South Park Just DESTROYED Trump
PDS Published 07/25/2025
-
The creators of South Park just cashed a $1.5 billion check and used it to tell the world that Donald Trump has a tiny penis.
Right, that was at least one of the many takeaways of last night’s season premiere, which not only took aim at Trump, but also Paramount and really anyone who has capitulated to the president since his election.
The episode started with the declaration that “woke is dead” after the characters learn NPR has been defunded and that Jesus is now in their school.
We then see Trump naked in bed with Satan, where his tiny penis is on display, and that joke is repeated throughout the episode in portraits where he is nude as well.
Slurs are used throughout the episode as a parody of anti-woke culture under Trump, there are even jabs about the Epstein files.
And Paramount catches heat in depictions of 60 Minutes where the hosts are literally afraid to speak so they just kiss up to and praise Trump.
There is also a plot mocking Trump’s CBS lawsuit, where in the show Trump sues the town of South Park for criticizing him, and then Jesus then comes to town to warn them about Trump’s abuses of power, saying:
“I didn’t want to come back and be in the school, but I had to because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount… You guys saw what happened to CBS? Yeah, well, guess who owns CBS? Paramount. You really want to end up like Colbert? You guys got to stop being stupid... If someone has the power of the presidency and also has the power to sue and take bribes, then he can do anything to anyone.”
And it ends with the town of South Park settling Trump’s lawsuit by agreeing to air pro-Trump PSAs, and a PSA then plays with a narrator calling Trump brave, but showed an AI version of him naked struggling to walk through a desert, and oh look a small penis again.
And that PSA seems to be a reference to controversy within Paramount’s ongoing merger with Skydance, which we talked a bit about earlier this week.
Right, they will need Trump administration approval for this, so many believe they have been going out of their way to get on his good side.
Just yesterday, Skydance told the FCC it would cut all DEI efforts at Paramount.
Many also believe they axed Late Show with Stephen Colbert and agreed to a $16 million settlement with Trump to get this merger rolling.
And there has been some reporting saying that there was some side-deals in the $16 million settlement that makes it worth more,
Including Skydance setting aside millions of dollars to air PSAs supporting conservative causes.
Right, so that fake Trump PSA South Park played clearly mocks that idea.
So this was a pretty wild episode because, one, South Park airs on Comedy Central, which is owned by Paramount.
Right, this is their daddy they are making fun of.
And two, they did this just days after officially inking a five-year $1.5 billion streaming deal with Paramount+.
Under this deal, Paramount will have the global streaming rights for the show after its previous streaming contract under HBO Max just ended.
And now, under the new Paramount deal, creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone agreed to produce 10 episodes of South Park a year, so 50 total new episodes.
So they have five years, AKA the rest of Trump’s term, under a Paramount deal now.
Which is why you had Rolling Stone saying last night’s episode probably:[]
“has Paramount and Skydance Media banging their heads against a wall.”
Others just praising the show for having the guts to go knives out at a point in time when most others are afraid to.
With the likes of Dylan Byers of Puck News saying:
“Hard to think of anything more defiant in media & entertainment recently than Trey Parker & Matt Stone going scorched earth on Paramount in a South Park season premiere on the heels of netting a $1.5 billion deal with the very same company.”[]
Others just saying things like:
“You know what’s fuck you money? Everything Matt and Trey just ordered to air tonight.”[]
“South Park referring to Colbert getting canceled within a week of it happening is unbelievable. Greatest show of all time.”[]
“Tonight’s South Park episode is truly insane—and genuinely remarkable. Paramount bent the knee to Trump once. How’s that working out for you now? You really think he won’t come asking for more? Appeasing fascists doesn’t keep you safe—it marks you as an easy target.”[]
And while the world is on standby for a Trump South Park Truth Social meltdown, Rolling Stone is already reporting that the White House is furious about the episode.
With a spokesperson telling the outlet:
“The Left’s hypocrisy truly has no end — for years they have come after South Park for what they labeled as ‘offense’ content, but suddenly they are praising the show. Just like the creators of South Park, the Left has no authentic or original content, which is why their popularity continues to hit record lows. This show hasn’t been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention.”
You also had an administration source telling Deadline that “the President is seething over the childish attack by South Park.”[]
And I would love to know your thoughts on this episode, especially if you watched it or are a South Park fan in general, what do you think of this, and what do you think will come out of it?
Will Paramount try to slap their wrists or more, will Trump come after them?
-
In a rare move, the French president and his wife are suing Farr-right podcaster Candice Owens for defamation.
