May 13, 2025 • 34 mins
The left-wing streamer Hasan Piker, aka Hasanabi, is crying victim after being detained by Customs and Border Patrol at the airport. Was this Trump administration censorship, or is he being a drama king? I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, debate erupts after Trump makes an exception for South African refugees, and a TikTok feminist openly admits her hatred for all men.
CHECK OUT THE MERCH: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
SEND ME A VOICE NOTE: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
SUBSCRIBE TO MY NEW 2ND CHANNEL: https://www.youtube.com/@MoreBradPolumbo
Support My Show: https://linktr.ee/bradpolumbo
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I was detained by costumes and border patrol man. Slop
tubers are actually playing with fire, a.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Left wing internet superstar played stupid games and one stupid prizes.
We're going to break down the latest insane drama involving
Twitch streamer and Internet socialist Hassan Piker, plus a weird
(00:28):
controversy after Trump admits a specific group of refugees that
has everybody flip flopping, and a prominent TikTok feminist openly
admits she just hates all men. We're going to get
into all this and so much more in today's episode
of The Bad Versus Everyone Podcast, my daily show where
we take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet,
(00:50):
our media, and our politics, all from an independent perspective.
Up first, if you're a regular viewer of this show,
we're just somebody who keeps up with the Internet and
Internet drama. You probably know who has Son Piker is.
But he's this very controversial, very far left twitch streamer
and YouTube star. His fans call him HasanAbi, and he
(01:10):
just was glowingly profiled in the New York Times, of course,
but he's in controversy yet again because he's claiming that
he was detained and grilled about his political views by
Customs and Border Patrol when trying to re enter the
United States. He did a long stream about this. We're
gonna go over a few clips, plus the response from
(01:30):
the Trump administration. Here's that first clip where he lays
out the beginning of his alleged story.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
For those of you who don't know, I was detained
by Customs and Border Patrol. Man didn't pass the ocular
path down. I believe it was before the ocular pad down.
It's the flight manifest that they get ahead of time.
They knew who I was, and they were ready to
receive me. Let's just say, and it wasn't a very
warm welcome. So it gets to me take a photo boom,
(02:00):
walk in. Instantly, the Customs and Border Patrology goes step aside, sir.
I was like, here we go. All right, you go
step aside, sir. An agent will come and take you
to another location. I was like, is that proper protocol?
I was like, sometimes it happens. I was like okay,
and I knew at that point. I was like, okay,
I'm texting like family, I'm like, this is happening. I'm
(02:21):
texting my manager. You know, I was basically trying to
I got Lolo on. I was like, listen, you know,
I'm going in. All right, I'm freaking going in. Who
knows how long this will take, who knows what will happen.
I had already heard like horror stories from people. There
was like that one girl on TikTok that had talked
about this, and I thought to myself, all right, it's done.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
It's happening to me as well. It is what it is.
You know, M is reel high.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
I'm about to say M is reel high multiple times
to get these guys off my back.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
So pretty clearly, from the beginning of this story, and
we will get into all of the details, Hassan is
claiming that he was intentionally targeted and stopped and brought
a side because of the flight manifest and they saw
his name, they knew who he was, and they targeted
him because of his very radical left wing views. The
Trump administration disputes this claim. However, Let's take a look
(03:13):
at a statement from a spokesperson. Tricia McLaughlin wrote that
Hassan is lying for likes claims that his political beliefs
triggered the inspection are baseless. RCBP officers are following the law,
not agendas. Upon entering the country, this individual was referred
for further inspection, a routine, lawful process that occurs daily
(03:33):
and can apply for any traveler. Once his inspection was complete,
he was promptly released. So it's impossible for me to
know the truth of what happened. Was this a random stop.
Was he just pulled aside because something was flagged about
his travel patterns or some sort of non political thing,
or was he targeted because of his beliefs and name
(03:55):
recognition of some kind. Is he on some kind of
a list. The short answer is I don't know, and
I can't really answer that question. We have a he said,
she said. Here on one side, you have Hassan, whose
credibility I certainly question. I mean, he's said lots of
misleading and untrue things and his stream in the past
and certainly has a pensiant for and a flair for drama.
(04:17):
And on the other side you have the federal government.
But listen, I'm always skeptical of the government. They're always
going to say a narrative that makes them look good,
and they often try to deny a narrative that doesn't
make them look good even if it's true. So I'm
not just gonna take the fed's word for it. The
short answer is I don't know, So I guess we'll
just set that aside. Was he screened, was he targeted
(04:38):
because of his political views and his name idy, or
was it random? And instead we'll get into what happened
as part of this actual interrogation and Hassan's response to it,
because I have serious questions on both fronts. Here's the
second clip from Hassan discussing this incident on his live stream.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
They take me to this backroom, okay, and the back
room is not great. The back broom is designed in
the most hostile way I've ever been inside of a room.
The vibes are really back there. Everything is fluorescent, light bulb. Obviously,
it's very obvious that they knew exactly who the I was.
It's very obvious that they knew how to like navigate
(05:15):
the conversation. And it was a really really interesting conversation
that took place.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
It was very cordial.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
I think they were being cordial because they wanted me
to say something that was incriminating and say something that
was enough to justify further detention.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
From that point on. The dude asked so many insane questions,
none of which is illegal.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
By the way, I just need you to understand, nothing
I've done online is illegal.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
As of now, if that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
Now, laws may change in the future and they might
actually start prosecuting speech, which I do fear is the goal.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Of this administration.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
But so far, everything I've done is fully protected under
the First Amendment. Okay, And none of these questions are
actually valid questions to ask. I said, I don't like Trump.
I was like, what are you gonna do? It's protected
by the First Amendment. I don't like Trump, yes, right,
Like I was like, I'm not fond of him. I
don't like him.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
So, setting aside the melodrama about the hostile vibes and
the fluorescent lights, which I rolled my eyes slightly at,
Hasan tells and I watched this full stream. He tells
a story about how this Customs and Border Patrol officer
took him into this room and then questioned him about
his work, his occupation, normal questions, but then specifically asked
(06:37):
him questions like do you like Trump? Do you support Hamas?
What are your views on Israel sorts of ideological questions.
And I guess we really can only go off of
Hassan's side of this story here, But I think there's
a real problem here if what he's saying is true. Now,
let's recap a couple things about his son that provide
(06:58):
important context to this though. This is the guy who
said America deserved nine to eleven. This is the guy
who openly called in support of violence against a sitting
US senator. This is the guy who interviewed someone who
I believe believed to be a Huthy, a member of
a designated terror group. He's somebody who has said all
(07:19):
sorts of incendiary things, simped in different ways for alleged
terrorists like Luigi Manchioni. He is somebody who has flirted
with the legal line in his speech in too many
times to count. He is openly in support of violent
extremism in a number of ways. And that's just a fact,
that's not even really a disputable thing. But what Hasan
(07:41):
says here is true. From what I have seen, nothing
he has said on his live stream exceeds the boundaries
of First Amendment protections. People have a misconception that you're
never allowed to say anything supporting violence or supporting extremism.
That's actually not true. You're simply not legally allowed to
provide material you'll support for terrorism, which would involve like
(08:02):
money or logistics or some sort of material support. You're
allowed to say that you just support them. That is
considered free speech under the First Amendment, as horrific as
it may be. And secondly, he has said different examples
of violence that he is generally supportive of that does
not meet the threshold for incitement of violence that is
(08:24):
legally prohibited. You are allowed to, in broad terms endorse violence.
