Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #313 - Democrat PAC Founder Justifies Executing White People For Trolling w/Ron Coleman

Episode Date: June 22, 2021

Tim, Ian, and Lydia join lawyer and commentator Role Coleman of The ColemanNation Podcast to examine the leftist PAC organizer who justified an actual murder because he mistakenly believed the victim had a confederate flag on their vehicle, examples of defamation and big tech and the role Section 230 plays, James O'Keefe's battles with lying press and Wikipedia, and Eric Weinstein's belief that people don't actually believe in wokeness. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This past weekend, we saw a really horrifying tragedy happen in Chicago. There was a man and his significant other, this woman, were driving through the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago with a Puerto Rican flag when something happened where they got ambushed. They were dragged or fell out of the car, and they were, well, the man was executed. The woman was left for dead but is in critical condition. It's a horrifying story. It's a horrifying story about Chicago. Now, do you expect a story like that to make the mainstream media? Usually it doesn't. But there is an interesting story that emerged from it. A

founder of a Democrat PAC, Political Action Committee, responded to Ann Coulter when she tweeted about this not appearing in the news by saying it was a white guy with a Confederate flag, so who cares? And then realizing that he was wrong, said, well, I was just saying that if it was a white guy, I'd have been agnostic on it, which is insane. I mean, it's absolutely insane. Like who in their right mind is going to be like, that was a good thing or at least be agnostic. No, no, no. It's wrong to kill people. Violence is bad. War is bad. It's all bad. We don't like it. When it comes to international conflict and fights, we regret that we even have to defend ourselves. When a police officer, when someone in the military or even a regular homeowner is

forced to defend themselves, it's a traumatic experience taking someone's life. Yet we have people right now on social media gloating and laughing about it. There's another event that happened too, especially if you've been following my channels, you'd have seen this. A pride event in Seattle is going to be charging white people reparations to attend. So this is all in line with the insanity that is, well, I should say the application of critical race theory. And we're hearing from so many people on the left just outright lying, saying schools aren't teaching this theory and things like that, but they are. And this is the kind of stuff that it leads to.

And it's also a big problem of social media. So we're going to talk about this. We're going to talk about a lot of things. And we are being joined by a political commentator and a legal expert. I'll just call you. There you go. Ron Coleman, legal expert. Yeah, boy.

You know, that's vague. Certainly in the room, I must be the biggest legal expert. Yes. I'm allowed to say it because I'm certainly not. I mean, you're a lawyer for, what, 30-something years, you said? 30-something years, yeah. And for someone who's only 40 years old. That's right.

That's right. Ian's actually older than you. Child prodigy. You're 10. You're in the, you know, past the bar very early. Ask anyone who knew me. They will stand up and agree that I was quite the advocate. Do you specialize in First Amendment law, or what is your specialty? Well, that's really that I was quite the advocate. You specialize in First Amendment law? What is your specialty?

Well, that's really where I have found myself now. I mean, I'm a civil or commercial litigator, and most of my career has been representing parties involved in court battles that are not criminal law and that covered a very, very wide range of topics. But one of the things that I was interested in early in my career was trademark law, which is something that appealed to me, maybe my artistic sensibility, all kinds of things. I got more involved in trademarks, and when the internet hit, I got increasingly involved in the use of intellectual property law as a way of eliminating competition on the internet by claiming trademark infringement as a way to shut people up, or copyright infringement as a way of shutting people up. I got more and more involved with First Amendment law. Also, as an Orthodox Jew, I was frequently called upon in my community to help out on religious liberties issues. So the First Amendment became more and more of a friend. And then when I represented the slants in their challenge to the Lanham Act's prohibition

on the registration of trademarks that disparaged people, and we won that in the United States Supreme Court, I then was able to combine my interest in trademark law and First Amendment law and become known as more of a First Amendment lawyer. And now I'm partners with Harmeet Dhillon, who's been doing all this religious liberties and free speech stuff for all these years. And my life is essentially perfect. So we can talk a lot about Section 230, which I've had a lot of arguments about.

It'd be interesting to hear your thoughts as well. It will. So we'll get into all that stuff as well. So what up, Ian? We got Lydia pressing all the buttons. I am here in the corner pushing buttons. I'm excited for this evening, for this voice of knowledge. She does know how to push buttons.

I do, yes. It's true. No, she was killing me last night on Twitter. I'm excited for this evening for this voice of knowledge. She does know how to push buttons. I do, yes, it's true. No, she was killing me last night on Twitter. I was giving you a hard time. Even this afternoon, right up to the... I know, yeah. You've got to keep it going.

Don't forget, go to timcast.com, become a member. We're going to have a bonus segment coming up around 11 p.m. after the show with all the fancy,

uncensored bits YouTube doesn't want us to say. But I also want to mention you don't just get access to the members-only content. We have added a newsroom where Cassandra Fairbanks has been writing a ton

of excellent articles and we are hiring, hiring, hiring. We have just about signed on our Paranormal and Mysteries unexplained writer who's going to be doing long-form investigations into a more academic

and research based approach approach into these unsolved mysteries, which could be paranormal UFOs or even just ghost stories because we want to have fun and we want to step outside the realms of politics. Why? Building culture is extremely important to winning a culture war. With your support as members, we'll be able to do that. Now, let's jump into that first story. This is from Business Politics BizPak Review. Misguided embrace of mob justice doesn't end well for Bluecheck, who took on Ann Coulter. It's an excellent title of the article. But I'll just give you the gist of it because we have the article here and we have Ann Coulter. I mentioned this in the opening, but for those that are just joining in, there was a very serious tragedy where a man and his girlfriend were celebrating

Puerto Rican Day and they were flying the flag in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago. They got ambushed. Somehow they ended up outside of their car, either dragged out or fell out, and they were shot. The man was effectively executed. The woman was left for dead in critical condition, and they were rushed to the hospital. It's a horrifying story.

But this blue checkmark on Twitter, the founder of a Democrat political action committee said, and you forgot to mention that he was flying a Confederate flag and he was white, as if that somehow justified murdering a man in cold blood. And when people called him out, he was like, OK, I was wrong about the flag. I get that. But I was just saying if it was a white guy, like even doubling down, this is the, to me, it's a shocking example of where we are today in mainstream politics, or I guess this is more worrying. Maybe this is just what people have always thought. They just didn't have a venue to blast it out to the world. When Ann Coulter would

appear on Fox news and say these things, this guy would probably be sitting in his lounge chair in his living room saying the exact same thing. It's only now that we can see what they think because they're willing to say it to everybody. I guess, truth be told, back then without Twitter, they probably would have still been willing to say it. They just didn't have any way to do it.

So maybe that's what's really happening. But earlier, Ron, you were mentioning that you're not even surprised by this and it's like not even news. No, I mean, it's news that he that anyone noticed. Yeah. I'll tell you, I mean, it's only a couple of clicks

away from last night. You know, very often, so I have a, I don't have a Tim Pool kind of Twitter account, but I've got, you know, 130 some, so I have a, I don't have a Tim Pool kind of Twitter account, but I've got, you know, 130 some odd thousand and a blue check. Oh, so you're one of them. I'm blue check too, so we're all blue checks here. Of course, yeah, blue checkers.

And often I will get into, you know, I'll scroll down into what looks like a fun scrum and say, you know, this looks like something. I should be able to get a couple of good one-liners off here. That's kind of my MO. And then I bring the culmination in. That's the name of my podcast, Culmination. Hey, right on. The culmination, although it was really meant as a pun on culmination.

Right. That's a good one. Just like the Sex Pistols were the band that killed rock and roll, I wanted to be the podcaster that killed podcasting. But not until I made a ton of money at it, see. And it was an Ashley Babbitt thread. And inevitably, there's some awful person saying well she got exactly what she deserved.

It was someone who said Ashley Babbitt got justice on January 6th. That's horrifying. Oh, in every single Ashley Babbitt thread. So often people will say to me, why did I tell you how big my account was? Because all people,

Ron, why are you bothering with this person? He has 700 followers. Answer, I'm not doing it for him. I'm not trying to convince, he's a moral retard. He's not going to, no one changes his mind on Twitter. We know that. But I do have a lot of people who are interested in how Ron will deal with this issue or with this comment because

they look to me for a certain kind of rhetorical leadership we might call it so I sort of started up with this guy and he was absolutely but you can find it all the time often I'll say well was absolutely, but you can find it all the time. You know, often I'll say, well, breaking and entering is actually not this. Well, it's breaking and entering.

You know, you can shoot someone. No, breaking and entering is in a house in Washington, D.C. It doesn't have to be at night necessarily, but it isn't a public building. It wasn't breaking and entering. Second, there is a standard, a legal standard, for the the use of force and this didn't resemble that in the slightest now as i said this is a couple of clicks away from displaying a flag which involves no violence or threat of violence there's no misjudgment that was just plain murder right this was frankly i wouldn't want to say anything too too out there that I've already said on Twitter, but I've said it. People are absolutely, I think, Tim, you absolutely nailed it.

People just feel comfortable saying it now. Someone who thinks like that has always thought like that. Or they grew up in a house where mom and pop, or mom or pop thought like that has always thought like that or they grew up in a house where mom and pop or mom or pop thought like that. I think that's the only thing that's changed. Well, I think it's possible that social media has driven these people insane

in the sense of they like to talk about the rabbit hole like these New York Times reporters and these NBC reporters. It's not true in the way they think it is. They're like, oh, YouTube's algorithm makes people go down a rabbit hole like these New York Times reporters and these NBC reporters it's not true in the way they think it is they're like oh YouTube's algorithm makes people go down a rabbit hole which makes no sense because it's only ever politics right

they make this claim that if someone watches a video on immigration within a month they'll be you know far right or whatever but if that were the case that there would be a rabbit hole for every subject it's like you watch a cartoon about Batman and then in a month you've got Batman posters all over your walls and you're running around the city just like Batman. Well, I've become

obsessed with World War I flamethrowers. Oh, the original assault weapon. Anyone getting that? Anyone getting that reference? No. It's a Thomas Wictor reference. Well, so what I do think happens though is communities can rile people up and Twitter and Facebook are the actual culprit of radicalization

not so much YouTube. In fact, YouTube gives you a big mix because it doesn't just send you down one direction. Oh, I will say, though, YouTube did have some element of this where it's like you get the same content over and over. I wouldn't say it radicalized you, other that it showed you the same thing over and over. On Twitter, you do get radicalized because what happens is you're looking for retweets

and everybody's constantly one-upping each other to be that top figure. The same thing is true with these blogs like BuzzFeed and with Vox and with Facebook. You're constantly trying to shock people into sharing content. YouTube doesn't have a direct share feature the way that Twitter and Facebook does. If you want to share a YouTube video, and you should share this one by taking the URL and posting it on Facebook and Twitter, you have to actually manually do it. This is why it's very, very difficult for YouTube-centric conversations to expand to a larger level.

People who are watching this have to actually go into the URL, copy it, then paste it on another platform. Or there's a share button they can click and then select a platform and then open up a window. And that platform may or may not preview well. And if it doesn't, it's dead on arrival. Now let's think about how Twitter and Facebook works with this like radicalization is extremism and this guy i mean this is literally a story about a guy going on twitter saying it was okay for people to be executed using his own name this is a real person this is not like you're verified right it's because when he tweets he's hoping someone will hit the retweet button and on the spot relay his message to hundreds more. So what happens is people keep trying to find what will get them attention.

When they find it, they attack it like crazy, getting more and more retweets, going more and more insane. I want to suggest that it's not always such an intense thing. I think there's actually, in a way, what I want to say here is a little scarier even. If you tell me that people are going to say shocking things in order to get attention, and this goes back to the skinheads, the punks, using swastikas. Are they Nazis? Oh, Johnny Rotten has a swastika, therefore

he wants to round up the Jews. No, no. What it means is that he wants to shock you, horrify you, get your attention. I'm not saying it's cool. I'm just saying, chill out. What you're seeing a lot of with people in this highly politicized environment is casual, casual expressions of ugly thoughts. In other words, I had a tweet, I guess it was three or four days ago.

I write these really elaborate threads. I am bringing the very substance of godly wisdom to my people. I write these incredibly insightful and original threads, and I often get nice traction. Very humble. But then, listen, if you knew how humble I was being

in describing it that way. But I had 6,000 tweets for the following tweet, a quote tweet of Biden announcing that he told the Russians the 16 things they absolutely positively get to. And I said, is this a parody? tweet of Biden announcing that he told the Russians the 16 things they absolutely positively get to.