[Clip, 02:38 - 02:46] Caption: “It is a patently, egregiously, ungrounded, false, unsubstantiated theory. It’s exactly that, a conspiracy theory.”
[Clip, 01:51 - 01:57 - 01:59 - 02:00] Caption: “When you’ve risen to that station, everybody has a right to question you, no matter what they’re questioning. … Why would you sue them over it?”
[Clip, 02:14 - 02:24] Caption: “Really, the first couple of France can’t leave their home in France without worrying that people believe the deranged nonsense from this American podcaster?”
[Clip, 02:16 - 02:21] Caption: “Based on this story and how they’re reacting, I’m starting to think that maybe Brigitte Macron actually is a man.”
Right, the alleged defamation here centers on the unfounded claim that French President Immanuel Macron’s [Pronounce] wife, Brigitte [Pronounce 00:03] Macron, is in fact transgender. [B roll, 00:00 - 00:09]
And although this conspiracy theory predates her talking about it, Candice Owens has been the most prominent advocate for it over the past couple of years.
With her even declaring last year that she’s willing to stake her entire professional reputation on the claim that it’s true.
And since then, she’s released an eight-part series on the topic titled “Becoming Brigitte” that’s accumulated 2.3 million views so far. [Playlist and lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 44:21 - 44:27] Caption: “I believe Brigitte Macron was born a biological male, okay? And then transitioned into a female.”
[Clip, 08:26 - 08:31] Caption: “We are told, by the way, that that’s Brigitte in her mother’s lap. It looks nothing like Brigitte.”
[Clip, 04:37 - 04:40] Caption: “It could be plausible that all of these people have multiple identities.”
[Clip, 17:17 - 17:23] Caption: “A family that is known and is on record as having practiced incest.”
[Clip, 15:45 - 15:51] Caption: “Is there a chance that Brigitte Macron, some of you asked, is actually the father of Immanuel Macron?”
[Clip, 02:55 - 03:00] Caption: “That mom and dad? They’re not actually his mom and dad.”
[Clip, 17:24 - 17:29] Caption: “Why and how did Immanuel Macron get so close to the Rothschilds?”
[Clip, 12:06 - 12:11] Caption: “Look at her hands. That looks weird.”
[Clip, 10:23 - 10:28] Caption: “And this is why you can just sort of go down this rabbit hole, and it makes you wonder.”
And as you could probably tell from those clips, her theories get way more adventurous than the relatively narrow, though still insane, idea that Brigitte is trans. [Image]
Right, Owens also believes that she’s older than she claims, that she stole another person’s identity, that she’s committing incest, and that she’s a pedophile. [Image]
With that stemming from the fact that Brigitte first met Macron when she was 39 and he was her 15-year-old high-school drama student.
Though the couple maintain that their relationship always stayed inside the bounds of the law, and that they only tied the knot after reconnecting later in life.
But even beyond that, Owens also seemed to suggest that Brigitte had some kind of connection to Jeffrey Epstein and an elite conspiracy of other pedophiles. [B roll, 00:49 - 00:57]
With her similarly claiming that the Macrons are being blackmailed or controlled by the CIA, and as you could guess from the Rothschild comment earlier, there are anti-Semitic undertones to all of this.
Which is pretty on brand for Owens, since she’s gone further and further off the deep end in recent years.
With her starting off around 2016 at Charlie Kirk’s Turning Points USA, gaining notoriety for downplaying the reality of racism and denying climate change.
Then becoming a pundit on Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, which she departed after a public feud with him over her anti-Semitic statements and criticism of Israel.
And since then, she’s done her own podcast, hosting figures like the Tate brothers and white nationalist Nick Fuentes, downplaying the Holocaust and spewing bullshit about a Jewish world conspiracy.
As well as spreading panic about gay and trans groomers, engaging in covid and anti-vaxx conspiracism, and claiming the moon landing was faked.
But while all that stuff has gotten her largely sidelined from mainstream discourse, the Brigitte Macron theory threw her back into the spotlight.
With her recently claiming that Donald Trump personally called her and asked that she stop spreading the rumour about Brigitte being trans.
And now, the Macrons themselves are suing her in a Delaware court for defamation, seeking unspecified damages.
