people going on there and then i also think trump might lose his twitter

account soon as well i don't't think so. Maybe, maybe. They've been saying that the moment Trump is, you know, Biden's inaugurated, Trump loses his protections. And then he's got a bunch of tweets already they'll probably just get rid of, like they'll just ban him. But I think it was Michael Malice who said this. They're not going to get rid of him because he's too much of a prominent character that generates, you know, traffic for the site. Before Trump became really active, Twitter was dying. The mainstream media was dying. Yes.

Yeah. Ratings were collapsing. I got this feeling like we should put media presence on every site, on Rumble, Library of Minds, Facebook, Instagram. But it's like, I don't want to. We should just have our own site, our own thing that we own. I don't like the ISP. You know, there used to be a little bit of technology that made that very easy, but it seems to have faded away. Do any of you remember something called

RSS? Yeah. Look, if you think about it, if everybody had their own social media RSS feed, then nobody would centrally control it. It'll be sort of network, and you just subscribe to the RSS feed that you want, and it generates what would have been your feedback in the day, but I guess your timeline, we call it now,

and it'll all be completely independent. That's how podcasts work. Yeah. So for people who aren't familiar, I don't upload to iTunes. I upload to a server which produces an RSS link, and then all the podcast directories just have the link. Right, but back in the day, business-to-business RSS feeds for podcasts and other things like that, right? Because the services need something wrong. But back in the day, a person would click the link to, yeah, I want to share this, you know, have this RSS feed. And actually, Google canceled. Was it Reader? Was their big RSS tool? They took it away. And, you know, it just became so far out of mainstream. But it used

to be a great thing. You'd have news groups, and it wasn't centrally controlled like it is now. This idea of a big central power controlling your algorithm, controlling your timeline, is absolutely insane. It's one of the reasons I hear some people on the internet say, the revolution won't be in your timeline or in your newsfeed. But there's also another aspect to this that we have to understand, that there have even been psychological studies showing how the algorithms could manipulate people's emotions and feelings and that certain algorithms can make you feel sad. Facebook admitted they were doing experiments on people.

Exactly. And on unsuspecting individuals, not people who wanted to participate, but people who they were looking into and data feeding, harvesting so much information about them that it's absolutely scary because as we were talking about, I don't know if we were talking about this on the show, Facebook knows when you go to take a dump to that level of certainty and they know so much about you and they data harvest every little aspect of you and now they're toying and they probably already figured this out how to manipulate people's emotions and feelings and to make you feel scared, sad, and horrified or happy, productive, good.

And then when you look at the mental health crisis in America, it really makes you wonder what's going on. The only thing that gets rid of the Constitution is a civil war. Well, that's one thing that might get rid of the Constitution, but I'm sure there could be other things. Or a Biden presidency. I don't know. I mean, the Supreme Court, though, think about it. For a long time, despite the Constitution having a Second Amendment,

it was just completely ignored. So just getting enough judges who interpret the Constitution, or they start inventing rights, they find penumbras, ordering judicially things that aren't remotely in the Constitution, they just invent it.

But the solution to this whole social media thing, all the centralized control, you know what the answer to this is, right? We all just have to get our ham radio operators licenses. That's the answer. That's where the revolution has to happen. I bought one a few months ago. I could be wrong, but internet over ham.

There's a way to get text over ham. Or's a way to get like, like text over ham or geolocation, like, you know, all kinds of ways to, yeah, we could create, we could create a ham Twitter.

Yeah, we could. Yeah. We got to go to super chats. We're going long. You ready for, for super chats? They're gonna ask a bunch of questions.

You probably can't answer. I don't know what a super chat is, but user comments. Okay, cool. Questions and comments. Uh, I'm not going to read this one.

Okay, I'm going to read it. I don't know. I shouldn't read it. Read who it's from. I've got a thick skin, and I've had... No, no, no. It's just dangerous. Read who it's from so they know what...