And I said, is this a parody? Okay. Now, that went viral. That was a casual, that was like a gimme. That was this chip shot. I just felt I had to say something. And I didn't. I didn't.

But it got me a gazillion followers. Or a gazillion clicks. They're not too sticky. They're not too sticky. But people who are very, very active on social media will very just casually drop their expression. It's sort of like going to the bathroom. Like, oh, I have to eliminate. I have to eliminate. I have to eliminate, you know, I've built up too many things about how stupid Trump people are.

I need to just say that. So in other words, in a way that's worse because that's become, you know, part of that, by the way, if you want to talk. Are you saying that Twitter is basically like a septic tank of bad ideas? Like people, you build up this idea waste and then onto twitter and then everyone swims in it and basks in these ideas i think we're gonna have to think about that a little bit but i think you might be onto something i think that's certainly it i mean you know it's really funny my twitter is just like i love twitter i hated it for a long time and then i

realized you have to love it and uh again shout out out to Michael Malice because he's the master at this. But I was just like, wow. I have learned so much technique from Malice. Genius. I posted it. So I was watching the movies the other day. He is a genius. And my girlfriend mentioned that we were watching a movie where a rabbit got run over.

And I was jokingly like, oh, I can't watch the movie anymore. Oh, no, a rabbit's been killed. It was a horror movie. I was jokingly like, oh, I can't watch the movie anymore. Oh, no, a rabbit's been killed. It was a horror movie. I was kidding. And then... The rabbit was by far the least sentient thing that was killed in that movie. For sure, for sure.

But we basically came upon the joke that there's no such thing as an ugly rabbit. It was like a cute animal that was killed. And so I googled it, ugly rabbit, and boy, are there ugly rabbits. So I just tweeted, without a comment, for no reason a picture of a hairless rabbit eating kale that was very wearing a scarf very silly looking because that's

my twitter and i love it because i tweet things and i get these very serious replies from these people like you know this is probably and i'm like bro i just posted a picture of a hairless rabbit eating kale who do you think you're interacting with? Twitter is not the place for me to have a serious political conversation. But I'll post serious things there. No, it's like a waste pit of just like stupid things that I think I'm going to tweet. I just don't care anymore. I don't know.

During the election, it was different. There was so much going on politically that I'd think of something and be like, man, I can't believe this. And I just tweet it to no one in particular and then i just got to a point where i was like this is an awful vile place where people just like want to kill each other it's it's the fence between people for which they can bark at each other and so i just decided you know what i just post insane nonsense point and i practice law so to me i'm i'm inured to that. I mean, the fact is... That's a lot of what law is, right? Ridiculous arguments. I will tell you, really some of the finest people to hang out with are

lawyers. And I mean the kind of lawyers who are my kind of lawyers who try cases in the courts. During a break or while waiting for a judge, the vast majority of the lawyers that I encounter in my work, they're such a pleasure. There's a real cool aspect to that. But on the other hand, as a whole, in the work that we do, there's so much toleration for falsehood and dishonesty. And I don't only mean at the lawyer level. I mean also at the judicial level and also at the appellate level that you really do become very used to that septic tank phenomenon, unfortunately.

We're swimming in it. So, yeah, I do think that there is this sense that there's a sort of casual nastiness that we didn't have in society before. You know, you always had people who wrote nasty letters to the editor. The editors didn't print them. The editors didn't print them. Or it was the shopper, and they needed content, and there was just always the cranky guy you always complained about.

Why don't people put the shopping carts away in the stop and shop? And that was their world. You know what the first iteration of this was? Chain letters. They started in the physical world. Somebody would get a letter in the mail, and it would open, and it would be like, you have been cursed. I wonder how many young people realized these were physical letters. Did you ever get a letter in the mail and it would open and it would be like, you have been cursed. Like, I wonder how many

young people realize these were physical letters. Did you ever get a physical chain letter? Sure, of course. I remember when I was little. Mine was delivered by Pony Express. You have to keep an eye on that.

But you're only four years old. 30 years ago. Yeah, 30 years ago. So anyway, I think a lot of young people think chain letters just started with email. You might not realize

that people used to physically mail chain, like you must mail this to 17 people. But I remember the early emails. The goal was to get maximum echo, to impact the world so that people would do your thing and it would have... It's a similar reason why

people write computer viruses. They want to make something influential have an impact. Graffiti. Even when I was a kid... So I was growing up in Brooklyn in the late 60s and 70s when the city began its first massive down cycle. And people started writing on public surfaces. This was something, if you look at

photographs through the 1950s and early 60s, of even the most decrepit stations. There was no idea that people would write on stuff. And even as a child, I recognized, because I was an extremely socially aware child, that the people doing this obviously are desperate to make a mark in the world. And far be it from me, right, with my 70,000 tweets a week,

to look down on someone who wants to make a mark in the world. I get it. I get it. And especially the more powerless you are, the more of a mark sometimes you want to make. Because a person who is well-adjusted and who has normal interaction with people makes a mark by making his children happy, by making his spouse happy.

There are lots of normal, healthy ways to do it in an idealized, almost non-existent kind of existence. And then come the other... And some people need that less, and some people need it more. Everyone needs to feel valued. And if you can't be valued, then you're going to shock the world. And Twitter is this attention.

Yes, it absolutely is. It's got a point system. You earn points. Your retweets are points. Your likes are points. Your followers are points. Your followers are your ranking, where you are in the game. And when Twitter does one of its purges, and when they purged the Q people,

I lost 30,000 in a week. Wow. Now, most of those people were lunatics. So, you know, but... What about the leftist lunatics who are tweeting things like this? No, no, no. They get a free pass on all of it.

That's... Look, look, look. You've had that... There's an article going viral right now where in 2018 Newsweek was arguing that Hillary Clinton could still become president a year into Trump's presidency. Right, right. I remember that very well. Now you will get banned from YouTube if you say the same thing about Trump right now. If you say the same thing, the same thing we won't say.

That's right. That's right. In fact. Amazing.. That's right. In fact. Amazing. But that's passe. We have come to accept that that's the way our masters insist that we proceed. But, you know, it is this point system. So when they take away a massive amount of followers from you,

and now imagine when they ban somebody. So I'm one of the people who gets DMed or emailed when someone gets banned because they think for a reason that does not exist, by the way, that I'm the guy who can help them. Because you're a lawyer. I'm a lawyer, and I'm the free speech lawyer, and I'm really active on Twitter, and I'm a blue check, and I'm powerful. I'm not powerful at all. When I write letters, and I gave up a long time ago, to the head of the legal department at Twitter, she doesn't even bother to respond.

She doesn't even bother to respond. And by the way, you know who invented, talk about a hyperlink, talk about your ADHD special moment. You know who that the concept of absolutely ignoring your customers for a private company that was not actually like a utility was Microsoft. that made you buy an expensive something from them and that you had no expectation whatsoever that if you had a problem or a question that they were going to help you. Monopoly power. That is the way, right.

Because what's a utility? A regulated monopoly. Right. And when you see a company acting like a utility, ding-a-ling-a-ling-a-ling, you've got a monopoly. So let's talk a bit about defamation in Section 230 because you're a lawyer, right? That's a terrible segue, Tim. That's actually pretty good.

We're talking about big tax. Show me what. Yeah, okay, go ahead. Well, we're talking about censorship. You've got people, conservatives getting banned left and right. Q gets purged. But the Rachel Maddow conspiracy nuts are given free pass, right? Yeah.

So I want to ask you a question because i was i can't remember i was talking about i think i was talking to will chamberlain about this and we brought up several times for those that aren't familiar section 230 basically gives broad immunities to web what's the phrase they use um interactive web companies or internet service providers there you go there you go that basically means everybody for any reason okay so what happens is they can ban whoever they want, regardless of speech, because they are immunized from defamation, as well as, long story short, they won't have the immunity taken from them if they do moderate. However, what's been happening is, very obviously, most of the bans happen on the right or anti-establishment. Some of the bans happen on the left, but it's usually like anti-war, anti-establishment leftist types. Now, the problem is many people on the right seem to think there's a distinction between a publisher and a platform as if it matters. It really doesn't.

New York Times has the same protections as Twitter, but something interesting does arise out of this argument that I want to present to you. First, I'll start with the New York Times for instance, right? If somebody writes an article and the New York Times publishes it on its front page, what's the distinction between that and say, someone writing a tweet and Twitter publishing it

and putting it in its what's happening bar to everybody in the world? Oh. Putting it in the what's happening bar. Right. That's a much harder question. Because if you would have just told, if you would,

you should have asked two questions. The first question was, what's the difference between the Times publishing an article and a tweet? That's dumb though, right?

Obvious question. Right, right. And that's why I... Twitter is just mechanically... So I don't know how they choose articles for the What's Happening part. They editorialize. Oh. They select a tweet and then they write about it.

Or tweets. Okay. So if they select a tweet based on algorithms, the selection piece of it might be content neutral in and of itself. Although their algorithms are not content neutral at all. But if they editorialize, see, again, we have to ask ourselves, what's the inquiry here? Why do we care about this distinction? The simple answer to your question is there's no difference. They are now publishers.

They are now putting content into the world for which they have the same responsibility as the New York Times. So if John Smith writes an article and the New York Times says we're going to put that on the front page, the New York Times is responsible for the content in terms of defamation, slander, whatever, libel. Right? Okay. If someone writes a tweet and then Twitter says, we're going to put this in our moments tab so everybody can see it. I'm curious as to what's the difference. Well, but what's the editorial...

Okay, so you said they editorialize. It's a really... Well, let's... I want to make sure I clarify this. So the what's happening, they'll put an editorialization, but it's usually in reference to a series of tweets. So I understand they're liable for what they write there. But if I write an article for the New York Times and then hand it to a guy and he goes, I will publish this on the front page. New York Times assumes responsibility for the contents of that post. If someone tweets and Twitter goes, I am going to put this in the moments tabs that anyone who

clicks it will see it front and center to hundreds of millions of people. What's the difference? It depends on what the reasonable viewer understands from that tweet. And that's a fact question that has never been examined in a litigation setting because cases don't go this far. And they need to because I've got another question for you. Especially if I'm handling them because I would love to ask those questions. Let me ask you a question. If Ian wrote an article and posted it on his blog and then I took the contents of that article and put it on the front page of my website, would I assume responsibility for publishing it?

Are you more than an aggregator? Are you Drudge Report? Or are you, this is Tim Pool, and these are the articles that I want you to read because... It appears on my front page identically to every other article. Every other statement. So that's your newspaper. In other words, he licensed the article to you to publish it in your newspaper. So if on your Twitter account

there's a retweet from Ian that appears identically to your other posts, would your retweet then be your responsibility as well? Yes. See, this is where there's a lot of questions that have never been asked, and we haven't seen people actually go to court and start challenging them. But this is one of the least important questions.

See, and this, as you understand, because you've spoken to Will about this, and this is like a favorite Ron and Will thing. We wrote articles on this together. It hardly matters, you know, the publisher versus platform distinction is mostly irrelevant because it has to do with to what extent is Twitter responsible

for what people tweet meaning if i defame you in a tweet can you sue twitter why would you want to sue twitter because coleman doesn't have any money well coleman's not making it happen twitter is the one giving servers i write a tweet that says, Nancy Pelosi is an alcoholic. I have it on good authority, Nancy Pelosi is an alcoholic. Drinks a fifth of gin every half an hour. Okay? I put it on Twitter. You can't sue Twitter no matter how obvious of a lie it is. Because they're just a mechanism.

They're just an internet service provider. You can sue Coleman. But I want to sue Twitter because they've got billions of dollars. And Coleman has half a house in New Jersey. And if Pelosi can prove damages by the time she gets past my mortgage, it's not going to be

worth her trouble. That's why we care. But we hardly care because most, because Section 230 says it's not going to happen. But defamation's hardly ever the issue. The issue is the censorship. And that's where the cases are getting interesting. Especially now that we have the Rogan O'Hanley case that we filed last week. What is this one? Rogan? Rogan O'Hanley case that we filed last week. What is this one? Rogan?

Rogan O'Hanley, known as D.C. Drano, sued Twitter. But Twitter is the last party in the defendant column. The first party is the Secretary of State of the state of California. Rogan got documents from Judicial Watch, smoking gun documents showing that under the guise of election security, the state of California was sending through a consultant and in cooperation with 22 members of the National Association of Secretaries of State, all Democrats, sending tweets that were selected, I think, by the consultant to Twitter saying, this is misleading. This is fake news. A direct line from Democrats to the big tech company.