You're just not allowed to specifically call on people to
engage in imminent acts of direct violence, which to my
knowledge he's never done. So I do have a problem
as a First Amendment absolutist with him being questioned about
his views on Trump and with him being asked about
(08:46):
First Amendment protected speech. But I have mixed feelings on
it somewhat because on the other hand, it's like, all right, well,
you go on your show to millions of people and
openly brag about supporting violence and extremism. I mean, what
do you expect you did? Kind of set yourself up
for this kind of situation. Doesn't make it right, but
does make it not exactly surprising. I also have to
(09:09):
take serious issue with the way that Hassan talked about
this story, because it again just reminded me how like
radically unhinged his left wing takesar to the point of absurdity,
Like listen to this where he basically racially profiles a
white Customs and Border Patrol officer, take a listen.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
But he was like listen, I'm Iraqi, So I know,
and let me tell you. I do think that him
being Iraqi played a big role in this, because if
he wasn't, there was a lot of redditor assed white
boys that are at Costumes and Border Patrol at Ohair Airport.
I saw them walk by. There was a dude who
looked like he was like twenty five max, but he
was balding, and I knew immediately if that monk was
(09:47):
my agent, I'm screwed.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
I'm going to Seacott. This dude is going to literally
cook me. So I got a little lucky. I got
a little lucky, all right, I will admit, Hey.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
So that's racial profiling. I have nothing against it's an
Iraqi American person working in Customs and Border Patrol. Of course,
I mean anybody who's an American who is of any
race or background who can do the job should be
able to do it. But for him to say he's
happy he got the Iraqi American Customs and Border Patrol
official and not some random white guy who he suspects
(10:19):
on their looks alone, would have been racist and sent
him to a foreign prison. Yeah, that's just anti white racism.
That's just discrimination, stereotyping, bigotry. For all you know, that
white dude is a bleeding heart liberal. For all you know,
he's a maybe he has a maga Republican or whatever,
but he's a professional who would have done his job
in a great way. It's actually not good, not morally acceptable,
(10:42):
and certainly not woke or progressive to racially profile and
stereotype people. But ultra left wing progressives like a San
Piker seem to think it's okay when it's done in
that direction. I'm against it all the time in any direction.
But that's just me and my radical hot takes. There
was also a strange part of this stream where Hassan
attempted to blame people who have criticized him on the
(11:03):
internet for the fact that he was detained by the
federal government. Let's listen to that.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
A lot of the that like the Ethan klines of
the world have like cried about over and over again,
were on ironically brought up in that conversation, and I
was shocked.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
I was shocked.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Okay, not like the bleed sword obviously, but like the
HOUTHI like, did you interview a houthy? It says here
that you interviewed Ahuthy And I was like, or was
he actually a houthie?
Speaker 3 (11:31):
And I was like, he's not.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
You can look to all of the reporting that came
up afterwards and before I interviewed him, And I genuinely,
in that moment was thinking, like, these dumbass slop tubers
are actually playing with fire. And I even thought about
not even mentioning this because I was like, I don't
want to give him any any sort of like power
over the situation. But like the reality of the matter
(11:54):
is one hundred percent the Trump administration is inadvertently working
with a lot of these dip These dip are playing
a formative role in getting people in trouble with the law.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Yes, guys, he's serious. He just attempted to blame sloptobers,
his liberal leaning YouTube critics who criticize him for openly
broadcasting pro terror propaganda on his live stream, which he
has done again. I don't think he's crossed the legal
line on any of his stuff, but he's been so
(12:28):
extreme in so many ways, and people have criticized him
for it, including interviewing somebody who he believed to be
is my recollection of the situation. He believed to be
a member of the houthis Now it turned out that
that kid was like a poser and wasn't actually after
the fact, but he still did do a friendly interview
with somebody who I think, at the bare minimum was
(12:50):
pro Houthy, pro in support of the violent actions of
a designated terror group. That's not great, and people have
every right to criticize you for it. They have every
right to criticize you for what you said about why
Rick Scott, a sitting US senator, is deserving of violence.
And it is not our fault if we criticize you
(13:13):
for these things and then they are brought up when
you are interviewed by Customs and Border Patrol so what,
we can't criticize someone and make fair criticisms because they
might be used by the government in an inappropriate way.
That's not logical, that's not reasonable. And I'm also not
even sure that it's true the source for these things
that he's saying, like, oh, you interviewed a Huthi or whatever.
(13:34):
These officers are probably getting it from the countless news
articles that were written about it at the time in
mainstream media publications. Like these things did burst out of
the online drama bubble, it wasn't just online or on
Ethan Klein's podcast where this got discussed. All of these
controversies get written up in tons of media outlets. If
(13:55):
you ask me, it's much more likely that it came
from there than from you know, well, various liberal YouTube beefs.
But regardless, it's not their fault. It's nobody else's fault.
What other people do with valid criticisms, they raise to
the surface, and you're just trying to shield yourself from
criticism in a very manipulative and exploitative way here now.
(14:19):
Hassan also brought up another point that touches on press
freedom and journalism, which is an issue near and dear
to my heart that I want to talk about. Here's
that club.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
They also asked, have you ever interviewed a member of Hamas?
Have you ever had a communication or correspondence with a
member of Hamas, has Bulah or the Houthis. Now, what's
really insane about that is that, as someone who works
in media, sometimes I do actually do journalism right as
I've maintained this position over and over again, and I
(14:50):
said that I would have given the opportunity talk to
someone that is a part of the Onsola law movement,
a Huthi or even Hamas or even has Bulah, right,
I think that I have the right to do so.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
So that is the.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Part where they were like, if you answer yes to
any of that, that's when you know there's like actually
illegal stuff in there. Having said that, there is one
part of it that wasn't illegal, which is being in
communication communications or being in contact with someone ams like
that is a part of journalism you actually can do.
It's ridiculous, like you can interview isis like, what are
(15:23):
we talking about? The notion that this would be an
issue for the customs and border patrol is ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
So here he is, right, I mean, it is illegal
to provide material support to any of these kinds of organizations,
which he denies doing, and we don't have evidence that
he has done. But it's not illegal to speak to them,
especially if you work in some kind of media or
journalistic capacity that is a part of journalism that is
protected by the First Amendment. You are allowed to interview
(15:50):
these people. So even if he had done that, and
he says he hasn't, and I have no evidence otherwise,
that wouldn't actually be a crime or something that he
could be deny entry into the United States over. And
that's the real concern here. I don't necessarily have an
issue with them asking him about things that are potential crimes,
like have you provided material support to one of these organizations?
(16:13):
And I do think he's opened the door to those
questions with his public commentary, But to the extent that
they were grilling him on First Amendment protected views and activity,
no matter how odious or extreme I find them to be,
I think that's inappropriate. And he is a United States citizen,
he is born in America, he's not here. On some
(16:34):
visitors visa where it gets a little more debatable, Americans
should not be ideologically screened or grilled about their political
beliefs before being allowed to enter their home country. That
is a right, not a privilege when you are an
American to come into the country and look. I don't
know whether this was directed top down from the Trump administration.
(16:56):
Even if it wasn't, though, even if they just pulled
him aside randomly and then looked him up and asked
him these questions, I do think it's inappropriate and it's
not something I want the government to be engaged in.