Nine Unbuffed said, Just say when, Mr. President. Oh. Wah, wah. Yep. Gwyneth Kobach says, Tim, thanks, Tim, for your show. My little kids love having your show on

as they fall asleep so you must be doing something right keep it milquetoast that's interesting I used to I used to listen to Love Line

when I was a young teenager with like Adam Carolla and Dr. Drew yeah mine was Beavis and Butthead well yeah I mean I watched that too

but like you turn the radio on and you hear Adam Carolla yeah 9 o'clock go to sleep Joel Jamal says just broke this on my channel here in australia we had a vaccine developed back in april this year by university in the state of sa it received a seven out of seven international peer review rating they developed it so quickly because they just continued their work on the sars the sars virus oh interesting so uh did you hear about Bell's palsy and the allergic reactions from the Pfizer vaccine?

Yes. So this is an important PSA for everybody, just while we have the vaccine. Has the FDA today approved the Pfizer vaccine to be used in the United States in a vote for 17 that said yes, four said no, and one person abstained? The UK has said, and this is a legitimate warning. I can't believe people are accusing me of being anti-vax for telling you what the health administration, the NHS is telling people, if you have a severe allergic reaction, you should not be getting this vaccine because several people have developed, I believe it's 0.685% developed an anaphylactic reaction, meaning your eyes swell, your throat could swell. And two nurses in the UK needed a shot

of epinephrine an auto injector so the uk has said it can only be administered in a place where resuscitation measures are possible yeah so this is like if you're going to go get it make sure you're getting it at a proper facility and and if you have allergies the uk we're not uk citizens so take your advice from your doctor in the u.s but this is something that's happening that's 68 people out of a thousand are having severe anaphylactic shock. Yeah, and I think they said you have 1 in 200 chance of severe

side effects. Not trying to freak anybody out or anything, just trying to make sure people get the proper advice, and this is what the news organizations have issued, so this is not like this is the Guardian, you know, saying this stuff. They want everyone to know. Yeah, if you look at the side effects list, it's a little daunting. Sorry, go ahead. What could possibly cause anaphylactic

shock? Because the way anaphylactic shock works is it's the second exposure to the triggering element. Well, so it could be like... There's got to be something in there that you've experienced before to get the anaphylactic shock. Maybe they had COVID previously. It could be a preservative that's in cereals. It could be a preservative.

Maybe they had COVID previously. It's not COVID. It could be anything. They don't know. The way the vaccine works, I watched a two-minute documentary on it. It's two minutes. There's like 19 proteins in the virus, I think. And it encodes for one of the 18 or 19, the outer layer that makes the virus connect. And then your body thinks it has that protein.

And then when it sees it, it's ready for it. So if you already have that in your system, and then you get it a second, the vaccine, your body thinks it has that protein. And then when it sees it, it's ready for it. So if you already had that in your system and then you get it a second, but the vaccine, your body thinks you're getting it again. Maybe it could go into shock. It's common in medications that there could be an anaphylactic reaction. That's why they're not freaking out. They're just saying if you have allergies, this is actually typical for vaccines. You should, you know, wait.

Did you get the specifics? What back? What allergies? Or is it like they don't take it if you're allergic to it? Just if you have if you have severe allergies, don't take it. Do you see the warnings now on a lot of pharmaceutical commercials? Do not take exosperin if you're allergic to it. Yeah.

Like what kind of stupid suggestion? All right. Let's read some more Super Chats. Einar says, to Matt, please make a dead man switch for your info and have it guaranteed to go public in February. Tim should be able to help you make one that's not a terrible idea that's not a bad suggestion uh i mean it's not a hard thing to do you i mean it's not i wouldn't even necessarily necessarily say dead man switch you should set it up so that it's scheduled to release after the resolution or whatever you know yeah but even more than that is that it doesn't need a dead man switch because almost all of this

could be reproduced by anybody. It's not only that, but aren't there many, many individuals who already have copies of all of it anyway? That is true, but it's not necessarily a dead man's switch. Right, right, right. I've never had one before, so I think it's time. It would be cool. Yeah, it would be cool just to have, just to be able to say, by the way, if something happens to me. That'd be awesome.

