September 9, 2025 • 37 mins
A food influencer on TikTok, ElizabethEatsNYC, is getting BRUTALLY harassed and cancelled for the supposed crime of... eating at an Israeli restaurant. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, a horrific viral crime sparks terrible mainstream media coverage and far-right race baiting and some MAGA internet stars are cheering for gun control now?
SUBSCRIBE/WATCH NORMAL GAYS: https://www.youtube.com/@MoreBradPolumbo
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
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):
What restaurants you choose to highlight sends a message to
your audience and about where you stand politically. That food
is political.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
TikTok is reminding us that we simply can't have nice
things free from politicization, even restaurant going. We're going to
break this down plus so much more on today's episode
of The Barad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where
(00:29):
we take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet,
our media, and our politics, all from an independent perspective.
Up first, guys, we're going to be talking about the
world of food TikTok, right, the sphere within TikTok where
people do recipes and restaurant reviews and all this kind
of stuff. I can't say I'm huge into it, but
(00:52):
it is a huge sector of the Internet for sure.
Lots of people enjoy this kind of content. And we're
going to talk about one woman who's blown up recently.
Her name is Elizabeth Eats NYC. She goes around to
different restaurants in New York City, does this kind of
dry humor while she's visiting them, and eats the food,
and she's supposed to kind of demystify it just give
(01:15):
a blunt look at what it's really like. She does
remain kind of anonymous. You can hear her voice, but
she doesn't show her face in the videos, and she's
grown a lot lately. She's got up to over a
million followers on TikTok now. But she is, of course,
because this happens really whenever anybody finds any success being
targeted by miserable cancel culture harpies on the internet, particularly
(01:40):
on TikTok because she committed the apparently egregious war crime
of going to an Israeli restaurant. Yes, seriously, that is
what all the hubbub is about. We're going to react
to a couple clips from one of the many, many,
many videos being made hating on this women. We'll look
(02:02):
at a couple different parts of this, but here's the
first one.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Let's try really food before we all knew each other
into space. I got a schnitzelpedup, please Jimmy Cherry sauce
on the side. I'd be evacuating to a fallout shelfa
right now.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
So this is Elizabeth Eats NYC, and she's a popular
food content creator, and I don't want to send any
hat to this creator. I just want to make some
really important points as I continue to show you some
of these videos. First of all, I want to say
that visiting an Israeli restaurant during an ongoing genocide is
a political statement. Whether or not she states in her
videos that she's not.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Political, excuse me. So the argument is that because this
person believes that the conflict in Israel and everything they're
doing in Gaza right now is a genocide, and guys,
for the purposes of this conversation, I don't even want
to get into that debate whether it is or isn't,
but say that it is. Your argument is therefore that
(02:56):
patronizing and Israeli restaurant in a mayor is supporting that
or endorsing the actions of the government there. That's simply
not true. I don't know when I go to a
Mexican restaurant, I am in no way supporting the current
government of Mexico or any of the things that they're doing.
(03:17):
That's just not a thing. And in fact, many Israelis
don't support their current government, don't support the course of
the war in Gaza, and object to it. So for
all you know, these are Peacenick Israeli Americans or second
generation Israeli Americans who don't even support any of that,
but you're saying they should be boycotted just because of
(03:38):
their national origin or their heritage. That just seems discriminatory
to me. And I don't accept for a moment that
simply patronizing someone's business means that you endorse their home government.
That's not a thing. That's a wild assumption. And I
think it's really unfair to this Elizabeth Eats person who
is not political, to assign her endorsement or support for
(04:02):
a highly controversial government because she went to a restaurant.
What I find this really a bizarre leap of logic.
But it actually it continues, and this person is very
offended by Elizabeth Eats's original video, which is admittedly dry
and kind of makes some edgy jokes, but that's her stick.
(04:23):
She does that everywhere she goes. And we're going to
take a look at some more of this backlash. The
next part features this individual on TikTok who's video got
a lot of traction, getting very upset over the jokes
that Elizabeth Eats dared make amid what I think everyone
would agree is a humanitarian catastrophe. But you can't joke
(04:43):
about that. That's so terrible and so bad. Yeah, okay,
let's listen.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
She also mentions in that video about going into a
bomb shelter, which is extremely insensitive. Joking about needing a
bomb shelter while eating Israeli food is insensitive and very harmful.