No, they are all Democrats. A direct line from the government to the censorship. All we've heard about is, well, is build your own Twitter. The government and Twitter are the same. The government, you know, there's been lots of talk about

what kinds of accommodations have been made. We won't regulate you if you play ball. All this, that's all very sort of impressionistic. What we have here is specific political instructions from political activists telling Twitter, and they banned DC Drano has 2 million Instagram followers. Right. Meaning they just needed an excuse.

He's too influential to be allowed to continue to comment on Twitter. Now, as far as I know, Instagram is not implicated in this, in Facebook, in this particular issue. But this is where things are going. This is where things are going. So that's almost the first, that's a new world. That's a new world. And this is a case that we filed on Thursday. And it's being routinely ignored by the media. Completely ignored.

If I told you, Fox won't cover it. They won't? Fox will not cover it. Wow. And... I always knew that Tucker Carlson was controlled opposition. I'm kidding. So, Rogan and Harmeet, my partner, were on Tucker Thursday night,

but Fox News won't cover it but tucker allowed you to talk about it tucker i take it back he's the only one who's not controlled tucker you know that you know these categories are both bitty baloney they they you know and it's very common on twitter that people want to, you know, he's a rhino. Oh, that bill, Democrats support it. The world is not black and white. And there's no question that in politics you have to make accommodations to get things done with people from other parties. We all have to get that.

People are complicated. We were talking before we went on. Who's sticking their neck out for the movement versus who's sticking his neck out for his 401K? And listen, most people are just interested in, I don't want to call it a grift, making a living. They're going to make a living. You know, making a living. Or building a big business. But there is one individual that I would like to ask you about in terms of the conversation, James O'Keefe. Because if there's one person I think is, you know, the real deal in terms of sticking his neck out and, you know, jumping into the fray, the tip of the spear, as it were, James O'Keefe is fighting the fight

and more so than most people. He's for real. Yeah, he's legit. And he's doing a lot of great work and he's winning a lot of important battles. But if you go to his Wikipedia page, you'll notice that it is the most insane garbled propaganda.

It is, what's the word for defamation but like 100 orders of magnitude larger? That's what it is. And it's amazing because the Wikipedia page for James O'Keefe is very clearly an op-ed. It is not in any way fact-based. Now my question is, how does Wikipedia get away with smearing

James O'Keefe the way they do? And I'll elaborate on this. We've talked about it before. They say Project, well not necessarily James O'Keefe specifically, they do smear him, but Project Veritas, they say it's far right, it's an activist group, they produce deceptive video edits, you know, secret recordings, yada yada, entrapment, generating bad publicity, it's propagating disinformation, conspiracy theories. Now all of these are, this page from

Wikipedia, the citations are opinion pieces. Wikipedia doesn't say it's the free opinion aggregator. It says it's the free encyclopedia, which is an actual definition of what an encyclopedia is. So I'm sure there's some kind of argument they can make. Well, look, someone's opinion, you know, somebody chooses to cite it as a fact in here. That's not us. Here's the question I have, work. It's interesting. If I post a tweet saying James O'Keefe once ate a whole pizza by himself, a large pepperoni, and it's not true. I have defamed him.

I have libeled him, right? Only if that's something that would constitute, I mean, that might be a positive statement. Sure. Sure. Let's say I said James O'Keefe did bad thing and it results in him losing tons of money and donors. And it's not true. So he says, here's the damages. You've defamed me. You've libeled me. And I'm suing you for damages. Yeah. Twitter says, don't look at us. That says Tim Pool checkmark. And the tweet clearly came from him. Section 230. not on us right

it would be on me personally if it's your tweet correct right well when i pull up project veritas on wikipedia it says from wikipedia project veritas from wikipedia the free encyclopedia the name attached to this post is wik not John Smith or Bill Hammond or Edgar Allan Poe, literally Wikipedia. I can understand the argument that when someone posts something and their name's next to it, it's their statement. But what Wikipedia is doing is displaying no names. If I want to figure out who added one section to this, I might have to dig through hundreds

of pages. No, because Wikipedia has already decided that we have taken other people's comments and crafted it into an article we put our name on. At what point is this Wikipedia speech, especially when they say it's from them? Tim, you've given me much to unpack here, but we have time.

First, before I say anything else, I have to say that we also represent James O'Keefe and Project Veritas right on and we have two pending lawsuits that we filed in the last month or so which were, which earned me

ice cream and my followers will understand that's how I reward myself and I've done a great job um that's how I reward myself, and I've done a great job. That's number one. So on the one hand, I will have to limit my comments. On the other hand, I'm also telling you that I'm biased. But I'm no more biased than I was before because, like you,

you look at James O'Keefe and you know he's absolutely the real deal. I just pulled up Project Veritas simply because it's very obvious defamation. But let's say literally anything else. Let's say MyPillow. So I'm not sure that that section 230 covers Wikipedia at all. I don't think it's an internet service provider. I don't know if that's been tested. But as you said, whom do you sue? The problem there is corporate accountability. Let me just point out, though,

that the reason we care, I think that there's a consensus in the political and policy and internet part that we occupy. That Wikipedia is garbage. Unless you're looking up species of butterflies, the most generic stuff, but anything

juicy, anything, it's known at this point to be garbage. But, here's the problem. Google considers it a highly authoritative resource. That's why we have to break up Google.

Because Google, which is not an Internet service provider as such, search engine, Google editorializes and manipulates results for political purposes. And it has a right to do it, just like people also know that Google's garbage. But you know what? I don't want to say the name of the alternative search engine that I use because I don't want to hurt their business. But, so if I want to look up species of butterflies, it's fine.

But if I really need to get information, I'm inevitably going to end up back at Google and having to use my super brain to get past the bias because these guys, their search engine is not as good. It's not as good. Bing's a little bit better, actually. But it's not the Wikipedia part. It's the way, and this is an aspect of network effects. It's the way that Wikipedia has been baked into Google, and so has Twitter.

And there's been extremely little attention paid to the partnership between Google and Twitter. I see what you're saying about Wikipedia. If you Google search someone's name, there's a box that appears and has Wikipedia information, which could be completely made up. And there's been very funny stories about people having their Wikipedias changed by random users and then it appears on Google, which then transfers to your Amazon or Google device. So you're at home and then you'll ask your little computer, who was George Washington? And they'll be like, he was a pancake salesman because somebody edited Wikipedia. The system's fairly fractured, you guys mean but i think the attack vector in terms of challenging this malfeasance is sure you could argue about breaking up google but sue wikipedia i mean so as i know lord knows they desperately need your donations they won't shut up about it i i'm sure it's been tried i know that

i've seen the case captions i think the issue the issue with Wikipedia is I think they might actually, that the corporate home of Wikipedia is somewhere that's not in this country. It's in some country that isn't going to work out too well for litigation, something like that. And also one that probably is not as amenable to disclosure as the United States. It's not a thing. It's Ukraine, but it's... So let's think about the problem we're facing there. This is something that I've had a lot of concerns about going into the 2020 election.

Twitter will ban a conservative for saying their opinion. An American citizen with a political opinion on Twitter will get banned, but an Australian citizen who has a contradictory opinion that supports the left will be allowed to get all the retweets in the world. So you actually have foreign influence so long as it supports the agenda of one faction gaining traction and being protected, while American citizens, I'll tell you this, Laura Loomer might be considered by many to be distasteful or they don't like her, they think she's bombastic, or just they really don't like her because, you know, because she's high energy, we'll call her that. She's an extremely enthusiastic young lady, yes.

She's an American citizen who has a right to speak and be engaged in politics, whether you like it or not, but she's removed from every platform. Meanwhile, I see it on Reddit every day. Someone will comment on American news, and there's a little Australian, New Zealand flag, a Canadian's removed from every platform. Meanwhile, I see it on Reddit every day. Someone will comment on American news and there's a little Australian, New Zealand flag, a Canadian flag, a Russian flag. Why do these people get to influence and be involved in our conversation, but our own American citizens aren't allowed?

I'll do you one better. First, I'll say that Laura Loom is also my client. Oh, my. Well, good. Good. Right on. And one of the things that we tried to argue, and the judges simply, they use Section 230 to just get rid of any. We don't think they're going to be able to do this with the O'Hanley case, with the D.C. Drano case because of the government action. It's just too only the U.S. government.

What if CARE, let's just say the Council on American Islamic Relations, let's just say they accepted money from a foreign government, a nasty foreign government. And that foreign government told CARE, here's what you need to do, here are the voices you need to silence in order for us to more effectively message on this issue. And Qatar, just for example, therefore decides that Laura Loomer should be censored.

The First Amendment has nothing to say about that. Twitter takes orders from, we know Twitter takes orders, I don't know about Twitter, we know that there's an issue with platforms and technology companies taking orders from China.

Yeah. Also from Europe, from European governments that have strict anti-hate laws, right? Well, what we're really talking about here is the fact that the technology companies are themselves not beholden to any particular government. They are bigger than sovereign states. They are more powerful and wealthier than most sovereign states in the world. And libertarians say, build your own Twitter. Dude, they are already the emperors.

Well, it's actually, it's really simple then. I think by outlawing this problem, all we got to do is ask our politicians to regulate these companies to prevent the foreign interference. Now, I know the Democrats probably greatly benefit from that interference, but I'm sure they'll see reason. Right? Well, I'll tell you something. On the Culmination podcast, I actually interviewed Representative Ken Buck last week, who has introduced a bill to do just that. And it's a bipartisan bill. Hey, that's great. It's a bipartisan bill.

And it is more oriented towards antitrust enforcement than to censorship per se. But as we have just demonstrated, they're intimately related. Because if you have the only platform that matters, it doesn't matter whether I've got an alternative. I can go into the room with all the beanbags in it downstairs to screen my head off so I have freedom of speech, but no one's going to hear me. So after I get you canceled because of this episode of Tim in real life, that's going to be the same thing for you.

Imagine if before the internet, Fox News kept putting Vladimir Putin on primetime to talk about how Americans should vote and people listened and they voted the way he said. I mean, that would be insane. You know, we couldn't imagine something like that happening. Then we get four or five years of them screaming that Donald Trump was the benefactor of just that. While quite literally, there are foreign governments influencing through social media, either investing in companies and getting some say in them, or actually just being extremely wealthy foreign high-ranking officials, put it that way, political figures, making demands and promising favors. And it happens. Our political system is corrupted if that's the case.

And I don't see why, you know, even if, you know, Ken Buck does propose this legislation, I'm not confident, for one, that Democrats would want to give up the freebies they're getting and the Republicans are too stupid to do anything about it. So there are a couple things going on. I asked him, why are Democrats in on this? And I think he acknowledged their concerns are not the same concerns as ours. But there is, to some extent, I think he agreed with my suggestion that now that Trump is gone,

whatever that really means, I mean, I think we all understand that he is running the country from a nuclear submarine off the coast. Although many people who are banned from Twitter would probably wish, fortunately, he's not. Although I will tell you, if you ask Alexa...

Don't turn on, please. I just yelled at me. Alexa, stop. Apparently – I shouldn't say the name ever again. Apparently it says that Trump is the president. And, like, people are laughing and hooting, like, this – oh, Amazon says it. And it's like, okay, dude, it's a stupid computer program. So I must admit that even I lost the thread there.

Sorry about that. No, that's okay. Anything for a good gag, especially when you're going to get – You're talking about asking the Democrats why they were in on it. So I think the world is a little bit safer for Democrats to actually be Democrats when they don't have to merely oppose something because it benefits Donald Trump. I'm not still sure why there's some, why there seems, I mean, Biden appointed as head of the Federal Trade Commission. So everybody understands, right? There are two agencies in the U.S. government that are mainly in charge of antitrust enforcement.