All right, let's see. I'm not your buddy, guy says, why do we chalk up all voting fraud and propriety to always being too small to change elections? If a spouse cheats, does it get worse or stay the same over time? When someone steals, does it get worse over time? So why would voting be any different? This is one of the problems I think we have with the court system. They say, like, you need injury, in fact, in order to file a suit. But then, so that means that the impropriety can continue until someone receives damages enough. So a better example would be

defamation. When I've had news outlets and, you know, activists outright lie and make things up, you can't do anything about it because the lawyers will ask you, what's your damages? And it's like, okay, well, this has caused a threat to my advertisers okay how many advertisers have you lost i'm like are you serious i have to wait until my business collapses before i can do anything about this they'll just keep doing it exactly it's like the opposite of the broken window theory the giuliani version not the economics version is that if if you tolerate a neighborhood with broken windows you just tolerate because it's such a minimal infraction to the law no big deal or you tolerate uh jaywalkers well then you just encourage greater and greater crimes but if you crack down on the smaller crimes

it will abate so in the same way if you crack down really hard on defamation regardless of economic damages or instances of people casting illegal ballots uh it will it will counter the more substantial or prevent it from growing here's the most important question cory williams says what happened to your hand trump 2020 use the money well so uh i was skating earlier today and uh i was hanging out you know with adam we were skating and i had just done a on the ledge and five votes it feels unfamiliar it's a very basic, easy grind. And Adam was like, yeah, and like clapping. And I was like, oh dude, that's nothing. That's like a basic trick. And he was like, dude, take the, take the, the, you know, the compliment. And I was like, I'll do a gnarly 5-0 shove at first try.

And so this is a little bit more complicated and it is something I can typically do first try, but here I was all arrogant. Like you think that was cool. Watch me do this. And then I went flip over went flipped over slammed on my hand and i actually thought i broke it but it's just sprained so uh the moral of the story is this is something every skateboarder uh is supposed to know you don't screw around and you respect the trip when you're always doing it because you always get hurt whenever you're like just goofing off and so here i am like i'm just gonna do this and i'm you know i wasn't thinking and i slipped and there you go but it's mostly fine also learn how to take a compliment to him i know you're great at your job well it was it was it was it was more of like a hokey joke where like adam was laughing and i'm like oh yeah i was like check this out you know what i mean and then i fell

because like there you go not you should see the new setup though we're building a bar it's going to be called the grind bar dude skateboarders it's an actual bar you can drink on and you can grind on it. So we have the skateboard construction company that built everything left this really long bar. I forgot what it's made of. But it's great for grinding on a skateboard. Grinding on a skateboard is when you jump up and the metal part of the trucks, the wheel part, slides across the metal. And so we're making a bar and the front of the bar is going to be grindable.

We're going to call it the grind bar. Yeah. But it's an actual bar. You can like sit down and drink. Yeah, so we're actually going to have drinks and people are going to work as a workshop. We've got a 3D printer and stuff. Yeah.

It's going to be really, really cool. Laser incoming. All right, let's see. This one just came in, so I'll read this one now. Logan Matthew says, Please look up the OBDM podcast on YouTube. The host midnight,

Mike, his birthday is tomorrow and he has put in over 15 years building his community as a gift. I thought I could try to get you both in touch. The world would be better place with both, uh, with you both had a conversation. All right.

Midnight, Mike and the OBDM podcast. Ready to rumble says Tim constantly kissing YouTube's arse. I mean... Well, I would disagree with that. I mean, you know... Wait till you see what happens tomorrow. Yeah, one of the reasons, like...

I mean, you have me on, which is, like, pretty... I mean, you're taking a principal stand, which is commendable, and you gotta give respect to that. YouTube hates Luke. Yes. I have... I had many encounters with Eric Schmidt that were pretty interesting at Bilderberg, to say the least. So I appreciate what you're doing.