They should be screening for actual crimes. They should be
trying to stop serious things that come through the border
illegally and looking for signs of potential issues with smuggling
(17:17):
of different sorts, including of humans. They should not be
grilling streamers about how they feel about Trump or foreign wars.
That's my take on all this, But you guys can
let me know what you think in the comments. Do
you disagree for some reason, I'm always open to hearing
you out, and I do take the time to read
the comments to make sure you subscribe if you aren't yet,
to hit that like button before you go, remember to
(17:39):
check out the new merch line that we just dropped
with the on my last brain Cell designs and to
leave me voice notes for my Friday episode where I
react to your woke horror stories and give you advice
about your personal situations. The link to both of those
things will be in the description, plus the link to
my new second YouTube channel where I will be posting
original bonus content like story times and ask me any things.
(18:02):
Go check that out and make sure subscribe as well.
And we got to talk about a story that I
find really interesting because it kind of has everybody engaged
in like political jiujitsu. All of a sudden, liberals are
now mad about immigration and MAGA suddenly loves refugees. Yeah,
that's the odd paradox that we find ourselves in. After
the Trump administration just welcomed in about fifty white refugees
(18:24):
from South Africa, where they say white people are being
systematically discriminated against. Take a listen to this coverage from
The Hill.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
One group of refugees are receiving a warm welcome from
the Trump administration. A stark contrastors moost refugees have been
halted from entering the US, the exception white South Africans.
They are set to land in the US today and
these Afrikaners, white descendants of primarily Dutch colonizers, have been
singled out favorably by this administration for asident.
Speaker 5 (18:53):
Trump is claiming they are victims of racial discrimination.
Speaker 4 (18:56):
He says they're being persecuted by their black led government
because of their race. As a reminder, South Africa was
controlled under apartheid rule for decades by its white minority.
Under that system, black South Africans were denied basic rights.
That system came to an end in nineteen ninety four,
and the current South African government is heading back hard
against Trump's allegations, saying it's completely false. They say Afrikaners
(19:21):
are some of the richest and most successful people in
the country.
Speaker 5 (19:25):
White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller commented on the situation,
Let's take a look.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
What's happening in South Africa fits the textbook definition of
why the refugee program was created. This is persecution based
on a protected characteristic, in this case race.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Now, the context you need to know about this is
that one of Trump's first orders of business after starting
a second term was to sign an executive order shutting
down almost all refugee admissions to the United States. This
was controversial because it left a lot of people who
we were going to let into the country screwed, including
some people who helped us and helped our military in
(20:00):
Afghanistan who are now at risk. Spectrum News reports Trump's
immigration orders have left Afghans who helped the US fight
the Taliban in limbo. They helped the US military order
airstrikes against Taliban and Islamic State fighters, and worked as
drivers and translators during America's longest war. They were set
to start new lives in the United States. Then President
Donald Trump issued executive orders that put an end to
(20:22):
programs used to help Afghans get to the safety in America. Now,
those same Afghans who underwent a year's long background check
find themselves in a state of limbo. All told, there's
about fifteen thousand of these Afghans who weren't allowed to
come here in Trump in his executive order argued that
we could not afford to use taxpayer resources to support refugees,
(20:43):
that they posed a security risk, and that we needed
a complete, near complete, and near total shutdown on this program.
But now they're making an exception. And here's why. According
to Donald Trump, I want to ask you.
Speaker 6 (20:55):
That refugees dozens of Africaners who find discrimination in their
life own country or heading into the United States where.
Speaker 7 (21:02):
Your administration is going to welcome them as refugees. Now
this comes as you've haulted virtually all refugee.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Admissions for people think fanine.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
And war from the countries like Sudan that arekract the
public of Congo.
Speaker 7 (21:14):
Why are you creating an expedited path into the country
for the honors who not others because they're being killed
and we don't want to see people be killed. It's
a genocide that's takend place that you people don't want
to write about, but it's a terrible thing that's taking place.
And farmers are being killed. They happen to be white.
(21:36):
But whether they're white or black makes no difference to me.
But white farmers are being brutally killed and their land
is being confiscated in South Africa. I don't care about
their race, their color. I don't care about their height,
their weight, I don't care about anything. I just know
that what's happening is terrible to have people that live
in South Africa they say it's a terrible situation taking place,
(21:58):
So we've essentially extended citizenship to those people and to
escape from that violence and come here.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
So I'm no expert in South African politics or what's
going on there, so let's just accept this at face value.
These white farmers, let's say they are being killed, they
are being targeted in a genocide. That would be horrible,
like it would be in any context. But it's not
unique to South Africa. That's also the case in many
other parts of the world, including like the afghaniese who
(22:27):
we turned away, who may be killed by the Taliban now.
But he in those cases thought it wasn't worth it
to allow the refugees, and now is making an exception.
This is the part that doesn't make sense to me.
I have no issue with these South Africans coming here.
I welcome them, and I'm horrified by what I'm hearing
happened to them in South Africa. But I also think
(22:49):
there are a lot of other people who should be
let in, and the bizarre double standards here don't make
sense to me. This move is leading to a lot
of pushback, of course, from Democrats and liberal media, including
some that borders on hysterical. Here's one segment from CNN.
Speaker 5 (23:05):
So what's the difference between the refugees that they're talking
about here and those refugees I could guess. I mean,
I think everyone is white. They're white, thank you, they
are white, And I think, look, if that is how
you feel, fine, then hold the line. But there are
people all over the world, even people in this country
right now who are seeking who have sought asylum, who
are going through the process of silent asylum seeking and
(23:28):
have been detained by Ice and are being deported. There's
also a genocide happening in the Congo right now that
I don't see any Congolese being getting relief to come
to this country. So there are Afghanis that helped us
in Afghanistan that we have left behind. Even the last
administration didn't do right by them. This administration can do
(23:48):
right by them, but they are not because it doesn't
fit the narrative of the type of immigrants that we
want in our country.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
So I'm not going to jump and say that it's
just because they're white that they're being let in and
others aren't. I think it may also have to do
with Elon Musk's particular connection to South Africa, and so
maybe an exception was made there, but you can't ignore
the racial element to this, and it certainly doesn't look good. Now.
It's worth noting that this is a relatively small number
(24:16):
of refugees compared to thousands of refugees that were set
to be accepted from places like Afghanistan. But still it's
hard to imagine MAGA supporters being okay with these conditions
in really any other scenario, the journalist said. Jilani posted
screenshots of government website set to help white South Africans
come to the United States, where it boasts about how
(24:38):
much taxpayer funded government assistance they can get and all
the welfare programs they can participate in, and how they
don't actually have to prove that they were being persecuted
at all. Now, I have always supported refugee resettlement in
the United States to a certain amount. Obviously, we can
have millions of people coming here, but I think we
can open our doors to thousands of people, and after
(24:59):
extreme vetting to make sure we're only letting in people
who are safe and not danger to the country, we
can let them in. And I've always supported that, and
I really have no issue with South Africans if they're
facing racial persecution white South Africans whatever. Yeah, I have
no issue with that. I'm supportive of that. But there
is something bizarre and inconsistent to me about Trump administration
(25:21):
being so anti refugee and so against you, American tax
dollars being used to support foreigners and all this stuff,
and then suddenly making an exception for this one group.