With the complaint alleging that she has waged a lie-filled "campaign of global humiliation" to promote her podcast and expand her "frenzied" fan base. [Quote]
And going on to state, “Owens has dissected their appearance, their marriage, their friends, their family, and their personal history — twisting it all into a grotesque narrative designed to inflame and degrade.” [Quote same link]
“The result is relentless bullying on a worldwide scale.” [Quote same link]
And adding, “It is invasive, dehumanizing, and deeply unjust.” [Quote]
Now in her response video to this, Owens was as defiant as one can be. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:13 - 00:17; Clip, 01:19 - 01:26; Clip, 06:10 - 06:22; Clip, 07:03 - 07:09] Caption: “I have been sued by the first lady man of France. … You are officially a very goofy man, Brigitte. And I’ve gotta give it to you. You’ve definitely got balls. … If you need any more evidence that Brigitte Macron is definitely a man, it is just what is happening right now. The idea that you would file this lawsuit is all of the proof that you need. … It’s a PR strategy. They don’t care if they win. This is about running it through the press.”
Now the lawyer the Macrons hired is Tom Clare, the same guy who represented Dominion in its historic defamation suit against Fox News.
And in their complaint, they cite evidence which they claim incontrovertibly proves Brigitte is not trans, including family photos and birth announcements.
With Clare telling CNN:
[Clip, 01:27 - 01:36, 01:40 - 01:56] Caption: “We have attempted to engage with her for the last year, putting evidence in front of her, request after request after request that she just simply do the right thing. … And each time we’ve done that, she mocked the Macrons, she mocked our effort to set the record straight, she refused to retract what she had said, she started a merch campaign, she’s selling T-shirts mocking and celebrating her defamation of them, and enough is enough.”
But even some who are by no means fans of Owens are skeptical that this lawsuit will succeed.
With for example this professor of media ethics and law telling Reuters. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:36 - 01:06] Caption: “Under U.S. law, public officials are required to prove actual malice, knowledge of falsity, reckless disregard for the truth. In his lengthy complaint he has certainly alleged that on the part of this podcaster, but I think he’s also probably not giving enough deference to the fact that courts in the United States grant broad discretion to individuals to comment on public officials.”
Now according to Owens, she offered to interview Brigitte before releasing the first episode of “Becoming Brigitte,” and she argues that fact disproves the actual malice claim.
But ultimately, we’re gonna have to see how this plays out in the courtroom, and in that regard, Owens seems confident.
[Clip, 30:18 - 30:34] Caption: “We are revolting against this. We are revolting against the perverts that run the world. And I want to be very clear here. I count you among them. I think you’re sick, I think you’re disgusting, and I am fully prepared to take on this battle on behalf of the entire world.”
Head to Equip use code PHIL to get 20% off your first order, or 35% off your first subscription!
-
Then I have a bunch of Epstein updates for ya.
Starting with the news that a lawyer for HUNDREDS of victims now appears to have corroborated the existence of the “birthday book.”
Right, the alleged book that Ghislaine Maxwell made for Epstein’s birthday in 2003 by compiling letters from dozens of friends — including Trump.
With The Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump’s letter contained a cryptic message about all the wonderful secrets the two pals share and a drawing of a naked woman, with his signature mimicking pubic hair.
Now, of course, Trump has denied writing the letter or drawing the sketch, calling it “a fake thing” and suing The Journal for libel.
But now, it seems like there may be a way to determine if Trump is telling the truth.
Right, because last night, Bradley Edwards — an attorney who has represented more than 200 Epstein victims — told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell that he has “numerous clients” who know that the birthday book exists, and adding:
“I do know that they were involved in the assembly of the book, several of them. They were told by Ghislaine to assist in putting the book together. Others have seen the book post-birthday and after it was assembled. So the existence of the book is an absolute fact. Now, who wrote letters, what’s in the book? You’re going to have to get the book to figure it out. But this isn’t something that needs to be a mystery forever and drag the victims into all kinds of anxiety, for nothing. We can get that answer pretty quickly.” 6:56 - 7:33
With Edwards going on to say that the book is in the possession of the two executors of Epstein’s estate — his former attorney and accountant:
“If somebody simply called them on the phone and said ‘give us the book,’ they would probably give you the book.” 3:54 - 4:00
“If they didn’t just voluntarily turn over the book out of fear of reprisal, Congress could issue a subpoena to their attorneys at Patterson or at Troutman—those are the two law firms. I know those attorneys. They would turn the book over immediately. Nobody would have to guess.” 4:04 - 4:20
And, very notably, right after Edwards dropped that bombshell, O’Donnell spoke to Rep. Ro Khanna, who has been one of the lawmakers leading the charge in the House to get the Epstein files released.
And Khanna said that this new revelation will be an absolute game-changer here.
With him noting that, just hours before, a subcommittee of the House Oversight panel voted to subpoena the Justice Department for the Epstein files.
And, VERY significantly, that motion was passed by a vote of 8-2, with three Republicans joining all Democrats.