For Palestini, bomb shelters do not exist, and we're joking
about Israeli's having bomb shelters. Meanwhile, there's an ongoing genocide
(05:08):
happening in Palestine. Families in Palestine experience bombs on the
daily without any sort of protection, and these types of
comments really minimize suffering.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
You're so right, babe. I'm sure that over right now
in Gaza, the people whose apartments have been flattened by
bombs and who are forced to relocate, and who are
trying to find food, I'm sure they're really pressed about
Elizabeth Eats joke about Israeli bomb shelters in her video
at an Israeli restaurant in New York's. Do you hear
(05:40):
yourself like, come on the idea that because something is
sad or tragic or serious, or people are experiencing something
really awful, you can't joke about It is just not true.
We joke about all sorts of things. In fact, that's
often through levity is how people cope and process with things.
And it's not that deep. Show me on the doll
(06:01):
where the joke touched you. Okay, you're not going to
be profoundly affected by this joke. A joke doesn't do
harm in any meaningful sense of those words. And the
actual Palestinian people do not give us yet. They have
much bigger problems to worry about right now than what's
some influencer. Also, guys interjecting here. I turned my camera
back on to add a little more context. I actually
(06:23):
got in touch with Elizabeth Eats, the TikTok creator that
this whole show or episode is about, and she told
me that the joke she made about bomb shelters and
nukes actually wasn't about Palestinians at all. It was she
posted and she made this video the day after the
US struck Iran and struck the nuclear facilities and everybody
(06:44):
was worried about World War III and nuclear war and
all this stuff. It was not even a direct intended
to be a direct reference to Palestine at all. So
I thought that was some context that I think honestly,
I wouldn't care anyway. If it was a joke about
Israel and Palestine, that's okay. We can joke about upsetting
and serious things. But it wasn't even intended to be that,
(07:08):
and people have stripped that of its contact. So I
thought that was important to hop back in here and
add the reason they don't have bomb shelters in Gaza,
and I wish that the innocent civilians in Gaza had shelters.
Of course they could go to. The reason they don't
is because Hamas didn't build them and instead build tunnel
networks for their own people. So it's not at all
(07:31):
an endorsement of Israel. To simply it eat Israeli food
and joking about things is actually fine, okay, And y'all
need to get a grip now. Elizabethea Its did do
a follow up because she got so much backlash and
harassment and doxing where she went to a Palestinian restaurant
and did not calm down this controversy. It heated it
(07:53):
up and of course has now prompted another round of
the backlash, which this user continued to engage in focused
on Elizabeth decision to kind of, in reaction to the criticism,
go to a Palistinian restaurant and here's that part.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
She got some backlash for that video, so she decided
to visit a Yat, which is a Palestinian restaurant in
New York City. Check this out.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
When people start docting and canceling you because you didn't
eat somewhere, we're here at AA in Manhattan to finally
appreciate some Palestinian food while there's a devastating human rights
crisis in Gaza. This is simply a channel for food
and not a space for global news.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Palestinian cuisine isn't just something to try because people force
you into it. It's a reflection of a people that
are suffering. What restaurants you choose to highlight sends a
message to your audience and about where you stand politically.
It also sends a message about whose culture is legitimized, platformed,
and supported. It is always important to remember that food
(08:53):
is political. Where you choose to spend your money, what
you eat is political.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Ay, so this is unhinged. What There's nothing wrong with
what she said. She's allowed to have a TikTok account
where she reviews restaurants without taking stands on global news
and international relations, which frankly she probably knows nothing about.
And we would actually, in my view, be better off
if influencers more routinely stayed in their lane and didn't
(09:22):
talk about every complicated political issue they don't know anything about.
And I just totally disagree with this idea that going
to a restaurant signals a political message or like y'all
gotta touch grass, y'all gotta get off TikTok. It's not normal,
it's not healthy, and I think it suffers from this
(09:42):
kind of boy who cried Wolf phenomenon that we talk
about a lot on this show because it affects so
much of internet discourse. If everything is political, then nothing
is political. Like if you guys act like everything is
so deep and so connected to policy, at some point
people are just going to tune y'all out and you
won't be able to actually highlight, you know, serious things
that it's like, hey, don't support these people. They are
(10:04):
directly doing this thing. If y'all want everybody to boycott this,
object to that, don't go here, don't promote this all
the time everything, it loses all its meaning, and normal
people that aren't TikTok brain rotted are just going to
tune y'all out which has happened and continues to happen.
But y'all plagued yourself. I don't know what you thought
was going to happen. I don't know if you thought
(10:25):
you did your big one. But like claiming food is
political is absurd. Sure, there are aspects related to food
that are political, whether that's like food related public policies
about agriculture, or about you know, welfare and food stamps,
or whether it's foreign policy for example, like aid being
(10:46):
released or blocked into a targeted territory. All of that
is true, but that is literally true about anything. Anything.