One is the antitrust division of the Justice Department, which is a relatively more political agency compared to the Federal Trade Commission, which focuses more on mergers and acquisitions, but which is also involved in industry shares and domination, because that's obviously part and parcel of acquisitions. That's traditionally considered to be a less political agency. Biden appointed, and she was approved, as FTC commissioner, a woman who has a reputation as being a critic of big tech. Now, those of us such as myself who have been saying for six months that Joe Biden is what is called in Hebrew a golem,

meaning basically a zombie. A puppet. Incapable of independent thought. He's just, you know, weekend of Bernie's kind of situation. It's hard for me not to believe that, that he is. In which case, for some reason, the powers that be either want to do this incredibly elaborate false flag operation. At some point, you have to start believing that maybe things may appear to be what they are. Or maybe there is still a constituency within the Democrat Party. And by the way, I'm not so sure that the squad isn't part of that constituency

that doesn't like big business and sees these global corporations. Because remember, to a real progressive, a preposterous term, to a real leftist, the state has to have all the power. Even if you tell me, well, but no, but Google and all these technology companies have been integrated into the state. They're all the same. Not so fast. They want to be able to press a button as office. So, well, this is the best they're going to get. I mean, the government can't literally censor, but they can do this highly circuitous method, which, you know, you're now suing over. Right. So if that's the case, if that today there was a tweet from Congressman Jordan, Jim Jordan, saying, why would I want to give Joe Biden's regulators more power over business?

Answer, what else you got, Jim? What else have you got? Trump certainly wasn't getting anything done. George W. Bush got nothing. This idea that Republicans should reflexively be the friends of big business is a joke. We see where big business has been on the BLM. This is the thing about Republicans. Too often they're saying –

I opened the door for Tim to trash Republicans. I'm going to excuse myself for a few minutes now. We'll talk about it. How often have you heard a Republican advocate for something? Like, here's what I want. Here's what Republicans need. Here's what my constituents are asking for. Do you want a specific...

Oh, I hardly ever hear that, Tim. Do I ever hear it? Yeah, you know. I hear a lot of the left demanding a moratorium on deportations. I hear the left demanding to shut down the child migrant facilities. I hear the left demanding the defense of the facilities when Biden's involved. I hear the demand that we allow refugees in. I hear the demand for abolishing private health care. And then I hear Republicans saying, no, we shouldn't do that.

No, we shouldn't do that. No, we shouldn't do that. It's reactive. Marjorie Taylor Greene proposes abolishing the ATF. Hey, there's a Republican saying, let's do something. So she's got to be stopped. Oh, that's exactly what's happening. And we dig up. And the Republicans are helping. Preposterous. Yeah, they do. That's right. So so so not only do the Republicans very rarely ever actually propose anything for their constituents, but when you finally get someone who does, Marjorie Taylor Greene, they're actively attacking her from the Republican Party. That's right. I'll tell you something about her.

Am I allowed to rag on Republicans for that? Am I right? Oh, absolutely. I mean, listen, if Harmeet were sitting here, my partner, Harmeet Dhillon, she says she's a big muckety-muck in the Republican Party, but I'm not. And she knows that I'm not. So I have to be gentle, but I don't have to be as... Actually, she's not so gentle either. She's got her issues. I will tell you that Marjorie Taylor Greene...

I had a column in the Forward, which is a Jewish publication. It used to be the predominant Yiddish language Jewish newspaper in New York explaining that what Marjorie Taylor Greene said about the vaccination badges being equivalent to the yellow stars that the Jews had to

wear in pre-war Europe I'm sorry, during the war in Germany also pre-war Germany and everyone clutched their pearls boy the antisemitism let me I don't know a Jewish an Orthodox Jew didn't make that joke in 2020 what are they going to make us do next wear yellow stars every but this one I think I made it you gotta make it pay when you do it everyone made that

because they were drawing red lines around Jewish neighborhoods and Jewish synagogues in places like Rockland County, New York another lawsuit that I brought they were chaining parks shut you would have the same and there would be no epidemiological basis for it. It was just

how do we keep these Hasidim out of this synagogue? Because it's understood the Hasidim are the problem. And they were drawing lines like up driveways and around flower beds. I mean, crazy stuff. Everyone knew what was going on and the reference to being treated like Jews in a ghetto was ubiquitous and these people who were all of a sudden standing up

and offended by Marjorie Taylor Greene where were they when Israel's compared to the Nazis? Where were silent? They don't care. Right now I'm seeing leftists post. How dare they deny communion to Joe Biden? And I'm like, when have you ever cared about the bishop's rulings on Catholic doctrine? When is Joe Biden ever cared?

All of a sudden they're like jumping out of the woodwork to clutch other people's pearls about religion they never liked in the first place. Joe, you're out of bed again. What's the problem? I just haven't had communion another Sunday without the wafer.

I am outraged. How dare they deny, Joe? How dare they? These are people who rag on the church all day and night, now flabbergasted and outraged and making demands. And I'm just like, you know what, man? These people who are active on Twitter in these arguments, they can't possibly believe the things they're saying, can they?

Like, how do you rag on Christianity over and over again? There's entire subreddits dedicated to this. And then all of a sudden now be outraged that Joe Biden has been denied his communion. Well, you know, I had a recent opportunity to wade into those waters myself recently when somebody said, well, nobody really believes in Leviticus anymore. Excuse me? Well, none of the, you know,

no one really does. Actually, no. Everything. Well, are you sacrificing? I don't know. You have to understand how Jewish law works, okay? There are conditions that have to be met. They don't want to hear about it. So your question, do they really believe this answer?

Yeah, they do. Because, you know, about seven or eight years ago, I think it is now, they made a change to Twitter to reduce conflict. And they enhanced the siloization, the ghettoization of Twitter. And to some extent, it has reduced conflict. I think it's not – there's something to be said for what they did because you're not always fighting with people. On the other hand, you don't want it to be like Parler where it's just a bunch of people nonstop screaming,

MAGA, MAGA. It's completely – it's boring. I mean, but what they did was people really reinforced their prejudices. And there's this constant bias confirmation. And it doesn't have to come from new facts. It could just come from those likes. Right. And come from those likes. Right. And come from those retweets

that you say, I'm right about this. So just like the casual hatred and the casual repetition of how stupid Donald Trump... I mean, the things that people convinced themselves of that weren't even necessary. Oh my gosh.

So I've got this case where I'm representing Carpy Duncan. Remember Carpy Duncan? Oh, yeah, yeah. Where's he been? Well, they kicked him off Twitter. That's right. And the reason they kicked him off Twitter was because of a copyright claim that had supposedly been made against him because he did a meme with the two little kids, the white toddler and the black toddler.

There was no copyright claim. It was fake. He was, they just needed an excuse to get him off Twitter. They then, so the people who made the claim, the original people who made that video, sued Carpe in New York State Court, Logan Cook, for this preposterous series of claims that he was misleading and basically everything but defamation, but it was basically defamation, defaming these two little toddlers. Nobody even knows who they are. And we had oral argument on our motion to dismiss via Zoom last week.

And the lawyer for the plaintiffs is arguing to this New York State Supreme Court judge. And we all know that Supreme Court in New York doesn't mean the highest court. It means just bigger than the other courts like the civil court and the traffic court. That they really had a good claim here because Donald Trump, first of all, everything Donald Trump. Oh, so one of our defenses was this can't be a violation of sections 15 and 51 of the New York civil rights law because those only deal with the misappropriation of a person's likeness in connection with a sale or advertisement of a product or a good. And this is just a meme that poor old Carby did. And they said no because really he did it to please his master Donald Trump,

completely made up. And Trump, it's well established that everything Trump did during his presidency was meant to enrich him personally. And the judge looked at this guy. Now, to be a judge in New York, in the state of New York, in the city of New York, in the county of New York, you're a Democrat. He looked at this guy as if he were from Mars. the state of New York, in the city of New York, in the county of New York. You're a Democrat. Okay. He looked at this guy as if he were from Mars. You're saying everything Donald Trump did was so that he could make money? He said, well, yeah, because look, he made all these golf tournaments.

Didn't Barack Obama get a pretty nice book deal after he left office? Are we going to say that everything a politician does while in office is commercial? But this lawyer was arguing, it was like blood was going to come out of his eyes. He was so

committed to the truth. In other words, he knew this to be true. The way you and I know that H2O is what makes up water. He knew it to be true. People believe these myths that Donald Trump absolutely worked for the Russians, that he personally benefited economically from being president and that's the only reason he did it. That he's a racist.

I'm a New Yorker. Donald Trump has been part of the scene in New York that I've been aware of for 40 years for me. In other words, since I was born. You never, ever, ever heard anyone call him a racist. It was just... was just the opposite. He won awards. You know, those are pretty much negotiable currency.

Let's not kid ourselves about that. I love using the pictures with him and Jesse Jacks. That's fine. But the point is they believe it with their hearts. Trump is an anti-Semite. His grandchildren are Jewish. The worst kind. Well, let's take that up with Mr. Eric Weinstein.

So Eric has a tweet thread saying essentially that no one really believes in woke ideology. So I had a conversation about this last week. But let's read what Eric says. And I'm going to say this. I agree with him, but I'll read. Eric says, hyper unpopular view. I don't think a single person on Earth believes woke ideology. Any soul who truly, quote, identifies as an eagle would be instantly eliminated by testing the hypothesis.

I think he's implying the person would, like, you know, jump off a building. But I don't know who identifies as an eagle. So this is a person who believed two plus 2 equals 5 would be unable to file taxes. That's a real good point. If you're going to make a semantic argument about integers and what determines 2 plus 2 equaling 4 or 5, how do you function on a day-to-day

basis? But I'll read on. He says, get woke, go broke is nowhere near extreme enough. Truly believing in wokeness could get you jailed or killed. My hypothesis is that every single soul espousing wokeness could get you jailed or killed. My hypothesis is that every single soul espousing wokeness, critical theory, etc. is doing so disingenuously and without exception. That is why it can't be defeated by reason. Wokeness is reveling in the idea that it makes no sense. The only ones believing it are those fighting it. Further, this is why inclusion

is at its core a strategy. Because the remedy for wokeness wasting the energy of the developed world by boring us to death is to exclude it not on the basis of it being wrong but because the saboteur must always be excluded from civic life let me give other positions so extreme they are prima facie disingenuous crypto toxic bitcoin maximalism hyper conservatives we need a strong defense in a dangerous world but but also all taxes, theft, et cetera. All of these are parasitic on someone else being the adult. I agree with him that the woke do not believe any of their ideology.

And I don't know of anybody who identifies as an eagle. So I don't know what that's a reference to. But I understand the point he's trying to make to a certain degree. I do think the two plus 2 equaling 5 is a good point to be made because it is a hill they're absolutely willing to die on where now you have, I think,

like an MIT mathematician coming out making a video explaining how 2 plus 2 could equal 5 and if that's an assumption you could make then at what point in your taxes do you say I think this one's going to be a 4 and that one's going to be a 5? Well, there are a couple of things.

One is that because what we're calling the wokeness initiative, I added the word initiative, the initiative of what we're calling wokeness is destructive and subversive. They want to live in a world where they can say to the IRS, oh, no, I say it's five. And to say I'm wrong makes you a racist. Right. It gives them the ability to determine when it is true or not to benefit themselves.

So his argument that, no, that won't work because you'll go to the bank. He wants to be able to go into the bank and get changed for a 10 and come back with 100. That's part of the goal. But I think there's another problem here, which is that he tends to hang around with very smart people like you and me. But we know more dumb people than he does. There are a lot of really dumb people. Michael Malice, Midwits not even that dumb well they're actually smart, midwits

smart enough to simulate high intelligence but in fact to be mediocre thinkers who I believe are buying it because we're underestimating the power,

the marvelous, wonderful power of cognitive dissonance. If it doesn't add up, it will come to, we all read 1984. You come around eventually to believing the right thing because it lets your brain relax. The social pressure is off. Yes, I am a racist. You know what I've said a million times and no one ever retweets it because they're afraid. If all these white chicks, and they're mostly chicks, hating themselves for being white,

hating themselves for being,, hating themselves for being, hating whiteness and wishing, if they woke up black, they would walk right out the window. They would kill themselves. They're racists. They would, they're the biggest racists in the world.

And if you disagree with me, you're, you're, you are a racist. Because if I'm wrong, then you're telling me that you're not a racist. If I'm wrong, then there is not actually systemic

racism. And if I'm right that there is systemic racism, we see that the systemic racism makes hypocrites out of all these people bemoaning their whiteness. Pretty good, huh? Ron Coleman for the win. Well, yeah.

I don't think that – the way I described it last week is I don't think they actually believe this stuff because it's impossible to believe two contradictory things at the same time. Unless, of course, we're suggesting they're suffering from cognitive dissonance. These are the kind of people that will say the sky is blue and the sky is green to your face in the same sentence. They can't simultaneously, well, do what you say, say that they are racists and that racists are bad, but they are good. That's just, as soon, I'll tell you this, you ever see those videos where it's like a white guy's like on TikTok and he's like telling everybody how racist he is. If anybody ever came up to me, a white person, and started talking about critical race theory or critical theory, and then said that they were a racist, I'd be like, and now you can stop talking because you're a racist and it's time for you to sit down to listen.