But there's also something incredibly bizarre about the way that
many liberal commentators and institutions are suddenly against refugees. The
Episcopal Church, for example, is now refusing to resettle white Africaners,
(25:45):
citing moral opposition. NPR reports that, in a striking move
that ends in nearly four decades old relationship between the
federal government and the Episcopal Church, the denomination announced on
Monday that it is terminating its partnership with the gouvernver
to resettle refugees, citing moral opposition to resettling white Africaners
from South Africa who have been classified as refugees by
(26:08):
President Trump's administration. In light of our church's deadfast commitment
to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with
the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able
to take this step. They wrote, accordingly, we have determined
that by the end of the federal fiscal year, we
will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the United
States federal government. This is bizarre. So they're cutting off
(26:31):
their working relationship with the government where they receive taxpayer
dollars to help resettle refugees because they don't want to
help fifty white South Africans were being brought here because
they're facing racial persecution, and they're citing racial justice as
the reason that they don't want to do that. What
even if you somehow thought these weren't real refugees, theyse
(26:54):
weren't legitimate or whatever. I mean, just work with them
and help find fifty people new home in America, and
then you can continue your relationship with the federal government
for all the future refugee resettlements you do. So it's
so bizarre that they would choose this hill to die on,
And it really does seem like they must just have
Trump arrangement syndrome or be really enscunsed in some far
(27:15):
left ideology. The whole saga with these South African refugees
is just a reminder to me of how much partisanship
and tribalism can really rot your brain and can make
you and take you to just totally inconsistent places. My
hot take of the day is that you should not
determine your support for different immigration policies based on random political, ideological,
(27:40):
or racial affiliations. And if you do, you're not thinking logically,
you're thinking emotionally and tribally. But what do you guys think?
Let me know in the comments. Finally, we had to
talk about one more crazy story, because this TikTok feminist
just admitted she openly hates men. We're talking, of course,
about Drew F. Wallow, the very prominent, supposedly feminist pro
(28:02):
woman TikTok content creator and podcast host who has a
very prominent show on Spotify, who is doing the interviews
circuit again and saying some really nasty things about hating
all men quite openly. Let's take a look at this
first clip.
Speaker 6 (28:19):
I told people before They're like, oh, you hate all men.
I'm like, I've never said that, but if the shoe
fits wear it, I don't give a But also I'm like, yeah,
don't you haven't you ever spent time with one? They're awful,
like like, have you ever seen a group of guys
out like all straight dudes and they're all laughing. Have
you ever been like, God, I wonder what they're laughing at. No,
when they're laughing, I'm going, are they doing something bad?
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Probably?
Speaker 6 (28:42):
I'm like, they probably just hit a woman. They're probably
high fiving over a slur.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
That's what I think.
Speaker 6 (28:50):
When I see girls and gays and days all out
and they're they're king and they're laughing in there, I'm like, Oh,
that looks awesome. When I see men doing it them,
it's like, what are you laughing at? What's so funny?
You just say to the world're on the news. I
bet you wouldn't be laughing so hard. I'm just harassing him.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Well, she seems lovely, love how She's like, I've never
said I hate all men, but yeah I do. And
don't you know, because we're not close minded sexist bigots,
and we don't collectively condemn entire demographic groups of people
because of the actions of some individuals. That's what racists do,
(29:31):
that's what sexists do. That's not what open minded and
tolerant people are supposed to do. But she really does
just openly say that all men are bad because she
thinks so from the one she's interacted with. But also
it's bizarrely incoherent because she has a boyfriend, maybe fiance,
(29:52):
maybe husband, I don't know who she raves about as
an amazing man. And it's like, but you just said
they're all bad and you hate them all, So which
is it? You'd think that if you actually believed that
you would like swear off men and not be in
a relationship with one. I also question the self respect
of a guy who would dat a girl who openly
goes out there and says she hates all men. What
(30:13):
And this wasn't a one off. This wasn't just one
time she was goofing around. She talks like this all
the time. Take a listen to another recent clip.
Speaker 8 (30:21):
How do you live at this intersection of I hate man?
I see this terrible behavior online, but I'm with man
and marrying a man. And by the way, Ashley and
I make fun of men too, but we have like
great fathers and brothers and friends.
Speaker 6 (30:32):
Most too, most women who do hate men have great fathers, brothers, men.
Speaker 8 (30:36):
Yeah, so we do think there's like great men. Obviously
you found one, so it actually but like, how do
you live at that sort of like intersection of the two.
Speaker 6 (30:43):
I mean, I think it's a lot simpler than people think.
I think people over complicated. It's just you know, I'm
not talking about you. But it doesn't it doesn't change
the inherent fact that men are evil. That is true,
like man as a whole is evil, like just as
an entity a general idea. Men have inflicted violence and
oppression on the world in ways that are irreparable. Like
it's okay if we say that out loud, it's okay
(31:04):
if we say that men are inherently evil. It's like
it's not all men, but for some reason, always a man.
Every time something terrible happens, always a man, like ninety
nine percent of the time. So I feel like it's
a lot simpler than people may think. It's I don't
hate my man, I hate most men. And for me,
I think, given what men have done to me personally,
(31:26):
to people I love, and the world as a whole,
if they all start guilty and have to work their
way to innocent, that's not really a big deal to me.
I feel very like convicted in that. If you're not awful,
prove it. Quit talking about it and do it.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
She actually just said men should start being considered guilty
and have to prove their way innocent. That's dystopian and evil.
And she wants to say two things at once. She
wants to say, yes, I hate all men, but then like,
if you're a man and you're upset by that, well,
or if you were a good man, you'd know I'm
not talking about you, think the all means, And then
(32:02):
she retreats to most It's like a Mott and Bailey thing.
It's like she wants to say the edgy, extreme thing
for clicks and attention, but then retreat to a more
defensible position. But even then, most men are not bad. Okay,
it is obviously I do acknowledge the fact that men
commit more violence and more crime than women. That is
absolutely a fact. That's not most men, certainly not. And
(32:25):
it's wrong to judge an individual for something other people
that are in some demographic group based on some immutable
trait do. That would be like me saying I'm scared
of black men because they commit murders at a higher
rate than other races of men. That would be wrong
for me to apply that to any individual black man
(32:45):
because it's not his fault what other people who look
like him have done. And of course, woke people like
Drew would totally see the problem with that kind of
logic when it's applied in that direction. But when they
can just blame all men to the fact that male
leaders have engaged in violence and repression, that's fine and
cute and dandy, and they have millions of adoring fans
(33:08):
on the Internet. I really do believe that these female influencers,
the all men are trash kind of influencers, are like
the women version of the red Pill grifters, who give
terrible advice and talk about how all women are bad
and evil and trash, and the whole thing is so
incredibly toxic. And the fact that these kinds of folks
have millions of adoring fans online and are constantly going
(33:29):
viral and are uplifted and promoted with these toxic messages,
and then we wonder why modern dating is broken, why
gender relations are praying and struggling. I mean, it's not
a surprise to me with people like this openly spewing
hate and divisive nonsense on the Internet every day and
just being rewarded with it with huge audiences and huge
(33:51):
sums of money. This is bleak, but sadly kind of
typical for TikTok, especially TikTok these days. All make of
this let me know in the comments. All right, guys,
that'll be it for this episode of the Bread Versus
Everyone Podcast. Thank you all so much for tuning in.