You're making a stand. And that's commendable. Yeah. Don't ever hesitate to pick up the enemy's ammunition off the ground. It's figuratively. Yes. There's an old story of um i can't remember it maybe people in the chat will know the story but there was like i think it was like britain

and france or whatever fighting and what one side did was they made it so their arrow notches were really really thin and small that way their bows which is a thinner string could fire back the enemy's arrows had a large notch but the enemy couldn't fire back their arrows that have small notch get it it's clever huh yep this is a good metaphor for what you're doing right now right don't let your enemy use your ammo against you and be prepared to counter what they're using you know all right let's see waffles sensei says tim you can still talk about everything you want on youtube without getting censored you just have to say the opposite thing with really heavy sarcasm. And then you will know if it's the algorithm or people watching. Well, that's the joke we were talking about earlier.

Like if we were if I said something, I'm going to avoid using the full joke because I'd probably get banned. But if I went, of course, that's why Joe Biden won. Just very OK, for those are listening, I just did a really heavy and obvious wink at the camera. I think they could hear it. It was so heavy. Yeah. So it's like if you just, you know, if you were like, I absolutely think Joe Biden legitimately won.

He's the greatest president of all time. They'll build facial recognition to tell. But I wonder if in the future when the AI comes and tries and fights us, if sarcasm is going how we win well i think what would happen is we'll be sitting here talking and then as soon as you cross the line the gigantic mech robot will walk up the stairs and go like drop the sarcasm we'll be like okay okay and like the guns go no no no okay we're done we're done we're done and then it walks away no i think uh there's an outer limits episode where they had this thing called the stream where there were like modems all over the place, and it was hooked into their brains. And it always knew it was like essentially sentient.

So it'll be more like that, you know. We'll be Neural LinkedIn. You know, I'll tell you this. You're familiar with Neural Link, right? Elon Musk's, you know, everyone's good. You know, I think, Luke, you're not going to get it, right? I think that's a easy no. Are you going to get it, Matt?

I am not intending to surrender any of that i i was uh i i could be you know remembering this wrong has been like 20 years but my grandpa was talking to me about social security numbers and how he thought it was insane that we got registered a number with the government and how crazy was that but for me he was like you don't care because it's it's always existed it's normal for your life but he's like, you don't care because it's always existed. It's normal for your life. But he's like, this is nuts. I think he was... When did the social security number thing happen? It was like the...

1930s. 1930s. Well, it was FDR, so... Yeah, yeah, yeah. So my grandpa was like... I think he was a kid or a teenager. There was a big pushback against that. Yeah, they thought it was insane.

Like, I got to get a number? Are you nuts? In fact, the law was specified. It was printed on the social security card itself that it is not allowed to be used as identification. Wow. Yep. Oh, how time has changed. The old social security cards have that.

And now it is. These numbers and these are tracking device numbers with your personal phone number. The idea of the phone, yeah. You can change your phone number. So I think in 50 years, everyone's going to be neural linked, and they're going to be like, who wouldn't want the neural link? Wait one second. I'm getting a message from our sweet overlord you know they can track you with this thing yeah that's what they're going to say to each other you know the neural link you can

get tracked with a neural link and they'll be like yeah i know it's going to be like people are going to get installed the um the home assistant neural link plugin and they're going to be sitting there and they're going to go and they're just going to say like neural link when was x y and z and they're like you have one of those you have the assistant in your brain you're not spying on you right whatever i want to say so many things about buttocks but this is a family friendly show we can't get into that we're seeing the same thing i think we'll see that evolution with um automobiles remember how hard a fight it was to allow ai driven cars on the road like you know california they wouldn't allow it certain

restrictions very hard and it's kind of edging that way and i i believe that our our children's generation are probably going to grow up with the other way around so you need a special license if you can get one at all to drive your own car because you're only going to be allowed to be in an ai driven car i don't know why i'm thinking about michael hastings now but i am you know yeah yeah for those that aren't familiar i'll give you the quick gist one day he went to his neighbor he's a journalist who's he working on a story about um top military officials and intelligence specific guy uh you forgot the general's name so he went to his neighbor's house and he said that he had seen someone fiddling around under his car and wanted