Congratulations. Your own ideology says shut up. But nobody does this. You know, one of the things that really bothers me is I keep hearing about people quitting their jobs because they're being trained critical race theory, things like this. And I'm like, so what you're telling me is that your workplace is violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Is that Title VII, I think?

And you just quit? You see, here's the problem. These leftists will use anything to claim as racism, and they'll get away with it. How about this? We had this story out of Seattle that I'll just pull up. Reparations fee to be charged for white people at Seattle Gay Pride event. Well, we're now hearing the Seattle Human Rights Commission has dismissed the complaint, saying that, well, you know, you got to look at history and recognize that this is actually OK.

All right. So they're willing to look at overt racial discrimination and say it's not. OK, now I understand this is a challenge. The EEOC may be full of woke individuals who refuse to accept your complaints. But if you work at, if you work at a company, the moment someone says the word white, anything you can now claim they're being racist. It's their rules. For example, here's what I, here's what I've said on the show before. If they say, we're going to have a discussion on white privilege, you just stop them and

say, excuse me, did you just bring all these people in here to learn about white benefits? Like why it's better to be white? Do you think that's okay to like, why don't we have a conversation about non-whiteness? Why did you think whiteness was the appropriate subject? You're a racist. You're a white supremacist. You're having a Klan meeting. No matter what they say, the moment they say anything related to race, you can claim racism.

The right doesn't do this. And perhaps because they think they're fighting fair. But I'll tell you this. You know, if you think you're playing, you know, let me slow down. I'll do a different analogy. We're playing a game Monopoly. We're watching the other side pull bills out of the bank in front of our faces. And we go, hey, wait, you can't do that and they're like yeah i can and you go okay and you

keep playing and then you're like why do i keep losing i don't understand how did you have so much money to buy boardwalk and park place to put hotels on it i don't know i guess i'll never figure it out but i did see you taking all that money you're not supposed to do oh well this sounds like the discussion about the election audits. In what way? What do you mean? Why are you suppressing votes by doing election audits? Because we saw people. Oh, there was the, did you see the Colorado woman?

She was like, we're banning fraudits. Yeah, that was funny because I was like, Colorado, no one asked you. Like, you're not one of the states. So I liken it to like you're sitting in a meeting and someone just goes, I didn't fart. And then you're like, no one said anything dude but are we in for a surprise in the next few minutes yeah right a few seconds people are gonna notice and then it's like if someone just randomly blurted that out you'd be like uh where'd that come from did you fart like why did you say that so that's you know she she blurts it out but um but anyway in in reference

to uh you're talking about a level of courage that the vast majority of people don't have. Conservatives? Anti-establishment? The right? Regular people. Well, then the left is full of not regular people. No. It takes no courage to follow the current that has been cut for you by the leaders in culture then it should take no courage for

someone who opposes this to just ride the wave and say that's racist don't say it again i'm writing it down do you think that this this hr let me tell you this you got an hr director middle-aged white woman and she's given a brochure about diversity initiatives and then you start huffing and puffing about how she's saying racist things do you think this woman's gonna you think she's gonna keep going risk her job or do you think she's gonna be like i don't know are you white or black it doesn't matter oh yes it does i don't think it does oh it most the people leading the charge like robin d'angelo are white and they're the ones coming up making the demands and they're getting their way are they yes yeah that. Yeah, that she's getting paid tens

of thousands of dollars to go teach at universities and her applied critical race theory is appearing in schools across the country. She's getting it. She's getting everything she wants. No, no, no. But to protest against her, you can't be white. No, no, no, no, no, no.

You can grift, and here it is used properly, you can grift and here it is used properly you can grift from this this you know system this ecosystem of grievance and fiction and whatever it is and be white but you can't push back against it and be white you can so hold on let me break this down if a white person like robin d'angelo says, this system is racist, she's allowed to do it. And then if you say literally the same thing, you can't? If you're white? I'm not sure I follow.

If I say literally the same thing, I can say it. But it's the next thing that I say that you're talking about. No, no, no. So like you're in a diversity meeting and you have a white woman speaking at your HR meeting, and you accuse her of being racist. Try it on me. Try it. Okay, so you just said to me your little magic formula you think is going to solve this problem.

Mr. Coleman, I don't understand why you're allowed to talk about white privilege. That makes it sound like it's better to be white. No, no, no. I didn't say to say that. Say, why are you having us having a meeting centered around white people? Why are white people? Because white people are the problem. White people are dominating.

White people have dominated the cultural and historical. So are you a white supremacist? On the contrary. I'm going to report you to the EEOC. If you say one more word, you bigot. I am not going to sit here and listen to you talk about your white supremacist views in front of me and after everything my family's been through. Say it one more time and I will go to your boss.

Sir. Say it one more time, you white supremacist. The mere fact that you're repeating the words white supremacist is not making sense. And then you go to the EEOC and here's what you say. Okay, so we're now going to just do like on a TV show and just show the next scene after the extremely unlikely stuff happens. It's like a sitcom. Well, no, no.

I don't know. Fade to the next. Okay. I think you misunderstand that. I was like, you think that. See, what you demonstrated was nothing but courage. You demonstrated that you're willing to, being Tim Pool and having a lot of confidence, See, what you demonstrated was nothing but courage. You demonstrated that you're willing to, being Tim Pool and having a lot of confidence,

and having a certain station in life, and being a guy with a certain amount of testosterone, that you're prepared to really push this and to try to intimidate a midwit, a professional midwit. Most people won't do that. Perhaps. I've done it and I've won on multiple occasions. You're Tim Pool! So when I was making $10 an hour working for political fundraising organizations, or I should say when I did fundraising,

I've sued two organizations and won doing exactly as I've described. That's why you're Tim Pool today. Perhaps. So if people just used the system as it existed, they'd start winning. The problem is... People like you, but most people aren't like you.

Take it from me because I'm more like you than I'm like the other people. The left is doing this. Does the left have more courageous people than the right? No. Then why do they keep doing it? Why are they the ones to file EEOC complaints and win? Because the EEOC is owned by them. Because the press is

owned by them. Because the courts are owned by them. Because the academia is owned by them. They had a system in place, especially in academia. And in the corporate world, it turns out to everyone's surprise, no one was ready for this. And as well as the attorneys general. They worked their way very, very brilliantly into a number of very, very important institutions in American life. The academia project goes back already even before I was born. But the fruit of that has been that in all the sectors where ideas are filtered for acceptability the left owns them let me ask you something no if if somebody i'm not going to let you ask me something if somebody went to the eeoc and said supremacist my hr director made a bunch of racist

comments and i asked them to stop and they refused What do you think the EEOC would say? What were the comments? I'm not going to repeat them. I mean, it was disparaging things about race. They were talking about how races are better than others. Mr. Poole, please, when you have a chance, when you cool down a little bit, write down the comments for us, because we can't proceed unless we have a detailed explanation of what was made. And also give us the names of everyone else who was at the meeting.

Well, it was. We're going to describe what these comments were. And we will then send it over to the very big warehouse over there where they keep the Ark of the Covenant. And we'll get back to you as soon as possible. So let me ask you. Why is it that when I went to these agencies on more than one, on two occasions, and did exactly as I describe, it worked. Because you've got balls. No, no, that's irrelevant.

First of all, when was it? When was it? This was 13 years ago. 13 and 14 years ago. 4,013 years ago. So much has changed in the last 13 years, Tim. So much has changed.

It is mind-boggling. You're advocating for people to not use the legal system as it stands and make an attempt. Far be it from me to do that. I'm a schmuck who, like you, keeps knocking his head against the wall expecting a different result. I'm all in favor of that. So then we should encourage... But you're asking the empirical question is why isn't everyone doing it?

Because there aren't so many schmucks like Coleman and Poole. Here's the question. Why isn't everyone doing it because there aren't so many schmucks like coleman and pool here's the question why is the left doing it i rewind academia courts that's not answering the question i say it is answering the question so leftists know that because they inherently control all the institutions they can file a complaint and win and because because conservatives are demoralized, they won't even try. Yeah. Okay. Now that we've recognized that, conservatives should say, oh, okay, I'll go out and try. Yeah.

Problem solved. There you go. Ron and Tim, you've done it. Thanks for coming. So when I went to these meetings, they didn't ask me for a verbatim recollection of what happened because that's impossible to produce. I said, to the best of my understanding, they made comments about this, that, or otherwise. That won't happen now. That won't happen now.

Companies have changed not in 13 years, not in three years, in two years, a close family member of mine worked in Microsoft and said, you know, as big corporations go, they have their kind of mandatory mealy mouth mouthing, you know, stuff about diversity, but it's pretty cool. I get the feeling things are really done here. In the last two years, it turned into a nightmare. In the last two years, it turned into a nightmare. In the last two years. Corporate America is cowed. The judiciary is cowed. Things have changed a great deal. And I'll tell you something else, Tim. This is a related phenomenon. I had to leave two law firms in a row because I was taking on cases where my partner said, well, you're representing a side that has a really bad reputation.

Gavin McInnes or Gab, they're associated with Nazis. No, no, no. I'm taking on those cases because they're being wrongly associated with Nazis. I'm trying to vindicate their reputations. Yeah, but, you know, we have interns and we have vendors and we have clients. Some of them are Holocaust survivors. Some of them are, you know, we give money to this affirmative action program. We just can't. And, you know, I understand if you've got a law firm that you've built up over 50 or 100 years and you're an equity partner in that organization,

and you have a stake in it. And Ron Coleman wants to sweep in and be the guy who's going to show the world that Gavin McInnes isn't a racist or an extremist, or show the world that Gab is entitled to sue Google because they are monopolists. It's not, well, maybe, Ron, you might want to do that. You might even be right,

but it's working very well for the rest of us to not do that. And we can do without your revenue. We like what you're practicing. Thank God I'm with Harmony Dillon now, and she takes on not the craziest cases, but relatively crazy cases because they're not so crazy. So that's the analog to what we're talking about here is that it's an uphill battle. But, yes, we have to do it. We have to do it.

So I'm curious, like, these firms you know, they're very worried about the threats or accusations. Couldn't anyone of any political persuasion just weaponize that by claiming, I'm going to accuse you of it. What are you going to do about it? I mean, you don't say it like that, obviously. But what if one of these interns was, you know, a far right? And they were like, you know what? I'm sick of it. My pronouns are flabbedoo flabbedee. Don't use my pronouns and I'll file. I mean, in New York, for instance, it's a human rights violation with a fine of up to $250,000 for willful misuse of someone's pronouns. Right. And that's unconstitutional and eventually that will be thrown out on First Amendment grounds.

But it'll need challenging, which means it'll need a legal case. Also, someone will have to attempt it against a company who will have to then defend themselves. I'll do you one better. When we were involved in these COVID lockdown cases, Harmeet and I, we would identify a location where there was something. For example, these Rockland County cases. We had trouble finding people who would allow their names to be used as plaintiffs. We had funding for these cases. They weren't going out of pocket.

They weren't going to spend any money. We just need you to be the complainant. Can someone else do it? I want my rights vindicated, but I want someone else to vindicate them for me. That's the problem. It's true. Yeah. In that case, freedom deserves to lose. But since

we won't let it, we'll keep knocking our heads against the wall. You have to fight the good fight. We have a concept in Jewish ethics that you're not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it. And as long as we're here, and we are here,

and we have our faculties, and we have our testosterone, and our beanies. Several. Big ones and little ones. We got to fight. We got to fight. And that means we're going to make less money than

the people who are taking the easier road and we're and we're going to be called nazis and we're going to have you know get postcards with swastikas on them and crossed out swastikas like when the Gavin case was in the news. That's just the price of allowing meaning and a sense of mission be cloud your better judgment for comfort and wealth. It's an exploitation of capitalism in a lot of ways. The willingness for big corporations to be subverted for the right price. China exploits it to a great deal. Well, I will tell you that I am a little... You know, I mentioned before that I used to do a lot of trademark work. And in fact, for many years, I'm just not doing it anymore because I think blogging doesn't really matter. And I'm also less interested in the topic,

but I had a trademark blog called Likely It Is Confusion at LikelyItIsConfusion.com that was considered to be a pretty important opinion resource. And one of the things I noticed, so I'm very interested in branding and marketing, and I have been astonished at the process of co-option by radical movements, by marketing companies. And I remain convinced, and someone told me there's a really good book about this, and I forgot who wrote it, about how this happened. But I am convinced that in the long term, because I'm an economics major, perhaps. This cannot last. I wish I remembered maybe, was it you?