Please do make sure you subscribed. If you aren't yet,
do it that like button for you go comment with
your thoughts YadA YadA yah. Check out the new merch designs.
(34:14):
My boyfriend worked really hard on them. Be sure to
send some voice notes for Friday's episode and subscribe to
my second channel while you're at it. And with that,
we'll talk again real soon
I was detained by costumes and border patrol man. Slop
tubers are actually playing with fire, a.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Left wing internet superstar played stupid games and one stupid prizes.
We're going to break down the latest insane drama involving
Twitch streamer and Internet socialist Hassan Piker, plus a weird
(00:28):
controversy after Trump admits a specific group of refugees that
has everybody flip flopping, and a prominent TikTok feminist openly
admits she just hates all men. We're going to get
into all this and so much more in today's episode
of The Bad Versus Everyone Podcast, my daily show where
we take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet,
(00:50):
our media, and our politics, all from an independent perspective.
Up first, if you're a regular viewer of this show,
we're just somebody who keeps up with the Internet and
Internet drama. You probably know who has Son Piker is.
But he's this very controversial, very far left twitch streamer
and YouTube star. His fans call him HasanAbi, and he
(01:10):
just was glowingly profiled in the New York Times, of course,
but he's in controversy yet again because he's claiming that
he was detained and grilled about his political views by
Customs and Border Patrol when trying to re enter the
United States. He did a long stream about this. We're
gonna go over a few clips, plus the response from
(01:30):
the Trump administration. Here's that first clip where he lays
out the beginning of his alleged story.
Speaker 1 (01:36):
For those of you who don't know, I was detained
by Customs and Border Patrol. Man didn't pass the ocular
path down. I believe it was before the ocular pad down.
It's the flight manifest that they get ahead of time.
They knew who I was, and they were ready to
receive me. Let's just say, and it wasn't a very
warm welcome. So it gets to me take a photo boom,
(02:00):
walk in. Instantly, the Customs and Border Patrology goes step aside, sir.
I was like, here we go. All right, you go
step aside, sir. An agent will come and take you
to another location. I was like, is that proper protocol?
I was like, sometimes it happens. I was like okay,
and I knew at that point. I was like, okay,
I'm texting like family, I'm like, this is happening. I'm
(02:21):
texting my manager. You know, I was basically trying to
I got Lolo on. I was like, listen, you know,
I'm going in. All right, I'm freaking going in. Who
knows how long this will take, who knows what will happen.
I had already heard like horror stories from people. There
was like that one girl on TikTok that had talked
about this, and I thought to myself, all right, it's done.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
It's happening to me as well. It is what it is.
You know, M is reel high.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
I'm about to say M is reel high multiple times
to get these guys off my back.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
So pretty clearly, from the beginning of this story, and
we will get into all of the details, Hassan is
claiming that he was intentionally targeted and stopped and brought
a side because of the flight manifest and they saw
his name, they knew who he was, and they targeted
him because of his very radical left wing views. The
Trump administration disputes this claim. However, Let's take a look
(03:13):
at a statement from a spokesperson. Tricia McLaughlin wrote that
Hassan is lying for likes claims that his political beliefs
triggered the inspection are baseless. RCBP officers are following the law,
not agendas. Upon entering the country, this individual was referred
for further inspection, a routine, lawful process that occurs daily
(03:33):
and can apply for any traveler. Once his inspection was complete,
he was promptly released. So it's impossible for me to
know the truth of what happened. Was this a random stop.
Was he just pulled aside because something was flagged about
his travel patterns or some sort of non political thing,
or was he targeted because of his beliefs and name
(03:55):
recognition of some kind. Is he on some kind of
a list. The short answer is I don't know, and
I can't really answer that question. We have a he said,
she said. Here on one side, you have Hassan, whose
credibility I certainly question. I mean, he's said lots of
misleading and untrue things and his stream in the past
and certainly has a pensiant for and a flair for drama.
(04:17):
And on the other side you have the federal government.
But listen, I'm always skeptical of the government. They're always
going to say a narrative that makes them look good,
and they often try to deny a narrative that doesn't
make them look good even if it's true. So I'm
not just gonna take the fed's word for it. The
short answer is I don't know, So I guess we'll
just set that aside. Was he screened, was he targeted
(04:38):
because of his political views and his name idy, or
was it random? And instead we'll get into what happened
as part of this actual interrogation and Hassan's response to it,
because I have serious questions on both fronts. Here's the
second clip from Hassan discussing this incident on his live stream.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
They take me to this backroom, okay, and the back
room is not great. The back broom is designed in
the most hostile way I've ever been inside of a room.
The vibes are really back there. Everything is fluorescent, light bulb. Obviously,
it's very obvious that they knew exactly who the I was.
It's very obvious that they knew how to like navigate
(05:15):
the conversation. And it was a really really interesting conversation
that took place.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
It was very cordial.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
I think they were being cordial because they wanted me
to say something that was incriminating and say something that
was enough to justify further detention.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
From that point on. The dude asked so many insane questions,
none of which is illegal.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
By the way, I just need you to understand, nothing
I've done online is illegal.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
As of now, if that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
Now, laws may change in the future and they might
actually start prosecuting speech, which I do fear is the goal.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Of this administration.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
But so far, everything I've done is fully protected under
the First Amendment. Okay, And none of these questions are
actually valid questions to ask. I said, I don't like Trump.
I was like, what are you gonna do? It's protected
by the First Amendment. I don't like Trump, yes, right,
Like I was like, I'm not fond of him. I
don't like him.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
So, setting aside the melodrama about the hostile vibes and
the fluorescent lights, which I rolled my eyes slightly at,
Hasan tells and I watched this full stream. He tells
a story about how this Customs and Border Patrol officer
took him into this room and then questioned him about
his work, his occupation, normal questions, but then specifically asked
(06:37):
him questions like do you like Trump? Do you support Hamas?
What are your views on Israel sorts of ideological questions.
And I guess we really can only go off of
Hassan's side of this story here, But I think there's
a real problem here if what he's saying is true. Now,
let's recap a couple things about his son that provide
(06:58):
important context to this though. This is the guy who
said America deserved nine to eleven. This is the guy
who openly called in support of violence against a sitting
US senator. This is the guy who interviewed someone who
I believe believed to be a Huthy, a member of
a designated terror group. He's somebody who has said all
(07:19):
sorts of incendiary things, simped in different ways for alleged
terrorists like Luigi Manchioni. He is somebody who has flirted
with the legal line in his speech in too many
times to count. He is openly in support of violent
extremism in a number of ways. And that's just a fact,
that's not even really a disputable thing. But what Hasan
(07:41):
says here is true. From what I have seen, nothing
he has said on his live stream exceeds the boundaries
of First Amendment protections. People have a misconception that you're
never allowed to say anything supporting violence or supporting extremism.
That's actually not true. You're simply not legally allowed to
provide material you'll support for terrorism, which would involve like
(08:02):
money or logistics or some sort of material support. You're
allowed to say that you just support them. That is
considered free speech under the First Amendment, as horrific as
it may be. And secondly, he has said different examples
of violence that he is generally supportive of that does
not meet the threshold for incitement of violence that is
(08:24):
legally prohibited. You are allowed to, in broad terms endorse violence.