There is an aspect that intersects with politics or government
in some way, it doesn't therefore render that thing to
totally political, and every minute decision needs to be microanalyzed
to see if it's problematic. Y'all are exhausting. I am
(11:08):
exhausted just listening to y'all. I cannot imagine being you.
It must be ty ring, constantly fixing your mouth, to
be so pressed and so upset over every little thing.
When you know what, you could actually be using that
energy to help people in Gaza, rather than policing influencers
for ordering food at an Israeli restaurant. Like I find
(11:32):
this ridiculous and absurd, no matter how you feel about
the conflict. By the way, because I know I have
followers who fall on other side, I acknowledge the complexity.
I think people of good faith really can disagree about
complicated subjects like this, but we should all be able
to agree that this is absurd, and I think it
actually has its roots in something not related to Israel
or Gaza at all, which is just envy and just
(11:55):
wanting to tear people down. The Internet, many people they
become jealous when they see someone succeed, and they just
look for ways to bring that person down a peg
or somehow declare them problematic. And it's all rooted in envy.
And envy is one of the worst, I think worst
human emotions. So we should be resisting when we feel it.
(12:15):
It's natural to feel it sometimes, but we should be
resisting it and trying to shut that down, not giving
into it and joining random witch hunts meant to tear
down successful people. To try it for bogus reasons, just
to try to quiet that voice inside that we feel
that's talking to us about our own inadequacies. That's my
take on all this. This discourse is megaviral on TikTok
(12:37):
going after this woman. I don't really think she did
anything wrong, and I think it's insane that people are
trying to cancel her or they're doxing her. Y'all need
to touch grass, But frankly, I could say that most
days about the people on TikTok. What do you guys think?
Let me know in the comments. Do make sure you
subscribe the part yet to hit that like button. While
you're at it. Remember you can listen to the Brad
(12:58):
Versus Everyone podcast on Apple podcast Spotify. iHeartRadio YadA YadA yah,
And if you are listening to audio podcasts, do take
a second to rate and review this show. It helps
us grow and guys, remember to also send in your
voicemails for my Voicemail Friday episodes where I react to
your woe car stories, give you advice and your personal
life scenarios, and answer any questions you guys have for me.
(13:20):
As always, the link to send one of those in
is in the description butt Next, so we're going to
talk about a really horrifying crime that's going viral. It's
just breaking the internet and it's leading to some very
disfunctional media coverage and online political commentary because we really
just nobody knows how to be normal or act normal
(13:42):
about any news story. First, though, here's an interesting video
from the news content creator Dylan Page summing up the
horrifying crime that's going viral, and I think from his
summary you'll be able to see why this is like
resonating with people more than just a normal crime story.
Listen to this.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
This twenty three year old Ukrainian woman fled a country
at war to live a safer and better life in
the United States, so recently, one evening, heading home after work,
her life was ended in the worst possible way. The
horrifying incident occurred on the twenty second of August in Charlotte,
but security footage of what actually happened was just released
(14:22):
for the first time. It was nine forty six pm
and the video shows a very normal looking train with
everyone minding their own business, talking or on their phone.
But there's one man in a red hoodie identified as
de Carlos Brown looking restless and agitated. Around thirty seconds later,
Irena Souretzka gets on the train wearing a cap and
a T shirt from a pizzeria and sits in front
(14:44):
of De Carlos. She has AirPods in and just like
everyone else, is minding her own business and using her phone.
And it remains this way for the next four minutes
until De Carlos can be seen randomly taking out a
pocket knife, standing up and completely unprovoked, stabbing eye Rayna
several times from behind. She didn't even have a chance
to see the attack coming. Now. As for the attacker,
(15:06):
De Carlos, Brown actually has a history of biden crime
and mental illness. He's been arrested multiple times and even
served a five year prison sentence for robbery with a
deadly weapon. To make matters worse, he wasn't even supposed
to be allowed on the train that night because he
didn't have a ticket. Please detained him just hours after
the attack, and he's since been charged with first degree murder.
As for the other passengers on board, some told local
(15:27):
news that they were traumatized by what they saw and
that they don't know how long it'll be before they're
able to use public transportation again.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
So wow, this story is bleak and it's dark, and
I feel so bad for this woman and her family
and friends. I mean, it is just crazy to me.
I think the reason this resonates and is going so viral,
there's a few reasons. One is the fact that she
is a refugee from Ukraine. She's survived literal war and
then came here and then it was murdered, just makes
(15:57):
this story exponentially more unique and more traged The other
piece of it is that this was like a random attack.