Somebody, was it you? Someone tweeted a picture of a bunch of models. That was me. It was you. The Victoria's Secret thing. Not girls you want to marry, necessarily. Okay. We're now, because we're not going to use beautiful girls anymore we're okay you signaled your virtue

now sell some panties okay ladies want to see pretty ladies in the things they want to buy because they want to see themselves as the pretty ladies

exactly and no matter how you can't so you can't the market will not lie. And this is the grandest challenge to the American way of life, of all the things we've spoken about. The idea that an advertisement will try to convince you that the fantasy world that Madison Avenue has sold us since, War II, should not be the fantasy life of comfort and good

looks, but should be the fantasy life of obesity, disgustingness, slovenliness, and I think it ain't going to work. Well, I'll push back a little bit. I will say Get Woke, Go Broke, not a law, but does have its tendencies. There are some things that Get Woke can do well. As much as Captain Marvel got flack from a lot of people, the film, it made, I think, a billion dollars. So they just say, okay, well, we'll try and do better next time,

but we'll still push a lot of the same stuff. Now, when it comes to Victoria's Secret, the Dove Real Beauty campaign happened a long time ago. They still push forward on it. And I think what people need to understand about this is, yeah, women want to see themselves as the pretty lady, right? But what happens when the average body mass index is on the rise in the United States? And many of these women are chowing down on a pint of Ben and Jerry's every night.

Oh, no, you got it backwards, buddy. I want to think that even though I can't fit into my wedding dress, that if I buy that, how do you say, C-H-E-M-I? Chemise, yeah. If I buy that chemise. I'll look that way. I'll look close enough to that. Does Coleman get it?

I'll look close enough to that that my husband will turn off the TV next Friday night. Right. Maybe, but there's got to be a limit. I mean, at a certain point, someone who's more abundantly obese knows they're not going to look that way. So they have to justify it by saying you're fat phobic and then demanding body positive models, which they do. They're fooling no one. And let me tell you something else. There's a lot of fat lying going on.

And to me, that's one of the reasons this will fall apart. I am so comfortable with homosexuality, with gay people. My two friends, Kevin and Bruce, got married, and they were making out under the canopy, and it was so beautiful. You're lying! You were nauseated. You were nauseated. Not because you were against homosexuals.

Not because you want to go into their bedrooms. Not because you want to arrest them. Because you're a heterosexual person and you don't like to see men kissing. You just don't dare admit it. And in fact, you'll go so far to claim that you're cool with it that you'll lie about it. But when the men get together and the women get together and they think they're safe, what do they say about something that they think is uncool or creepy? It's so gay.

Yeah, but that's just like a grunt at this point. Saying things instinctively that don't have any meaning other than some kind of negative connotation. I disagree on the just making out thing. I think there's a lot of people that don't care. I think the number of people

that don't care is far, far smaller than you think it is unless you're one of those guys in which case you can tell me that you're cool with it. I have a hard time believing it. I think,

and by the way, again, I couldn't care less if they do it. But, I mean, our references in this area are so off the chart that we don't even know where the center is anymore. Let me ask you, have you ever seen the movie Mask? The guy with the crazy face? No, I don't really see a lot of movies. No, not The Mask.

I don't know. There's a movie mask where a guy's face is like y'all crazy uh it there's a there's an old uh mad magazine trope about um you remember mad man oh of course public dispaisal affection and one of them was it was uh two fat people kissing and holding hands and everyone's standing around all like frowning and grumpy. And the next one was two beautiful people kissing and everyone's going, aww. And they're both male and female. There's just a point being made about people not being like happy with things they don't find attractive, I suppose.

Right. But that could be heterosexual in this case as well. Like two ugly people kissing would, you know. Or I suppose another example in a similar vein is this meme that goes around where it's like an attractive guy like saying, hey, you're looking good, Susan. And she's like, oh, yeah. And then it's a fat guy saying, looking good. And she's like, help, help, I'm being oppressed, you know. So I think there's a point you're making.

I push back a little bit. I genuinely believe there's a lot of people who literally don't care and don't feel anything. And there's probably a lot of people that actually think like oh that's so sweet if they see two men or two women you know what i mean i think you're right i think there's a lot of people but i do agree with there's probably a lot of people too there's probably the distinction between in some ways the left and the right there are many people who are very much more traditional and much more uh i think that's probably well listen one thing the right has come to terms with, and I include myself here,

to the extent I can, given the community that I live in and my own religious beliefs, which is not limitless, not a limitless extent, we simply can't have the attitude towards homosexuality that we had during the Reagan years. That door is closed. Richard Grinnell has to be a cool guy. We have to. We simply can't live in a world where we're going to say he can't be a leader or a potential president, where we might have done that when I was in high school. I think a lot of the issues with, say, a movie

where you've got a gay couple, be it men or women, I think the issue is actually political, and people are more angry about the politics being forced into it as opposed to any real issue with homosexuality. Because these are the comments you see online when it's like there's a movie and you have the main characters in a lesbian relationship.

The comments aren't like, ah, you know, she's a lesbian. No, it's like they're putting politics that doesn't need to be in the movie in the movie. But I don't know. I don't know. How about we take a super chance and see what the audience knows?

We don't know. I can't read minds, so I don't know what people think or feel. You know what I mean? And I think a lot of us project our worldview. I fact this is a fact i'm pretty sure that we project our emotions and feelings onto other people and assume they feel the same way narrator tim is accusing ron of projecting i'm accusing everybody everyone ron looks on in anguish but the reality is so uh there's this uh there's this nbc reporter who just like is one of the worst

fake news reporters and i did a ground.news it's a great website blind spot search oh yeah you ever see this no you can track the the bias of the individual based on uh not necessarily the bias but like the news stories they interact with this is a guy who supposedly writes about the right, but 84% of his interactions are with left-wing news sources. Not even centrists like, you know, the AP or Reuters or whatever, which are considered centrist, like literal left-wing slate

stuff. And this guy's writing articles claiming to be like an expert on the right. Sure, sure, sure. That's just absurdity. But there's been several studies done that show liberals get about 95% of their news from left-wing news sources and about five from conservative. Moderates get two-thirds from liberal and one-third from conservative, and conservatives are inverted. Two-thirds from conservative sources, one-third from liberal, showing moderates and conservatives are actually, to a certain degree, reading each other's sources to better understand a fuller view of what's happening. And liberals just believe whatever CNN tells them.

But let's see what the audience believes what is told of them. So if you haven't already, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, and share the show if you really like it. We'll have a bonus segment coming up at 11, so make sure you go to timcast.com, become a member. Let's read some of these super chats name surname says hey tim what are some good sources about bitcoin i can show my normie friends and parents i like max kaiser but he's a bit too who he bit too nar nars for my boomer parents um any any any any oh bitcoin knowledge well it wasn't

where could you show someone that's not going to... Pop? Like a pop piano? What's Narnars, though? Max is like a cartoon character. He's amazing. But he shows up here with sunglasses and money guns

and he's firing them in the air. Larger than life. Yeah. So this is... Max is great. So it turns out that this is like... Whatchamacallit?

You just told me it wasn't like, okay, nevermind. It's a good question. Who's like a good, authoritative, serious, believable source of Bitcoin knowledge these days? I'm at a loss. Not sure. Are there any? Are you big into crypto, Ron? Not at all.

I'm a big fan. I wish I could answer your question. Anthony Pompliano. Yeah, yeah. That's what I was saying. Yeah your question. Anthony Pompliano. Yeah, yeah. That's what I was saying. Yeah, that's what Lydia was saying. Check him out. He's like a good regular, just like, yeah, good podcast.

Got his own podcast, yeah. All right. All right, let's see. Let's sign on for that. Ulysses says, Tim, can you explain the Michael Malice troll on the Rubin Report for us less savvy viewers? Can you at least make a subscriber segment on it? I will say only a little bit. Are you familiar with the superhero called The Question?

Is that a question? Superhero's name is, quote, The Question. He is like an investigative journalist character. He has no face. Like, it's just nothing there. And he's like He is like an investigative journalist character. He has no face. Like, it's just nothing there. And he's like a conspiracy theorist kind of guy.

So Michael Malice dressed up in a costume of this character and appeared on Dave Rubin's show. And that's the troll. It was good. He was also wearing a Star of David. To imply that he was Jewish. Yeah. A superhero called The Question. That The Question was Jewish.

That's right. Moving on. That's the explainer. Miles Kinslow says, hey, guys. Tim, there is a woman named Gabrielle Clark who is currently fighting critical race theory with a landmark case. Please hear her story. Stop state-sponsored racism. Stop CRT. I really don't like people saying critical race theory.

I think it is a trap. The left is good with this stuff, and they've won. Chris Ruffo is fantastic. He's brilliant. He's targeting this stuff, and he's standing on their battlefield, and it's helping them tremendously, unfortunately. Yeah, I've heard a few other people making that point about Chris. So when you hear that schools are teaching critical race theory,

what's being implied is they're applying critical race theory to their teachings. It's very different. This means that when they give you a math problem, it's like, this was an actual example I saw, it's like John is stopped by police three times in a year. But, you know, Kwame is stopped 49 hundred ninety two times. What percentage change or blah, blah, blah. And it's like, you know, how many what's the difference? And so that's applying critical race theory into math. So what you hear is that they're teaching critical race theory. Well, they're applying critical race theories, ideology in school programs about diversity

initiatives. What happens is with all due respect, because Chris is a smart guy and I respect the work he's doing, the left easily pivots their defense. They looked and when the parents start saying they're teaching critical race theory, these journalists and these and these activists go name one school that has ever quoted Derrick Bell to fifth graders. And they're like, well, they're not. And you said they're teaching critical race theory. Okay, Kimberly Crenshaw.

Are they reading Kendi? Are they reading the more modern ones? D'Angelo? I didn't think so. And you thought it was true. And then what happens is you'll get some 20-year-old going, mom, can you point to one example where they mention this, you know, that or otherwise? She's like, no, because they're lying to you, mom. It's Fox News is lying to you.

Instead of just saying they're teaching identitarianism. Because then these people are going to be like, what's identitarianism? And then when the activists try to pivot, well, I mean, it's like white supremacy. It's like, oh, well, identitarianism is policy based on identity. Isn't that what you're advocating for? Yes. Don't those white people in Europe call themselves identitarian?

Well, they are. And you're teaching the same thing. Yes. And the Washington Post put out an article that advocated for the importance of white racial identity. They did today.

So don't say critical race theory. You can say identitarianism. The problem is they're not even teaching identitarianism. They're identitarianly teaching things. Right, right, right. It's applying critical race theory

into other subjects. Through the lens of. They actually call it critical praxis. So when the right comes out and says, critical race theory, the left easily goes, name one critical race theorist we've ever brought up in the school

and of course they don't teach the theory of anything in fifth grade and you can't so at these board meetings they're like mr mr smith it was you're complaining about crt uh can you name one critical race theory author that you've heard your your son or daughter uh quote i didn't think so next and it's over Because these parents don't know. I went to, I was shopping in West Virginia, and I heard parents complaining about critical race theory. And I said, you need to stop saying that. You know, like, I understand everything you're talking about. They're not teaching critical race theory.

First and foremost, what they are teaching is rooted in critical theory in general, which includes critical gender theory. But they're applying the ideology into the teachings. If you go into these meetings and say this, they're going to in two seconds shut you down and say, you have no idea what you're talking about. And they win. So you can just bypass this whole argument by saying they are teaching wokeness. Because wokeness is not defined by the left. Critical race theory is. The problem with the anti-establishment, be it liberal, moderate,

conservative, those who challenge wokeness, or the Democrats for that matter, is that we all keep standing on their battlefield. The Black Lives Matter rioters, insurrectionists. The George Floyds, no-go zone. Antifa autonomists, no-go zone. The police, it's a no-go zone.

Criminal no-go zone. You know who else does that? Tim Pool. I heard you use the term capitalism more than once tonight. It's a no-go zone. Criminal no-go zone. You know who else does that? Tim Pool. I heard you use the term capitalism more than once tonight. That is a term that was coined by Karl Marx. Boom. See, he got me. Free enterprise. Free enterprise.