You're just not allowed to specifically call on people to
engage in imminent acts of direct violence, which to my
knowledge he's never done. So I do have a problem
as a First Amendment absolutist with him being questioned about
his views on Trump and with him being asked about
(08:46):
First Amendment protected speech. But I have mixed feelings on
it somewhat because on the other hand, it's like, all right, well,
you go on your show to millions of people and
openly brag about supporting violence and extremism. I mean, what
do you expect you did? Kind of set yourself up
for this kind of situation. Doesn't make it right, but
does make it not exactly surprising. I also have to
(09:09):
take serious issue with the way that Hassan talked about
this story, because it again just reminded me how like
radically unhinged his left wing takesar to the point of absurdity,
Like listen to this where he basically racially profiles a
white Customs and Border Patrol officer, take a listen.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
But he was like listen, I'm Iraqi, So I know,
and let me tell you. I do think that him
being Iraqi played a big role in this, because if
he wasn't, there was a lot of redditor assed white
boys that are at Costumes and Border Patrol at Ohair Airport.
I saw them walk by. There was a dude who
looked like he was like twenty five max, but he
was balding, and I knew immediately if that monk was
(09:47):
my agent, I'm screwed.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
I'm going to Seacott. This dude is going to literally
cook me. So I got a little lucky. I got
a little lucky, all right, I will admit, Hey.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
So that's racial profiling. I have nothing against it's an
Iraqi American person working in Customs and Border Patrol. Of course,
I mean anybody who's an American who is of any
race or background who can do the job should be
able to do it. But for him to say he's
happy he got the Iraqi American Customs and Border Patrol
official and not some random white guy who he suspects
(10:19):
on their looks alone, would have been racist and sent
him to a foreign prison. Yeah, that's just anti white racism.
That's just discrimination, stereotyping, bigotry. For all you know, that
white dude is a bleeding heart liberal. For all you know,
he's a maybe he has a maga Republican or whatever,
but he's a professional who would have done his job
in a great way. It's actually not good, not morally acceptable,
(10:42):
and certainly not woke or progressive to racially profile and
stereotype people. But ultra left wing progressives like a San
Piker seem to think it's okay when it's done in
that direction. I'm against it all the time in any direction.
But that's just me and my radical hot takes. There
was also a strange part of this stream where Hassan
attempted to blame people who have criticized him on the
(11:03):
internet for the fact that he was detained by the
federal government. Let's listen to that.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
A lot of the that like the Ethan klines of
the world have like cried about over and over again,
were on ironically brought up in that conversation, and I
was shocked.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
I was shocked.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Okay, not like the bleed sword obviously, but like the
HOUTHI like, did you interview a houthy? It says here
that you interviewed Ahuthy And I was like, or was
he actually a houthie?
Speaker 3 (11:31):
And I was like, he's not.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
You can look to all of the reporting that came
up afterwards and before I interviewed him, And I genuinely,
in that moment was thinking, like, these dumbass slop tubers
are actually playing with fire. And I even thought about
not even mentioning this because I was like, I don't
want to give him any any sort of like power
over the situation. But like the reality of the matter
(11:54):
is one hundred percent the Trump administration is inadvertently working
with a lot of these dip These dip are playing
a formative role in getting people in trouble with the law.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Yes, guys, he's serious. He just attempted to blame sloptobers,
his liberal leaning YouTube critics who criticize him for openly
broadcasting pro terror propaganda on his live stream, which he
has done again. I don't think he's crossed the legal
line on any of his stuff, but he's been so
(12:28):
extreme in so many ways, and people have criticized him
for it, including interviewing somebody who he believed to be
is my recollection of the situation. He believed to be
a member of the houthis Now it turned out that
that kid was like a poser and wasn't actually after
the fact, but he still did do a friendly interview
with somebody who I think, at the bare minimum was
(12:50):
pro Houthy, pro in support of the violent actions of
a designated terror group. That's not great, and people have
every right to criticize you for it. They have every
right to criticize you for what you said about why
Rick Scott, a sitting US senator, is deserving of violence.
And it is not our fault if we criticize you
(13:13):
for these things and then they are brought up when
you are interviewed by Customs and Border Patrol so what,
we can't criticize someone and make fair criticisms because they
might be used by the government in an inappropriate way.
That's not logical, that's not reasonable. And I'm also not
even sure that it's true the source for these things
that he's saying, like, oh, you interviewed a Huthi or whatever.
(13:34):
These officers are probably getting it from the countless news
articles that were written about it at the time in
mainstream media publications. Like these things did burst out of
the online drama bubble, it wasn't just online or on
Ethan Klein's podcast where this got discussed. All of these
controversies get written up in tons of media outlets. If
(13:55):
you ask me, it's much more likely that it came
from there than from you know, well, various liberal YouTube beefs.
But regardless, it's not their fault. It's nobody else's fault.
What other people do with valid criticisms, they raise to
the surface, and you're just trying to shield yourself from
criticism in a very manipulative and exploitative way here now.
(14:19):
Hassan also brought up another point that touches on press
freedom and journalism, which is an issue near and dear
to my heart that I want to talk about. Here's
that club.
Speaker 1 (14:28):
They also asked, have you ever interviewed a member of Hamas?
Have you ever had a communication or correspondence with a
member of Hamas, has Bulah or the Houthis. Now, what's
really insane about that is that, as someone who works
in media, sometimes I do actually do journalism right as
I've maintained this position over and over again, and I
(14:50):
said that I would have given the opportunity talk to
someone that is a part of the Onsola law movement,
a Huthi or even Hamas or even has Bulah, right,
I think that I have the right to do so.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
So that is the.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Part where they were like, if you answer yes to
any of that, that's when you know there's like actually
illegal stuff in there. Having said that, there is one
part of it that wasn't illegal, which is being in
communication communications or being in contact with someone ams like
that is a part of journalism you actually can do.
It's ridiculous, like you can interview isis like, what are
(15:23):
we talking about? The notion that this would be an
issue for the customs and border patrol is ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
So here he is, right, I mean, it is illegal
to provide material support to any of these kinds of organizations,
which he denies doing, and we don't have evidence that
he has done. But it's not illegal to speak to them,
especially if you work in some kind of media or
journalistic capacity that is a part of journalism that is
protected by the First Amendment. You are allowed to interview
(15:50):
these people. So even if he had done that, and
he says he hasn't, and I have no evidence otherwise,
that wouldn't actually be a crime or something that he
could be deny entry into the United States over. And
that's the real concern here. I don't necessarily have an
issue with them asking him about things that are potential crimes,
like have you provided material support to one of these organizations?
(16:13):
And I do think he's opened the door to those
questions with his public commentary, But to the extent that
they were grilling him on First Amendment protected views and activity,
no matter how odious or extreme I find them to be,
I think that's inappropriate. And he is a United States citizen,
he is born in America, he's not here. On some
(16:34):
visitors visa where it gets a little more debatable, Americans
should not be ideologically screened or grilled about their political
beliefs before being allowed to enter their home country. That
is a right, not a privilege when you are an
American to come into the country and look. I don't
know whether this was directed top down from the Trump administration.
(16:56):
Even if it wasn't, though, even if they just pulled
him aside randomly and then looked him up and asked
him these questions, I do think it's inappropriate and it's
not something I want the government to be engaged in.
They should be screening for actual crimes. They should be
trying to stop serious things that come through the border
illegally and looking for signs of potential issues with smuggling
(17:17):
of different sorts, including of humans. They should not be
grilling streamers about how they feel about Trump or foreign wars.