And while Khanna said that is a big step forward, he also argued that it will be very difficult to get the DOJ to cooperate with a subpoena — but that isn’t the case when it comes to a private estate:
“What's not hard to do is to subpoena private attorneys in a private estate and to get compliance. So, I'm actually going to invite Bradley Edwards to meet with the House Oversight Committee, and I think we can uh easily move forward on this subpoena of that birthday book, and which could really advance this case.” 1:46 - 2:04
“And this guidance will be really helpful for our committee because we can't trust the Trump Justice Department. That is going to get slowed down. It's going to be get bogged down. Even if we subpoena, they can try to defy the subpoena. I don't trust the DOJ to prosecute themselves for contempt of Congress. But what we can do through Congress is go after these Jeffrey Epstein estate. And we've seen even Republicans are willing to vote with us on that. This may be the cleanest way forward.” 3:09 - 3:34
Right, so obviously, we’ll have to keep an eye on that because it would be fucking massive.
But on the note of lawmakers trying to obtain important Epstein information from a cagey Justice Department, we also saw Sen. Adam Schiff calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to testify before Congress.
With Schiff noting the WSJ report yesterday that Bondi told Trump back in May that his name appeared in the Epstein files.
Meaning that he lied last week when he said Bondi hadn’t told him his name was in the files.
With the outlet also reporting that Patel “has privately told other government officials that Trump’s name appeared in the files,” according to sources.
So, as a result, you had Schiff posting a video on X saying:
“Now we know in May, Pam Bondi informed Trump that his name was in those files. Bondi knew. Patel knew. But in July, as recently as just a week or two ago, Trump denied being informed that his name was in those files, even though we have now learned Bondi told him. We need to bring Bondi and Patel into the Judiciary Committee to testify about this now.” 00:10 - 00:36
And getting Bondi and Patel before the committee would be VERY notable because, so far, they have been quiet about this.
Right, while the White House denied the latest report, calling it “fake news,” Bondi responded in a very vague statement that didn’t appear to directly refute the outlet’s findings, saying:
“As part of our routine briefing, we made the president aware of the findings.”
With her repeating the refrain we’ve seen from the DOJ time and time again: “Nothing in the files warranted further investigation or prosecution.”
Now, like I mentioned yesterday, the possibility of Trump being mentioned in the files doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s implicated in any significant way, legally speaking.
But, I mean, many argue that the fact that he was so closely associated with this horrible pedophile at all is significant by itself.
But we’ve also seen some Republicans trying to downplay the potential mention of Trump, like Sen. Josh Hawley, who told reporters:
"Everyone knows that he knew Epstein at some point. They’re both New Yorkers. I mean that’s — there’s that video of it. He’s said this for years. So, I don’t think any of that’s a surprise that he’s mentioned in the documents. I mean, of course, it’s like, it’s everybody who’s ever met the guy is gonna be mentioned.” 00:01 - 00:15
“So I don’t think that’s a big deal. But nor is it a reason to withhold the documents.” 00:32 - 00:36
Still, you have a lot of people saying that even if Trump is mentioned in a non-incriminating, lying about it to the American people, that’s a pretty fucking bad look.
And it actually just hurts Trump himself by making it seem like he has something to hide, which just creates even more space for speculation and conspiracies.
But that brings us to the final Epstein update I want to hit on today — though I’m sure something massive will break the second show goes up.
Right, it’s now being widely reported that DOJ officials are set to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell today in Florida at a federal courthouse.
With Todd Blanche — the second-highest ranking official at the Justice Department — being spotted arriving at that location earlier this morning.
Now, notably here, as of recording, it was unclear whether Blanche himself was planning to attend or conduct the alleged interview.
And it’s also unclear if Maxwell will even provide any new information — or, perhaps most importantly, if any of the information she does give is credible.
Right, many legal experts have said that she cannot be trusted because she has made it abundantly clear that what she wants more than anything is to get out of prison.
And the prospect of a presidential pardon from Trump is being thrown around in the general discourse.
With many people also saying that the efforts to interview Maxwell are just a red herring by Trump and the GOP to distract from the fact that they aren’t releasing the files.
Right, and to that point, we also saw the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee issuing a subpoena for Maxwell yesterday demanding she give a testimony to the panel.
With that set to take place on August 11th at the Florida correctional facility where she is imprisoned.
So yeah, for now, we’ll just have to keep an eye on all this and see how it plays out.
-
Want to know the problem with AI? It’s just too damn woke.
That’s what President Trump feels after he signed the "PREVENTING WOKE AI IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” executive order.