to borrow his neighbor's car and his neighbor said no you can't use my car and then i think it was what that night his car was going 70 miles an hour down was at wilshire boulevard in la and hit a tree and exploded it was like two in the morning and i think it was after he left the bar so there was some ideas that maybe he was wasted and like depressed but that was usually if the cia is going to have you killed they try and make you look depressed and that it was a suicide wasn't joe biggs uh his friend i mean a lot of people were friends with him he was i think he was more of like a uh in like the glenn greenwald kind of circles yes so ai cars careful is what you're saying all right let's do some more super chats naomi matthias says when tim pool and rush limbaugh say the same thing has to be political singularity i could be wrong um i could be absolutely wrong

about all the civil war stuff the only thing i can say is, for all I know right now, the lawsuit gets booted and then all of these Republican states go, oh, well, and then it's over, right? Sure. Maybe. Or maybe we've just been seeing constant escalation the entire time and now we have the most extreme escalation states lining up against each other. But for real, it could just stop. I have no idea. I can't predict the future. Who knows what's gonna happen so on one super chat they just said uh

that like countries have gone to civil war for way less than what we're seeing now yeah but i have to imagine it's not going to be like right now what happens the supreme court i imagine they're not going to take i really do um because i've read a lot from people on the left and the right why supreme court would not want to take this. And they might not. I don't think anything would happen right away. But what happens in, you know, next year when, you know, Joe Biden says he's going to he's going to order a 100 day like mask mandate nationwide or whatever? People are going to say no. They're absolutely going to say no.

And then that's that's a really dangerous precedent because it precipitates a loss of confidence in government. And government is nothing but the confidence of the people. The commander says Trump should split with the reps and make a Trump party. From there, he should take over the alliance party, which is centrist, made of 15 smaller populist centrist parties and appeal to central Democrats and libs. Tim should like alliance. Oh, check it out. All right, let's see rita ho says

ccp has moved forward with their agenda and start to pave the path for kamala to take over by investigating hunter biden well what people are saying now about the stories coming out that hunter biden is compromised and joe is that it's uh it's not an accident they need a reason to remove joe b Biden and make Kamala Harris the president now. So now they're going to be like, oh, no, Joe, he's whatever. But I think that's a bit too conspiratorial. I think these I think what really happened is nobody want to do the story like you were saying because

they don't want to be the journalist who hurt Joe Biden and now the election's over. They don't care and they're going to cover the story because it gets some clicks. So based says four Democrat senators sent a letter to YouTube on november 24th suggesting censorship of election fraud speech on youtube government censoring through private business yep absolutely marcus pinson says earlier this week ian said he wanted to be able to make his own ammo from

scratch i've been working on something for a few years that i think is right up his alley i messaged him on instagram Tell him to hit me up. I promise it's really cool. I got a lot of response about that. One person said, hey, you said you wanted to make ammo. I got some advice for you. Don't bother. It's almost impossible to find primer.

Someone else suggested that if we can get the primer, they'll make it for us. It seems like a huge and really complex. Only four factories make primer in the United States, and they're all fulfilling government contracts and you need like the explosives license to make manufacture powder it's extremely difficult you need a huge investment and there's a big process and you barely get a return on your investment all things said i haven't responded to anyone about it because i was a little overwhelmed and maybe it's just something we shouldn't focus on right now i don't know see brokerages uh brokages over hokages i said brokerages until i saw the last word and then i understood the reference says tim you always talk about the spanish civil war when the scenario be more closer to the russian civil war where the bolsheviks own the cities and the whites were

more in the rural areas and past the urals uh perhaps it's because i watched a documentary on the spanish civil war uh two years ago and at the time there was like parallels and people were talking about it quite a bit but uh since then i've only you know i've not watched but i'll i'll i'll read up and watch something about the russian civil war as well a lot of people are comparing it to the chinese cultural revolution to what's happening now as well yes more than the russians were at world was world war one which we're not in right now. And they had a monarchy, which we don't have. But the Chinese were like the cultural revolution. Yeah.