That's my take on all this, But you guys can
let me know what you think in the comments. Do
you disagree for some reason, I'm always open to hearing
you out, and I do take the time to read
the comments to make sure you subscribe if you aren't yet,
to hit that like button before you go, remember to
(17:39):
check out the new merch line that we just dropped
with the on my last brain Cell designs and to
leave me voice notes for my Friday episode where I
react to your woke horror stories and give you advice
about your personal situations. The link to both of those
things will be in the description, plus the link to
my new second YouTube channel where I will be posting
original bonus content like story times and ask me any things.
(18:02):
Go check that out and make sure subscribe as well.
And we got to talk about a story that I
find really interesting because it kind of has everybody engaged
in like political jiujitsu. All of a sudden, liberals are
now mad about immigration and MAGA suddenly loves refugees. Yeah,
that's the odd paradox that we find ourselves in. After
the Trump administration just welcomed in about fifty white refugees
(18:24):
from South Africa, where they say white people are being
systematically discriminated against. Take a listen to this coverage from
The Hill.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
One group of refugees are receiving a warm welcome from
the Trump administration. A stark contrastors moost refugees have been
halted from entering the US, the exception white South Africans.
They are set to land in the US today and
these Afrikaners, white descendants of primarily Dutch colonizers, have been
singled out favorably by this administration for asident.
Speaker 5 (18:53):
Trump is claiming they are victims of racial discrimination.
Speaker 4 (18:56):
He says they're being persecuted by their black led government
because of their race. As a reminder, South Africa was
controlled under apartheid rule for decades by its white minority.
Under that system, black South Africans were denied basic rights.
That system came to an end in nineteen ninety four,
and the current South African government is heading back hard
against Trump's allegations, saying it's completely false. They say Afrikaners
(19:21):
are some of the richest and most successful people in
the country.
Speaker 5 (19:25):
White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller commented on the situation,
Let's take a look.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
What's happening in South Africa fits the textbook definition of
why the refugee program was created. This is persecution based
on a protected characteristic, in this case race.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Now, the context you need to know about this is
that one of Trump's first orders of business after starting
a second term was to sign an executive order shutting
down almost all refugee admissions to the United States. This
was controversial because it left a lot of people who
we were going to let into the country screwed, including
some people who helped us and helped our military in
(20:00):
Afghanistan who are now at risk. Spectrum News reports Trump's
immigration orders have left Afghans who helped the US fight
the Taliban in limbo. They helped the US military order
airstrikes against Taliban and Islamic State fighters, and worked as
drivers and translators during America's longest war. They were set
to start new lives in the United States. Then President
Donald Trump issued executive orders that put an end to
(20:22):
programs used to help Afghans get to the safety in America. Now,
those same Afghans who underwent a year's long background check
find themselves in a state of limbo. All told, there's
about fifteen thousand of these Afghans who weren't allowed to
come here in Trump in his executive order argued that
we could not afford to use taxpayer resources to support refugees,
(20:43):
that they posed a security risk, and that we needed
a complete, near complete, and near total shutdown on this program.
But now they're making an exception. And here's why. According
to Donald Trump, I want to ask you.
Speaker 6 (20:55):
That refugees dozens of Africaners who find discrimination in their
life own country or heading into the United States where.
Speaker 7 (21:02):
Your administration is going to welcome them as refugees. Now
this comes as you've haulted virtually all refugee.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
Admissions for people think fanine.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
And war from the countries like Sudan that arekract the
public of Congo.
Speaker 7 (21:14):
Why are you creating an expedited path into the country
for the honors who not others because they're being killed
and we don't want to see people be killed. It's
a genocide that's takend place that you people don't want
to write about, but it's a terrible thing that's taking place.
And farmers are being killed. They happen to be white.
(21:36):
But whether they're white or black makes no difference to me.
But white farmers are being brutally killed and their land
is being confiscated in South Africa. I don't care about
their race, their color. I don't care about their height,
their weight, I don't care about anything. I just know
that what's happening is terrible to have people that live
in South Africa they say it's a terrible situation taking place,
(21:58):
So we've essentially extended citizenship to those people and to
escape from that violence and come here.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
So I'm no expert in South African politics or what's
going on there, so let's just accept this at face value.
These white farmers, let's say they are being killed, they
are being targeted in a genocide. That would be horrible,
like it would be in any context. But it's not
unique to South Africa. That's also the case in many
other parts of the world, including like the afghaniese who
(22:27):
we turned away, who may be killed by the Taliban now.
But he in those cases thought it wasn't worth it
to allow the refugees, and now is making an exception.
This is the part that doesn't make sense to me.
I have no issue with these South Africans coming here.
I welcome them, and I'm horrified by what I'm hearing
happened to them in South Africa. But I also think
(22:49):
there are a lot of other people who should be
let in, and the bizarre double standards here don't make
sense to me. This move is leading to a lot
of pushback, of course, from Democrats and liberal media, including
some that borders on hysterical. Here's one segment from CNN.
Speaker 5 (23:05):
So what's the difference between the refugees that they're talking
about here and those refugees I could guess. I mean,
I think everyone is white. They're white, thank you, they
are white, And I think, look, if that is how
you feel, fine, then hold the line. But there are
people all over the world, even people in this country
right now who are seeking who have sought asylum, who
are going through the process of silent asylum seeking and
(23:28):
have been detained by Ice and are being deported. There's
also a genocide happening in the Congo right now that
I don't see any Congolese being getting relief to come
to this country. So there are Afghanis that helped us
in Afghanistan that we have left behind. Even the last
administration didn't do right by them. This administration can do
(23:48):
right by them, but they are not because it doesn't
fit the narrative of the type of immigrants that we
want in our country.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
So I'm not going to jump and say that it's
just because they're white that they're being let in and
others aren't. I think it may also have to do
with Elon Musk's particular connection to South Africa, and so
maybe an exception was made there, but you can't ignore
the racial element to this, and it certainly doesn't look good. Now.
It's worth noting that this is a relatively small number
(24:16):
of refugees compared to thousands of refugees that were set
to be accepted from places like Afghanistan. But still it's
hard to imagine MAGA supporters being okay with these conditions
in really any other scenario, the journalist said. Jilani posted
screenshots of government website set to help white South Africans
come to the United States, where it boasts about how
(24:38):
much taxpayer funded government assistance they can get and all
the welfare programs they can participate in, and how they
don't actually have to prove that they were being persecuted
at all. Now, I have always supported refugee resettlement in
the United States to a certain amount. Obviously, we can
have millions of people coming here, but I think we
can open our doors to thousands of people, and after
(24:59):
extreme vetting to make sure we're only letting in people
who are safe and not danger to the country, we
can let them in. And I've always supported that, and
I really have no issue with South Africans if they're
facing racial persecution white South Africans whatever. Yeah, I have
no issue with that. I'm supportive of that. But there
is something bizarre and inconsistent to me about Trump administration
(25:21):
being so anti refugee and so against you, American tax
dollars being used to support foreigners and all this stuff,
and then suddenly making an exception for this one group.