But you're right. See, I grew up in a world that had already succumbed to constantly ceding the battleground to the left. So you just stop using their terms. Critical race theory is their name. That's not what I call it. I call it wokeness. And then people are like, well, you know, wokeness is kind of pejorative. Good.

It's a bad thing. It's authoritarian cult ideology. I don't care if, look, when you get into the core of critical race theory, they'll use some sound ideas to justify why it's a good theory. Certain things like, did Christopher Columbus actually discover America? And then some people counter, it was actually Leif Erikson. And then they'll counter with, the Native Americans were already here. And that's the morsel of truth that triggers this, oh, and then the left starts saying start saying you see they were just teaching true

history of of racism blah blah blah so no i'm not i have no concern for the most part of a of a school system in any grade teaching a theory if they want to teach a theory they would say there are several authors who believe x this is what they've said that's fine the problem is when they create math problems where it's like john John has been stopped by police three times. Listen, well before wokeness, my wife was looking at my son's, all my sons are large adults now, but when they were much younger, she was looking at one of their homework assignments, and it was, which of these scores, which of these scores in the basketball game between,

I'm sure if Jane is listening this far into this, I got it wrong, but it was, there were three basketball games between the two schools. Which score was the least, shows that the game was the least fair? And the answer was, of course, the game with the largest discrepancy between the scores. Fairness has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Maybe only three guys played for the team that scored 37 points more. But this is a, this goes to a

corruption and subversive phenomenon that's been going on within education which has now been leeched onto by particular political movements which has worked out just great for everyone concerned.

It's a religion. You know, CRT is one aspect of whatever this religion is, and it is a non-theistic religion. It's a different moral framework from Judeo-Christian values, and I think that's one of the big fissures between the left and the right. So their moral framework is, quote, there is no truth but power, end quote.

And then the other moral framework, which is based on traditionally Judeo-Christian values, has a lot more to do with a lot of... At least a search for truth. A search for the truth that is greater than power. But I want to clarify this too. I'm not saying that the people who oppose wokeness are all theistic and believe in God and all that stuff. But their values they were born with, they come from a country that was rooted in those values, and this is what was born of it. Their ideology is something entirely new or lacking any kind of moral framework. All right. Let's – Center Sun says, on Friday, a Super Chat asked, what's left of alt-left? And Tim suggested an AI government.

It sounded eerily familiar to the resource based economy dreamed up by Peter Joseph. You should look into him as a potential guest. I don't know. You know, so what we're saying was the far left literal communists think they're centrists. If that were true, what would be to the left of them? Right. think they're centrists. If that were true, what would be to the left of them? If the left on the economic scale is cooperative, which is communism, and the right is competitive, which is free enterprise,

then what's left of communism? A brick wall? The left-right paradigm has always had problems. There's a whole school of Twitter stupidity that goes like this, and you've seen it a gazillion times. National socialism is really a form of socialism.

No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. Read about national socialism. It's true that Hitler, it's true that the National Socialists, as a party, have origins in the worker-based socialism that was roiling Europe around

in the early years of the 20th century. It's true that Goebbels himself was a Marxist, and to a large extent remained one. To the end of his wretched, awful, evil life, he used paradigms, I mean, he used the nomenclature of workers' struggle. He never abandoned that. Party work, these kinds of things that you see from Soviet literature.

But National Socialism had nothing to do with the state owning the means of production. It was not a centralized economy. It was not even a command economy. It has very little to do with socialism. So, the whole way of understanding

right and left is very confusing. I would assume that when a communist says, no, we're this, we represent the center, that they themselves must be positing something to the left of them. Right. What is it? They made this chart where it shows Bernie Sanders to the left

of center. And it says, and then the left of him, it says, watch this space. And they're like, it says reality. Like, Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist and advocates for worker ownership of companies and he's center left all right so pol pot is to the left of bernie sanders yeah okay mouths a tongue is to the left of bernie sanders and further north too would it be like monarch a monarchy would be no that's authoritarian but is it far left

authoritarian it's not even the same scale i On a political compass with North, South, East, and West or whatever, left economic is cooperative and right economic is free enterprise. Monarchy is merely who's the head of state. Is it hereditary? You know, in South Korea and North Korea, the last three dictators have been father, son, and grandson. That is what we used to call a monarchy. But because they call themselves a republic, oh, they must be a republic, right?

Just because if I call myself an antifa, I must be against fascism. Anti-First Amendment. Anti-FA, you know? Yeah, we should just call North Korea a monarchy. A single authority, right? No, a single hereditary authority. That's what makes it a monarchy. There you go.

Hereditary monarchy. You could have a non-hereditary monarchy. I, in fact, intend to. That's the future for this country. Or like you vote. They vote like a council of elders to vote for the next king after the king dies. That's what they used to do way back. That's what they used to do in the German Federation.

You know what would be really funny? If North Korea decided to implement the Black Panther, Wakanda style of patriarchal hereditary rule by combat, chosen by combat, so basically the sons of the elders have to fight and whoever wins becomes the king. You'd be like by basketball, though. Just Frankie goes to Hollywood.

Two tribes. I still haven't seen that movie. Is it good? Is it a movie? I don't know. Is it a movie? All right, all right. Let's read some more Super Chats. All right. Group B says Tim, MicroStrategy now owns one out of every 210 bitcoins that will ever be

mined. Who does? MicroStrategy. Okay. Are you familiar with them? I don't know a lot about them. It's like a business consulting thing or something. They say, and hash rate is down because China miners are leaving. Bullish much? Oh, man.

When the price of Bitcoin goes down, I just like, bye. It has been. I know. It's great. It's good news. It's because China plays these dirty games to manipulate poor people. They'll be like, we're going to ban Bitcoin. Oh, and then the price drops and then rich people buy up as much as they can from the

panicked poor people. You can actually see it in the transactions. So when Elon Musk made his tweet that like, we're not going to sell, this is according to some stuff that I read. I could be wrong. So fact check me. But I read a bunch of reports showing that the bulk of the transactions were small amounts, like $20 to $50, maybe $100. It was poor people who put in only as much as they could. And when

the price started tanking, they panicked and sold. And the rich people started moving millions of dollars into Bitcoin, but there's substantially fewer dollars from the wealthy going in and more from the poor fleeing. So the price was going down. The way I described it was at the time when Bitcoin was at $38,000, I said, if someone offered you a million dollars in cash in a case, and all you had to do was write him a check for 38 grand, would you do it? Well, of course, it makes no sense. Like, why would I, that's how I view Bitcoin. When you have all of these massive companies hedging their bets and making massive investments into Bitcoin, and the people selling are the poor people, I feel bad for those poor people. I want to warn them. But I'm pretty

confident the rich people think they're going to make bank off Bitcoin. So that's what I'm doing. I'm not telling anybody else what to do. I'm going to do my thing. Not financial advice. But in November, I bought Bitcoin, and I look at it as a savings account. I'm like, okay, I got some money. I want to put it away. I bought a bunch of Bitcoin in November, and boy, am I happy. Been happy the whole time. I'm happy, too.

Yeah. Me, too. But only because he's happy. Yeah, it's different reasons. I've been meditating a lot. Someone's trying to Michael... Andy... Wait, they're trying to Michael Knowles Andy Ngo.

Oh, snap. So here's what they said. Die Steel Wobble says, got my second shot and now I'm unmasked. Just like Andy Ngo's book, Unmasked, Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy. Purchase at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads, and, you know, the thing, places. Definitely pick up Michael Ngo's book, Andy Ngo's book.

Pick up Michael Malice's book. I actually just did a chapter for Michael Malice's book, an audio chapter. It was a reading an anarchist essay. Me too. Oh, excellent. Great. That's going to be an excellent audio book. Michael's got, like, the best people reading chapters. It was tiring. It was a reading an anarchist essay. Me too. Oh, excellent. Great. That's going to be an excellent audio book. Michael's got like the best people.

It was tiring. It was tiring. Wow. I had to read one that was French. So, but it was translated. Oh, so there were like certain words and phrases in there. And I'm like, oh, that'll be great. That'll be fun.

All right. Ted too says, Tim, I get your point about military budget and industry, but a lot of the systems we use are expensive tech designed to increase our survivability in the battle space. It's not all just bombs. See MRAPs, ECM, et cetera. Oh, yeah, I agree. Not only that. Why do we invest so much in survivability because politically we cannot afford to trade bodies

for hardware the way other regimes can. It's like the Zet Brannigan strategy. You send wave after wave of your own men until the kill bots reach their kill limit

and then you win. Unfortunately, that was like the Soviet strategy. Wave after wave of low quality but just lots of people and i worked out for him in a lot of a lot of places all right michael win says hey tim i know y'all helped out a cat a little while back now a friend whose doggo got

run over is in a very bad way can you shout out this word doggo to get some help at gofundme to find the page look for noah pelvis surgery by claudia rays any little bit helps ray as ray as latino pronunciation so uh claudio or claudia claudia we had someone oh sorry latina latinx my bad we had somebody shout out their gofundme and so i shouted it out and. I can't believe that you do that. That would strike me as really bad podcasting hygiene. Really? Well, now everyone keeps doing it. No further questions.

I don't know. The witness may step down. They're paying for it. They are? Yeah, the Super Chats. They give me money, and then I read it. I'm like, to all the advertisers out there, you can join the lottery of getting a promo because a lot of people are like, hey, shout out my podcast.

And they'll like super chat a couple bucks. But the sponsors get that guaranteed spot in the beginning. Hey. I won't. Some of them are in poor taste. They'll be like, can you shout out my GoFundMe because I'm buying a car. And I'll be like, look, saving someone's dog, I want to help save people's pets. You know what I mean?

That's miserable. In other words, if you want a new car call it a dog that's right but then you're committing fraud and gofundme will ban you oh don't do that yeah you can't i was just thinking about how you helped that cat yesterday i was like crossed my mind yeah i've got to make sure that cat is uh taken care of i would be i if if uh our cat bucko was was injured and I couldn't afford to save him, I'd be thinking like anything I could do, I could sell. You know, loyalty, right? Now, cats aren't particularly loyal to dogs.

Right. I mean, you're loyal to the cat. Right. That is a one way street. You know, I was thinking about it. I think cats are pretty fascistic, right? Cats like you because you're powerful. If you were small, they would torture you and they don't care because you're powerful if you were small they would torture you and

they don't care what you're smart will the will to power is what the fee that's the feline nature that's right that's right dogs are loyal loyal soldiers you know they'll stand in the front line for you you know the story of uh hajiko right hajiko. Dog in Japan waited like 10 years. Oh, yeah. Outside of a train station. They built a statue for him. That's right. That's my...

The dog was like, I will not, unless, you know, I have given my, you know, unless they're given confirmation of the death, they will not abandon me. My Patronus is a dog.

I took the Harry Potter test. Yeah. Apparently I would shoot one out of a wand, if anything. There you go. That's kind of grounding. Woot Do For You says,

you need to look into the abolish the ATF bill better. It just transfers the duty to the FBI. And I did call that out on the segment that I did about Marjorie Taylor Greene's bill. It does. It abolishes, it reverses a lot of the rules going back to August 2020. But for the most part,

it just means the FBI will do what the ATF does, which can't possibly be better because the FBI is, I think ATF does, which can't possibly be better because the FBI is, I think we all agree, the worst. Yeah, the worst. Christopher Irvine says, Australia banned CRT from national curriculum yesterday. God bless Senator Pauline Hanson.

Shout out to Pam. To, wow. Did I say Pam or did I say Parn? Parn? Wow, I'm surprised that happened in Australia. Wow. I think it says Parn, P-A-R-N. Parn.

I don't know. Parmesan, maybe? She was trying to order something. Sean Parnell. All right. Alabama Toolbox says, Tim, have you considered inviting Yeonmi Park onto your show?

She is a North Korean defector living in the U.S. Recently, she has spoken out against woke culture. Have we considered that? We have considered that. Oh, interesting. Indeed. All right. I wasn't part of that conversation.

No, you weren't. I'm sorry. I'll keep you in the loop better. I'm just saying. Have you ever been to North Korea? I'd rather not say. I still haven't. It's a secret.

Proud Native says, Tim, I tried to fight and couldn't get the lawyers. Lost everything. Trying to build up now. Not everyone is as lucky as you. Granted, Colorado wouldn't have acted the same. Is that a secret code? Are missiles going to be now launched based on those?