Maybe closer to Cambodia. Khmer Rouge. That's true. Pol Pot. Yikes. Yeah. Let's see. MD Adrian says, unspoken problem in the U.S. is that we are not really a people at this time.

They have broken us until we have no common language, history, ethnic background, culture, and now no rule of law. What is left to hold us together? The Constitution, I suppose, but a lot of people, the New Republic published an article saying it's time to abolish the Constitution. You know, another country found itself, barely a country found itself in this position historically. Are any of you familiar with the history of Singapore? No. Well, basically, Singapore was ethnically divided, linguistically, religiously divided. The crime was so bad there that Malaysia actually kicked it out of the country. It said, you're no longer part of us because it's this island on the south of their island chain. Completely got rid of them. And what pulled it back together was they had a revolutionary leader, Lee Kuan Yew, who imposed strict nationalism.

He imposed a national language, which happened to be English, which didn't make anybody happy because it wasn't their native tongue. He imposed strict rules, anti-corruption, et cetera. And that was the kind of leadership things as a national unity leader. I think with a Trump presidency and a Trump continuation, you get people building a community, a communal identity around the constitution around america but uh if we carry on with the path that was you know everything before trump you get you know people are dejected disconnected there is constant fighting over you know identity-based issues and the interest of the elites is just to enrich themselves as the ship crashes because why bother if the ship's going down there's someone was referencing buchanan as one of the worst u.s presidents ever and it was the lead-up to the civil war i think james buchanan um and that

biden is kind of reminiscent of a buchanan but he's going to be a nobody know nothing president four years of that's going to drive people just to chaos and what people need to realize too is i bring this up a lot as history is condensed when we read it so it may be that we get a four years of a buchanan like biden and then it results in the return of Trump in 2024. And then maybe some kind of civil war, or maybe Trump comes back and fixes it. I don't know. But when people read about the civil war or any war, any history, they read the highlights back to back to back to back to back.

You know, especially if you read Wikipedia, it's like this happened, this happened, this happened. People got to realize, man, there was like months and years where nothing happened. And I think that's one reason why people don't understand it could happen here. And we could be in it right now because they expect one day to turn the TV on and have a news anchor go like Anderson Cooper says, ladies and gentlemen, America is in a civil war. And that's like, that's it. That's how we know. No, you, you won't, you, you really won't. You know, I think what's interesting is, uh, was it seven States seceded from the union before there was a,

there was a war and it was actually, I don't know interesting is, was it seven states seceded from the union before there was there was a war? And it was actually I don't know how long it took after the secession for the fire, you know, the shot at Fort Sumter before actually kicked off and then other states seceded. So there's actually a time period where they're like, wow, states have seceded. That's crazy, huh? And then nothing happened. But then there was war, obviously. Rob Ingram says tuned in late, so I missed everything. Hope your wrist is OK, homie.

You, among others, are the reason I'm moving towards starting my own podcast on poop tube channel. You guys rock your friendly neighborhood Philly personal trainer. Appreciate it, man. Let's see. Sleepy Dan says just add in 2016 when talking fraud, then YouTube was okay with it. But I'm. Yeah, let's see. You have again.

He says, why not move out of the u.s to eastern europe or other place which is not currently aflames you know i was actually looking at ukraine for a while yeah because uh but you don't have the second amendment you know that's one thing that's very unique to the united states where people could actually defend themselves ukraine though cost of living is very affordable and you have a lot more freedom there than you do in a lot of parts of Western Europe. If you're a middle class American and you are working remote and you can work out of a place like Ukraine, you're a king. Yes. It's really crazy.

So I think it's like $100 a month for rent on average. Yeah. The income for Ukrainians is really, really, really low. So as an American, it's like you go there. You can have whatever you want. The cost of living, the people, the atmosphere, just life overall is better for a lot of expats. And I know a lot of expats, but again.