He didn't know her, they weren't like in a relationship.
Most crime isn't committed by total strangers like this most murders,
and just the idea that you could be on the
train and some random person just decides to stab you
for no apparent reason. I mean, it's horrifying. It's really scary,
(16:21):
and I see why it's going so viral, especially because
they did release the video, which that's what made it
go so viral. Is this insane video. I can't show
you the actual moment, but I did watch it. You
can find out on the internet if you want to
see it. It's like genuinely bone chilling stuff. The other
reasons that this is viral is one is that there's
(16:42):
a criminal justice policy element to this, like this is
a guy who frankly should not have been on the streets,
and we'll get into that, but he was arrested over
and over again. He should have been locked up or
institutionalized in some way, So there's a policy failure here.
And then there is a race angle, unfortunately, because everything
has to be about race for some people. This black
guy killed a white girl the same way that when
(17:04):
a white cop kills a black guy that becomes national
news in some circles. Though when a black cop kills
a black guy, or when a white cop kills a
white guy, that story doesn't resonate the same way. In
the same way I mean this story, there's a racial
angle to why it's going so viral because these topics
are infused with that kind of discourse. The first piece
of this I want to talk about is kind of
(17:25):
the media spin on it, because the mainstream media that
is originally like immediately after it happened, most national kind
of liberal establishment media outlets didn't touch it much, didn't
cover it much, which is kind of strange because they
kind of do cover these types of things in different contexts,
Like Daniel Penny, that man who restrained in what he
says his self defense and killed an aggressive homeless person
(17:48):
on the New York subway, that got all this coverage,
but this story didn't. And it's like, well, why because
maybe it doesn't suit certain narratives. Well, when they finally
did decide to report it, mainstream media outlets had an
interesting spin on this where they attempted to like tie
it to MAGA in kind of interesting ways. So here's Axios.
(18:09):
The gruesome video of the fatal knife attack on Erna
Zurutzka on a light rail car in Charlotte is drawing
attention from mega influencers seeking to elevate the issue of
violent urban crime and accuse the mainstream media of undercovering
shocking cases. So they've been kind of ridiculed for that framing.
And I understand why it is true that mega voices
(18:32):
and influencers are seizing on this story and promoting it,
But like the fact that that's the main thing Axios
is focusing on rather than the story itself does reak
of misplaced priorities. It's like, actually, you should just be
covering the crime, you know. And then others like CNN's
(18:54):
Brian Stelter are getting criticized because of similarly, how they're
talking about this, kind of making it into a connected
issue with MAGA and Republicans when really, I mean, the
story itself is an issue of policy and crime and victimization.
It shouldn't be about like, oh, MAGA pounces. Is a
(19:15):
very frustrating framing on the story. Here's CNN's Brian Stelter.
Speaker 5 (19:19):
Really over the weekend, Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, other Trump
aligned figures succeeded in making this senseless death a symbol
of big city crime. We heard President Trump asked about
it yesterday when he was heading home from New York City.
He didn't seem to know much about it. He said
he would get briefed, and then today Trump did know
all about it. That's exactly what has happened here. This
story has trickled up from local news to social media
(19:42):
and now to the President's attention, and it's being news,
as you said, Brian, as a political symbol, with MAGA
media calling for more forceful punishments and more incarceration. I
have to say some of the replies to Musks, some
of the comments around the story are baldly racist, stoking
fear of African Americans because this attacked a white woman.
The open racism on sites like x today, it's eye popping.
(20:05):
But there are also legitimate questions about this so called
career criminal, someone who had been a repeat offender, and
those questions I hope they're not lost amid all of
the cesspool kind of comments on social media.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
So here's the thing. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the
idea that mainstream media didn't cover this story enough originally,
But I don't necessarily find anything that objectionable about what
Brian Stelter says here. He's getting attacked by MAGA people
online over this. I mean what he says basically every
point is true. It was highlighted by MAGA influencers. They
(20:38):
did do so to highlight, you know, failed Democrat policies,
as they would frame it. I think they have a point,
And he even says that that there's some underlying serious
issues here. But then there actually is genuine racism being
attached to this online, particularly on x which has turned
into a racist cesspool, And I wish we could just
talk about this in a way of like, how do
(20:59):
we deal with these mentally ill people with dangerous criminals.