I mean, that seems like a series of non-sequiturs to me. Yeah, it was kind of like a code. I've been speaking English now for well over the 40 years that I've been on this planet. What the hell does that mean? I don't think it's luck to do things. I don't know. Oh, yeah, I understand the illusion that Tim fell

that you've fallen into this place that you're at. But I mean, it takes, you know, 10, 12 years of 10-hour days of work, you know. Not only work, but imagination, creativity, and... Not an ounce of luck, unfortunately. What is luck? It's a big in China, like Chinese culture, Not only work, but imagination and creativity. Not an ounce of luck, unfortunately. What is luck? It's big in China.

Like Chinese culture, luck is a real thing. That just fortuitous things occur to you more often. But they say luck favors the prepared. Fortune favors the bold. Luck favors the prepared. Your ability to seize opportunities when they arrive or see them when others do not. Well, so intelligence. And as much as the left loves to insult me my success is largely due to my ability to predict when big news events were going to happen based on

prior news so for instance i got to ferguson within a couple days i was on occupy wall street within a couple days so when you have 10 news stories that are occurring around the country and you can only choose one and only one of them is going to be the big news story. If you can't accurately predict which one is going to be big, you'll end up with the wrong one. I think Cernovich is good at that, too. Yeah. So a few examples.

Occupy Wall Street. There's a bunch of places I could have been. I decided to go to New York, and I was there within, I think, the third day of Occupy Wall Street, and I was there for, I stayed in New York afterwards. The Ferguson riots. There were a bunch of things going on. A better example would be the Gezi Park protests. Vice and I had discussed going to the G8 protests in like Northern Ireland or something. And at the very last minute, I said, change my ticket to Istanbul. We're going. And they're like, are you

sure? I was like, yes, yes, yes. And it ended up becoming one of their biggest pieces they ever did. I was broadcasting to a ridiculous amount of people. Livestream was on all their TVs. They were super excited. Now, any other person, would they have been able to predict the right place to be, to have known? To be fair, I was watching videos of things happening, being like, we got to cover this story.

It wasn't like I knew that someone was going to show up and a cop was going to shoot somebody. It was the news happened. I see a bunch of news across the country. I said, this one is going to be the biggest story. And here's why. Get me a plane ticket right now. In fact, Vice would not buy me the ticket to Ferguson. They told me to wait.

And I said, no. And I bought the ticket myself. And if I had not gone, they would have not gotten that coverage. And it was like the biggest thing Vice had ever done when I went to Ferguson. It was like 70,000 concurrent viewers, which is not the biggest I've done. But at the point, you know, several years ago, it was ridiculous for a live stream to have that level of viewership, particularly with mobile. And they told me no when I said it at first.

Bought myself the ticket and flew there. And then they were like, bravo. And then I quit because of it. But so that's it. It's not luck. There are a lot of people who used to cover and do field reporting for all these different places, and they'd be in the place that wasn't the biggest story. So you can call it luck.

You can call it whatever you want. But it was pretty fortuitous that I was in all of these huge moments. But isn't it usually the producer, like in a typical news organization, the producer sends the field reporter. You had an entrepreneurial role in choosing from where you would do your reporting. Yeah. It was usually typical reporters. The producer says, here's your ticket to Ireland, Northern Ireland. There are some places I've gone where it ended up being the wrong place. But I had a tendency to be in the right place at the right time.

Yeah, and also seize when you are in the right place at the right time to be able to turn it into something big. Otherwise, maybe you didn't realize it was the right place. During Occupy Wall Street, the initial live streaming was being done via laptop with webcams they were holding up, and they would just point at random things. When I started live streaming, I would use my phone with Ustream, which was like the new mobile app, and I would narrate, explaining what was going on and what I was seeing while answering questions.

And no one had done that for the most part. So people were given an option. Watch a stream where they're just pointing a camera and moving back and forth, or here's a guy talking to me and answering my questions. I mean, what were the – you weren't even on – did you even have 3G? Yeah, it was in the WiMAX era. So 3G and I think WiMAX was what I was using. One megabit up and down.

Amazing, isn't it? Really, really bad connection. Dan Ian says, Did Tim just admit to accusing someone of a racially based crime using theatrics for profit? WTF? No. I said that if you are in a racist meeting to accuse the boss of being racist because they are being racist and violating the Civil Rights Act. I'm literally saying if you are in a workplace meeting and they break the law to tell them to warn them not to and then to go to the proper administration when they do. Simple as that.

He did say that. You might not win, but when someone comes out and says white people are inherently X, Y, or otherwise, yeah, that's literally racial discrimination. Like, you have to file complaints about that stuff. The left is doing it. All right, let's see. We'll read a couple more here. Ian Hall says, Ron, you need to come pocket format

it's instant chutzpah plus added feature have you met my lawyer he is jewish all hr departments do you get that i don't know what that was awesome all right eddie says hey tim currently working working for CNN as a software engineer contractor, which is funny considering my views, but it pays the bills and the super chat. Well, that's cool. But can you look into 1 Timothy 4.3? Seems it speaks on leftists who hold views like vegans and feminists. Interesting. Working for CNN, huh?

Now, that's a topic I wish we would have had time to discuss before we started the super chatting, which is you've got to work for CNN. That's the job. Boycotts. Boycotts. Don't buy from Amazon. Really? It's pouring out.

It's 30 degrees. They can get me Michael Malice's book by tomorrow at 11 o'clock. You want me to get in my car, drive over, here we are in the middle of nowhere, right? Yeah. Drive out to, you know, Yekipetsville to see if maybe the Barnes & Noble is open. Maybe they have the book. Boycotts, man. Tough question.

Tough question. Some. Disney Plus. Nickelodeon. Coca-Cola. Although I think someone bought a bunch of Coca-Cola. It's fine. I didn't buy it. She bought it.

I can't taste it anymore. And yet I still drink it. That's an addict. We get these cane sugar sodas. We get a bunch of them. And we don't get a high fructose corn syrup out of there. Yeah. I'm a big fan of carrots.

You guys ever eat carrots? I have eaten carrots before. If they're sweet, you know you have the right amount of sugar in your body if the carrots are sweet. That's true. Carrots got a lot of sugar in them. Yeah. Carrots be good. You're dead to me.

No, no. We're just getting to know each other, Ron. It's just beginning. That's, that's. It's just getting started. The traction. All right, we'll just read a couple more here. That's like the other Ron in Parks and Recreation.

That's who I thought you were. I was like, Ron Swanson. All right, Calum Eskew says. That's my spirit. You're the real Ron Swanson. Calum Eskew says. That's my spirit. You're the real Ron Swanson. Callum Eskew says, Tim, 2021 grad here. We were taught direct CRT through reading a Ta-Nehisi Coates works. Some guy who wrote Red Skull Peterson.

Same guy. That's right. He is, in fact, the guy who did that. But wait a minute. Was that in high school or was that in college? He just has 2021 grad. Grad of what? I don't know.

Of where? All right. Harley Chuck says, Tim, why do you push home ownership homo what home ownership oh i thought we were going back to the okay um i push i i won't advise people to buy homes i don't give financial advice or anything like that but i would say home ownership is a vehicle by which the middle class transfer wealth to their children and make their lives better and store their wealth beyond their life to their descendants. And if you own a home, you're likely going to pay less per month than you would on rent. Granted, you have taxes and insurance. It's still less because the people who own the home and rent it out have to cover those same things.

So they'll charge a premium. Now, let's say you buy a house and you're like, I hate taking care of this house. Maintenance, geez, I wish I had a landlord I could call and fix it for me. I don't even want to live here anymore. I moved to New York. Now I regret it. Now I own this property. Oh, what am I going to do? You're going to call a rental management company who will take over. You'll sign a contract with them, and then you will never think about it again, and money will just appear in your bank account. Passive income. But for some reason, all these news outlets are saying,

Millennials hate owning homes. Don't buy homes, Millennial. You'll hate it. Okay, whatever. I guess more homes for me. Millennials don't know how to use a screwdriver. That could be part of the problem. Yeah, well, you're a boomer, aren't you?

Technically. Didn't the boomers create the millennials? And then the silent created the Gen Xers? So the thing is, I'm not really a boomer. 63, okay? By the time I was of age, the real boomers had completely cleaned the place out. They had cleaned out everything.

Generation X. We were left with disco. Okay? Alright? I don't know. Generation X. I think you're a boomer, right? I think they say now up until 64 you're a boomer. 64 to 79 is the...

You're like a baby boomer. Or 65 to 79. Well, so listen. The baby boomers had the millennials and instilled their values in the millennials, and I think they made a lot of mistakes, as every generation tends to. Well, the greatest generation had the baby boomers. That's right. And they were not so great.

That's right. They were great at storming the beach, but they turned out the most rotten generation in American history. That's your hippies. That's right. And that's where you get your, you know... I love the idea that it was the hippies who are now the people extracting the wealth and holding the properties

and wagging the finger at millennials. The hippies were phonies from go. Yeah, they did too many drugs. That's what I heard about. Great hippies. If you haven't already, smash that like button and subscribe to this channel. Share the show with your friends. And you can follow us on Facebook at TimCastIRL as well as Instagram,

where you can share and like our videos to help leverage that. So we can make everybody go to TimCast.com, where we will have a bonus segment coming up at about 11 p.m. So don't forget to sign up at Timcast.com. Support our fearless and fierce journalism, which is still, for the most part, yet to come. We've got Cassandra Fairbanks leading the show. She's doing a lot of our general articles to start.

We are just signing on now our mysteries and investigative, unexplored, unexplained writer and editor. And then we're going to be adding a journalist as well as a video editor. We're going to be doing more podcasts. We are going to be contracting field reporters to go on the ground. So this is where pitches at TimCast.com becomes important because in about a week, the alpha version of our site will be up testing. And then hopefully within a week after that, we will have the functioning site up, but maybe there's bugs. We're also going to be having a big kickoff auction of a

limited edition pair of shoes, which is something I'm super excited about. We have TimCast color vans. I put it on Instagram. You can see what they look like. Oh, nice. Yep, that's right. So make sure you go to TimCast.com, sign up. What are TimCast colors? Like gray and blue. Yeah, exactly. You see what I'm wearing, you know.

And you look at the walls and everything. So that's what we have. And they're, like, really nice. There's, like, leather inside, so they slide on really easily. Oh, wow. But the outside is suede, so they're durable. Yeah, I don't screw around. But make sure you follow me personally at TimCast. The show is live Monday through Friday at 8 p.m., so we'll be back tomorrow, of course.

Ron, do you want to shout out your show, your Twitter, your whatever? Twitter. At Ron Coleman. Like it's spelled like it sounds. Okay? With an E after the L. The main thing is that. Also, I have a new podcast.

I've had some pretty cool guests. He said no because he says he sucks at being a podcast guest. And I believe him. Now that I've heard him. I thought I said maybe I'll figure out when we have time. I'll take it. Coleman Nation. It's the play on words.

Love it. Look for it. It's on all the things. And it's taken off like crazy. Crazy. If you like the Jewish lawyer thing. You know, we didn't talk too much about theology. I don't know if you ever get into talking

about that. I do. I'd love to break down the character of Moses someday. Break down the character of Moses. Yeah, I just love that guy. Moses is quite a boss. Is he a red dude? He was pretty powerful. Red dude. Thought he was a slave and then freed all the slaves.

I saw that movie with Christian Bale. Okay. And that was, I'm told that is like a perfectly adapted slave and then freed all the slaves. I saw that movie with Christian Bale. Okay. And I'm told that is like a perfectly adapted version of Moses. Unlikely. Christian Bale. Well, hey, you guys can follow me at IanCrossland.net and at Ian Crossland all across social media. Keep it real.

And you guys, I think that you should follow me at Sarah Patchlids on Twitter because this is something I've never done before. I wanted to reference a tweet that i made yesterday this weekend i was thinking about rules that the right wing needs to follow i made a list of about 10 or 11 rules and one of them is we must choose not to bicker with each other over petty disagreements and we literally have oh sorry about that one it says we have to sacrifice some of our individuality to accomplish goals that give people freedom it is not optional and i feel like this is really going to sit hard with the right wing, but I think it's absolutely necessary. You guys should go read all my rules and tell me what you think of them

at Sour Patch Lids on Twitter. I'm going to do that as soon as we're done. We are going to see you all in the bonus segment over at TimCast.com, so stay tuned. We'll see you all there. Bye, guys.