And I, well, you know, because when I went there and I covered the You're On My Dance stuff, I made friends and I'm like, man, so cool, but I'm not Ukrainian, so, you know. But I was looking at property because I was like, look how, like, not to disrespect Ukrainians,

but it's like, if you're a middle-class american you can get a really fancy pad man it's like cost of living wow crazy an average reactor says i am a right-leaning libertarian and i want to be involved in journalism because i developed a moral conviction to fight against the establishment that betrays us in broad daylight any advice on entry-level options you know these days i really don't know. Because I used to just go out and cover stuff, but now it's like people are fighting each other. It used to be so easy. You can't travel anymore.

You know, COVID lockdowns. So I don't know what you do. Good luck. I mean, COVID aside, there's an organization called Leadership Institute, and they excel at placing prospective journalists into programs and give them a little bit of a subsidy to make it worthwhile and put you into different publications. So I'd say look into that Leadership Institute. Also, we were very lucky because we started before the crackdown. Now, imagine starting brand new, right? All these crackdowns that prevent you from reaching a wider audience. So 10 years ago, it was still sort of easy. Like you had a good message. You knew a little bit of how to make videos. You were golden.

You're great. Now you say something wrong about the election. You're done. And you're no one will ever hear of you. Yeah. Shane says, I'm a union worker and my dad is a union representative. I tried to explain to my dad how Biden is going to hurt us, but he passes me as crazy because he bases ideology off of mainstream media and what our union overarching authorities say what do i say to him um man that's tough you can say do you it depends

on the union he's in but uh joe biden is in favor of free trade agreements which will likely result in your dad losing his job so it's very hard to convince family members so it's always important not to come at it at a combative way not to try to force information down his or her throat. It's always important to share information that's important, but come at it from a perspective like, hey, I saw this. I don't know what to think of it. Since you're so much older and wiser, what do you think of this? And that worked specifically well on my family as well when it came to a lot of important issues. Remember, the way persuasion works is you convince somebody of something that they think they always and already

believed and with in those situations i would encourage you to to get at your dad the same way the grand canyon was built you find one little crack one little thing that he clearly kind of disagrees with biden on and you kind of put some water in there you freeze it and expand it yeah and then it makes the crack bigger and you put water and freeze it expand it again and you keep just find that one thing and use it to open up a much uh bigger well and before you know it you know four years from now like man that biden would have well so uh you know just hit him i can tell you one of the basics of uh opinion manipulation is uh it's called um rapport extreme in turn i don't know if you've ever heard of this but it's a way you convince someone to move their opinion.

First of all, I'll just go through this whole thing. You can't make someone go from, say, being loving a person to hating a person immediately. You can only push people within their reasonable boundaries. So if someone says, this is my friend, they're cool. You can't make them say, I hate this person, but you can make them say, yeah, that is kind of annoying. He does that. You do that enough times. Eventually the person's going to be like, man, he is so annoying, man. It never stops. You get

them to that point. So rapport extreme turn is basically the first thing you have to do is agree with them so that they feel like, oh, this is what we agree on. You have, you build a rapport. Now there's a trusting relationship. The extreme is you then present something that you like about Joe Biden that you know your dad can't agree with. The turn is then you acknowledge your dad is right and that opinion was too extreme and it was him who convinced you. So an example – what's the best example? Like, OK, let's say war. Joe Biden was – part of theama administration got us in more war he never met a war he didn't like yep so what you do is the first thing you would say is you'd be like

you know i was thinking about i think you're right about joe biden you know he's probably the better choice for a lot of reasons and then your dad you know or your friend or your family member is going to be like oh yeah yeah of course they're like me now they're in my tribe you then give them the extreme opinion they can't accept i mean me, me personally. The reason I like him is because, I mean, how many wars, you know, did he get us involved in? That was a good thing. And you don't want to be crazy. You just say something that your dad's going to be like, I don't know about that. I think the wars were a problem.