According to the order:
“Artificial intelligence (AI) will play a critical role in how Americans of all ages learn new skills, consume information, and navigate their daily lives. Americans will require reliable outputs from AI, but when ideological biases or social agendas are built into AI models, they can distort the quality and accuracy of the output.”[]
The entire order seems to be an extension of Trump’s crusade against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity programs throughout the US, with it adding that:
“In the AI context, DEI includes the suppression or distortion of factual information about race or sex; manipulation of racial or sexual representation in model outputs; incorporation of concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism; and discrimination on the basis of race or sex.”[]
Such examples include “one major AI model” changing the race or sex of historical figures "including the Pope, the Founding Father, and Vikings.”[]
That’s likely a reference to an incident from early 2024 when Google’s Gemini went off the rails and gave us racially diverse depictions of all kinds of things, such as US Senators from the 1800s to Nazis.
(That being said, testing at the time seems like it couldn't reproduce results like racially diverse depictions of the Founding Fathers).[]
Regardless, the order makes it clear that the Federal Government won’t even consider procuring AIs it views as “woke” over concerns it’ll “distort” the truth.
Which is almost ironic considering the president himself uses AIs to make deepfakes of President Barack Obama getting arrested.
Not to mention that after 2024, most AI models have openly moved away from meeting any kind of ideological benchmarks… other than occasionally making sure their AIs don’t turn into “mechahitler.”
Which -- call me crazy -- is probably a good thing.
However, there are people who support the move by pointing out that if you ignore the “anti-woke” stuff at the start, the order is relatively narrow.
It JUST applies to AIs the federal government uses.
As for forcing the AIs to be “ideologically neutral” there’s seemingly some wiggle room.
Right, inherently AIs cannot be neutral since they rely on human data to be trained -- all of which is inherently biased.
But if that is readily apparent to the end user then things are okay.[]
Really we’ll know more within 120 days, since that’s the time the Office of Management and Budget has to issue some kind of guidance to the federal agencies over how to implement all this.
This is all just the tip of the iceberg really, because while THIS order was narrow, the administration also released “AMERICA’S AI ACTION PLAN,” and has much loftier goals.
The 24 page doc goes into how the administration will heavily expand the use of AI in the US and make America an AI powerhouse -- which is something Trump has been pushing since taking office.
The plan goes over three main pillars:
Accelerate AI Innovation.[]
Build American AI Infrastructure.
And Lead in International AI Diplomacy and Security.
Just reading the titles and it seems like these are solid and good goals… but the devil is in the details.
For example, remember how the Big Beautiful Bill almost died because Trump included a bunch of provisions that would stop states from issuing their own AI regulations?
And it wasn’t until widespread backlash that Republican lawmakers finally read the bill and went “yeah, we need to get rid of that?”
Well this action plan wants to sidestep that whole issue and states:
“AI is far too important to smother in bureaucracy at this early stage, whether at the state or Federal level. The Federal government should not allow AI-related Federal funding to be directed toward states with burdensome AI regulations that waste these funds, but should also not interfere with states’ rights to pass prudent laws that are not unduly restrictive to innovation.”[]
It goes on to detail how this could play out, such as by not allowing agencies to use their discretionary funds on AI research in states with regulations.
It also wants agencies like the FCC to try and dismantle AI regulations by challenging them in court by evaluating “...whether state AI regulations interfere with the agency’s ability to carry out its obligations and authorities under the Communications Act of 1934.”[]
For lawmakers in many states these plans were the most concerning AI-related thing coming out of the Trump administration lately.
For example, the press office of California Governor Gavin Newsom tweeted out:
“President Trump’s Executive Order on #AI threatens to defund states like California with strong laws against AI-generated child porn.”
“Some might say that’s an interesting priority — particularly in light of his close ties to Jeffrey Epstein.”
But on the other side you have companies like Palantir -- which is a massive spy agency essentially -- supporting the move and tweeting:
“AI is the birthright of the country that harnessed the atom and put a man on the moon. With today’s AI Action Plan, the Trump Administration has written the source code for the next American century. Palantir is proud to support it.” []
To be clear, this is just a plan, but one that the administration does want to move on.
So we’ll have to keep an eye on this and see how far the administration actually goes, but if I were to bet we’ll be seeing a lot of these issues play out in court.
But what do you think?
Should the federal government be de-facto forcing states to change their AI regulations by threatening to withhold funding?
Or is that an issue that should be left to the states?
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(999x0:1001x2)/emmanuel-brigitte-macron-6-e84489e60fde4be6ace46beddff2ddd6.jpg){kind=link}