But there's also something incredibly bizarre about the way that
many liberal commentators and institutions are suddenly against refugees. The
Episcopal Church, for example, is now refusing to resettle white Africaners,
(25:45):
citing moral opposition. NPR reports that, in a striking move
that ends in nearly four decades old relationship between the
federal government and the Episcopal Church, the denomination announced on
Monday that it is terminating its partnership with the gouvernver
to resettle refugees, citing moral opposition to resettling white Africaners
from South Africa who have been classified as refugees by
(26:08):
President Trump's administration. In light of our church's deadfast commitment
to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with
the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able
to take this step. They wrote, accordingly, we have determined
that by the end of the federal fiscal year, we
will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the United
States federal government. This is bizarre. So they're cutting off
(26:31):
their working relationship with the government where they receive taxpayer
dollars to help resettle refugees because they don't want to
help fifty white South Africans were being brought here because
they're facing racial persecution, and they're citing racial justice as
the reason that they don't want to do that. What
even if you somehow thought these weren't real refugees, theyse
(26:54):
weren't legitimate or whatever. I mean, just work with them
and help find fifty people new home in America, and
then you can continue your relationship with the federal government
for all the future refugee resettlements you do. So it's
so bizarre that they would choose this hill to die on,
And it really does seem like they must just have
Trump arrangement syndrome or be really enscunsed in some far
(27:15):
left ideology. The whole saga with these South African refugees
is just a reminder to me of how much partisanship
and tribalism can really rot your brain and can make
you and take you to just totally inconsistent places. My
hot take of the day is that you should not
determine your support for different immigration policies based on random political, ideological,
(27:40):
or racial affiliations. And if you do, you're not thinking logically,
you're thinking emotionally and tribally. But what do you guys think?
Let me know in the comments. Finally, we had to
talk about one more crazy story, because this TikTok feminist
just admitted she openly hates men. We're talking, of course,
about Drew F. Wallow, the very prominent, supposedly feminist pro
(28:02):
woman TikTok content creator and podcast host who has a
very prominent show on Spotify, who is doing the interviews
circuit again and saying some really nasty things about hating
all men quite openly. Let's take a look at this
first clip.
Speaker 6 (28:19):
I told people before They're like, oh, you hate all men.
I'm like, I've never said that, but if the shoe
fits wear it, I don't give a But also I'm like, yeah,
don't you haven't you ever spent time with one? They're awful,
like like, have you ever seen a group of guys
out like all straight dudes and they're all laughing. Have
you ever been like, God, I wonder what they're laughing at. No,
when they're laughing, I'm going, are they doing something bad?
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Probably?
Speaker 6 (28:42):
I'm like, they probably just hit a woman. They're probably
high fiving over a slur.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
That's what I think.
Speaker 6 (28:50):
When I see girls and gays and days all out
and they're they're king and they're laughing in there, I'm like, Oh,
that looks awesome. When I see men doing it them,
it's like, what are you laughing at? What's so funny?
You just say to the world're on the news. I
bet you wouldn't be laughing so hard. I'm just harassing him.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Well, she seems lovely, love how She's like, I've never
said I hate all men, but yeah I do. And
don't you know, because we're not close minded sexist bigots,
and we don't collectively condemn entire demographic groups of people
because of the actions of some individuals. That's what racists do,
(29:31):
that's what sexists do. That's not what open minded and
tolerant people are supposed to do. But she really does
just openly say that all men are bad because she
thinks so from the one she's interacted with. But also
it's bizarrely incoherent because she has a boyfriend, maybe fiance,
(29:52):
maybe husband, I don't know who she raves about as
an amazing man. And it's like, but you just said
they're all bad and you hate them all, So which
is it? You'd think that if you actually believed that
you would like swear off men and not be in
a relationship with one. I also question the self respect
of a guy who would dat a girl who openly
goes out there and says she hates all men. What
(30:13):
And this wasn't a one off. This wasn't just one
time she was goofing around. She talks like this all
the time. Take a listen to another recent clip.
Speaker 8 (30:21):
How do you live at this intersection of I hate man?
I see this terrible behavior online, but I'm with man
and marrying a man. And by the way, Ashley and
I make fun of men too, but we have like
great fathers and brothers and friends.
Speaker 6 (30:32):
Most too, most women who do hate men have great fathers, brothers, men.
Speaker 8 (30:36):
Yeah, so we do think there's like great men. Obviously
you found one, so it actually but like, how do
you live at that sort of like intersection of the two.
Speaker 6 (30:43):
I mean, I think it's a lot simpler than people think.
I think people over complicated. It's just you know, I'm
not talking about you. But it doesn't it doesn't change
the inherent fact that men are evil. That is true,
like man as a whole is evil, like just as
an entity a general idea. Men have inflicted violence and
oppression on the world in ways that are irreparable. Like
it's okay if we say that out loud, it's okay
(31:04):
if we say that men are inherently evil. It's like
it's not all men, but for some reason, always a man.
Every time something terrible happens, always a man, like ninety
nine percent of the time. So I feel like it's
a lot simpler than people may think. It's I don't
hate my man, I hate most men. And for me,
I think, given what men have done to me personally,
(31:26):
to people I love, and the world as a whole,
if they all start guilty and have to work their
way to innocent, that's not really a big deal to me.
I feel very like convicted in that. If you're not awful,
prove it. Quit talking about it and do it.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
She actually just said men should start being considered guilty
and have to prove their way innocent. That's dystopian and evil.
And she wants to say two things at once. She
wants to say, yes, I hate all men, but then like,
if you're a man and you're upset by that, well,
or if you were a good man, you'd know I'm
not talking about you, think the all means, And then
(32:02):
she retreats to most It's like a Mott and Bailey thing.
It's like she wants to say the edgy, extreme thing
for clicks and attention, but then retreat to a more
defensible position. But even then, most men are not bad. Okay,
it is obviously I do acknowledge the fact that men
commit more violence and more crime than women. That is
absolutely a fact. That's not most men, certainly not. And
(32:25):
it's wrong to judge an individual for something other people
that are in some demographic group based on some immutable
trait do. That would be like me saying I'm scared
of black men because they commit murders at a higher
rate than other races of men. That would be wrong
for me to apply that to any individual black man
(32:45):
because it's not his fault what other people who look
like him have done. And of course, woke people like
Drew would totally see the problem with that kind of
logic when it's applied in that direction. But when they
can just blame all men to the fact that male
leaders have engaged in violence and repression, that's fine and
cute and dandy, and they have millions of adoring fans
(33:08):
on the Internet. I really do believe that these female influencers,
the all men are trash kind of influencers, are like
the women version of the red Pill grifters, who give
terrible advice and talk about how all women are bad
and evil and trash, and the whole thing is so
incredibly toxic. And the fact that these kinds of folks
have millions of adoring fans online and are constantly going
(33:29):
viral and are uplifted and promoted with these toxic messages,
and then we wonder why modern dating is broken, why
gender relations are praying and struggling. I mean, it's not
a surprise to me with people like this openly spewing
hate and divisive nonsense on the Internet every day and
just being rewarded with it with huge audiences and huge
(33:51):
sums of money. This is bleak, but sadly kind of
typical for TikTok, especially TikTok these days. All make of
this let me know in the comments. All right, guys,
that'll be it for this episode of the Bread Versus
Everyone Podcast. Thank you all so much for tuning in.
Please do make sure you subscribed. If you aren't yet,
do it that like button for you go comment with
your thoughts YadA YadA yah. Check out the new merch designs.
(34:14):
My boyfriend worked really hard on them. Be sure to
send some voice notes for Friday's episode and subscribe to
my second channel while you're at it. And with that,
we'll talk again real soon
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!