You know, that's the one thing I don't like about him. So it's similar to what you were saying about finding that thing. And then your response is the turn. All right. Well, okay. I guess you're right. The wars aren't a good thing. But, you know right well okay i guess you're right the wars aren't a good thing but you know fine i guess you're right they've now given you an opinion against biden

and they've affirmed you know you were wrong so it's it's it's it's a it's an old school uh it's like a basic manipulation trick it seems very deceptive absolutely can you do it in a more loving way like i i like that biden has things, but I don't like the war. Here's the problem. I'll be like, yeah, I guess I see. So this is one of the reasons I stopped working for nonprofits, because I hate doing these kinds of things. But the issue is at fundraising, you know, like raising money for how you convince someone

to give you money. It's tough. And eventually, once you get good at it, you understand the system and how it works and how you're playing this game. The problem is there are people who are naturally good at doing things like this without realizing it. And that's considered morally acceptable. You could just naturally like poke someone and be like, well, I think the wars are great.

Then, you know, and it works for you. But people who get really good at work at a long time eventually start to understand what they're doing. And then you're like, man, I'm just just pulling people's strings and manipulating. I don't like it. So then I don't want to be involved in that. You know, I don't want to I don't want to work a job where the goal was to find a way to navigate someone's mind to to convince them and you can you can justify it any way you want but

i didn't think it was all that entertaining you know anyway we've gone a little bit over so i think we'll uh we'll start to wrap things up make sure you smash that like button if you haven't already is there anything you want to mention your social media or promote anything or let people know about what's going on? Oh, yeah. There's longer-term solutions to the stuff I'm working on. And if you want to stay tuned or get involved, just follow me on – I'm on Twitter at Matt Brainerd. I'm on Gab and Parler. So you can find me there.

So just stay in touch, folks. Right on, man. Thanks for hanging out. Thanks. You can follow me on Twitter, Instagram, Parler, at TimCast. You can check out my other YouTube channels, youtube.com slash Tim cast and youtube.com slash Tim cast news. We do this show live Monday through Friday at 8 PM.

You can check us out on iTunes, Spotify, give us a good review. It really does help with the, with the ranking and then it gets more people to watch. So also share if you think the show is good and word of mouth really helps. You can also check out the other people who are hanging out here.

We have a lucrative caskey. Yes, I am on youtube.com forward slash. We are change. And you can find me out the other people who are hanging out here we have a lucrid caskey yes i am on youtube.com forward slash we are change and you can find me on twitter instagram facebook under luke we are change and tim thank you so much for having me on i know i am not mainstream media friendly youtube loves mainstream media but i appreciate you taking the risk they don't like you but what have you said that's been all that like you know nothing nothing and i never and i never really did i know i've always you know i like thinking i like outside the box kind of research and uh yeah well maybe they'll ban me and they'll be like we had

luke on too much or whatever could happen we also got ian he's hanging out hi um and then you know luke's so humble he's got merchandise up the waz i just want to give a shout out where where can they get that thank you so much yeah ian teesprings.com forward slash stores forward slash we are change. Thank you, Ian. Matt, can people still donate to your organization? Well, we're not asking for donations. I know it's a rare thing for somebody to say, but just follow me on SockMed. We have more projects coming up. If someone were to donate to your charity, how would they go about doing that?

I would say go to givesendestengo.com slash voterintegrity and any money that's left over at the end will go to a permanent patriotic voter registration effort and anti-voter fraud effort. Cool. Thanks. Thank you. You can follow me at Ian Crossland. Right on. And of course you can follow

at Sour Patch Lids, who's pressing all the buttons. You can. I'm pushing buttons like a mad woman over here. My friends, tomorrow is probably going to be the biggest show we've ever had. We're going to get in trouble. It could precipitate the end. But it's going to be fun. And I don't want to call it revenge, you know. But it's going to be a whole lot of fun.

So I hope you're ready to come back tomorrow at 8 p.m. And I'm sure most people have already figured out what that means. i'll leave it there thanks for hanging out we'll see you all next time guys Thank you.