We need to lock them up, we need to stop
them hurting random people rather than black black black. But
that really is that all some online voices on the
right have to say about this. I mean, this girl
who her whole career started because she said the N word,
I guess named Lily Gaddis. She's now become like an
(21:20):
alt right influencer. Let me show you her YouTube thumbnail
white girl killed by black, white women under attack by
black's shocking footage revealed one hundred and seven thousand views
on that YouTube video. Here's the clip of her making
this one anecdote into a story of a supposed race
(21:42):
war from all black people against whites.
Speaker 6 (21:45):
Listen to this a day like many others, where a
white woman is the victim of a black crime. He
was working at a pizza restaurant and just had gotten
off her long shift and was headed home on public transportation,
which used to be safe, but now you might get
your you know, you might end up not making it
to your final destination if you happened to be on
(22:07):
public transportation with people of color or black people. So
this is just what happens in America, This is what
is happening in white countries around the globe right now
because we have black people, we have immigrants. This is
not just blacks, it's also illegals that are coming into
these countries that are butchering white people in their homelands.
(22:28):
And we no longer feel safe in our homeland because
we have these people roaming around, lurking around looking for trouble.
They are mentally unstable, They rove in packs, they rove
their lone wolves, and they commit atrocities upon white people.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
This genuinely is racist. All black people or even most
black people, are not responsible in any way for the
actions of one deeply mentally ill black person on a
subway somewhere and making that you're also spewing a false narrative.
There really isn't an epidemic of black people killing white people,
(23:10):
especially in these kinds of targeted random attacks, non targeted
random attacks, which are incredibly, incredibly rare. So to act
like modern America, it's not even safe anymore to go
on a train because the blacks be out here. It's
insanely racist and baseless and two and most of the
time murders are committed within racist So black people mostly
(23:32):
kill other black people and white people mostly kill other
white people. So to make this all like this insane
race bating narrative is genuinely racist. And I think Brian
Stelters of the world have a point when they point
this out, that this cesspool of extreme racists right far
right rhetoric has interjected into this kind of discourse in
(23:53):
this news story, It's still not the main story. The
main story is this woman's life being lost and the
policy failures that brought us here, and I think we
should talk about that. But I mean, the right does
need to push back on this racialization and this hyperfixation
because it really is toxic, I think, and it does
(24:13):
muddy the waters on the real issues we should be
talking about here, which are criminal justice related in nature.
So here's the Free presses Maya Sulkin talking about the
policy or criminal justice failures that may have led to
this terrible situation where this man took this young woman's
life so prematurely. Listen to this.
Speaker 7 (24:32):
Twenty three year old Ukrainian refugee, Irena Zarutska, fled a
war zone only to be viciously stabbed to death on
a train in Charlotte, North Carolina. What feels like an
inexplicable tragedy is actually quite the opposite, and that's because
the man who murdered her, to Carlos Brown Junior, is
a career criminal with over fourteen arrests, including robbery and assault.
He also has a serious history of mental illness, so
much so that after the last time he was released
(24:54):
from prison, his own mother kicked him out of her
house for aggressive behavior. Even more troubling is that the
courts were aware of Brown's menntal health and criminal history
and continuously failed to hold them accountable. Despite his record.
A judge allowed for Brown's release from prison on a
written promise to reappear in court at a later date,
a decision that ended up being fatal. The murder of
Irena Zerutzka is in part so troubling because the twenty
three year old had successfully escaped a war that has
(25:16):
taken more than one hundred thousand lives, only for hers
to be brutally cut short in the country where she
had sought refuge in. Others question why there had not
been media coverage of the story. In the liberal media
and Charlotte's mayor vy Lyles had released a statement saying
we will never arrest our way out of issues such
as homelessness and mental health. But in this case, there
were dozens of chances to arrest to Carlos Brown for
exactly that severe mental health issues that resulted in the
(25:38):
murder of an innocent civilian by a repeat offender. I'm
a sulkan and you can read my story on this
murder at the FP dot com.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
So I have no interest in racializing this discourse. For me,
it's a policy question of how do we keep these
repeat offenders off of the streets, people who are clearly dangerous.
We see this pattern especially in urban areas often governed
by Democrats, but not exclusively, where people are arrested, arrested,
(26:08):
they commit a crime after crime after crime, and yet
somehow just get released back on the street, somehow get
released without bail. It's like dangerous people need to be
locked up for their own good and for the good
of others, and yet we can also have it be
true that our criminal justice system, we have way too
many people in jail, and we have way too many
crimes that don't have real victims, and we over punish
(26:29):
people in lots of ways, yet at the same time,
we clearly don't punish some people enough, or we don't
actually take extreme enough steps to incarcerate people who are dangerous.
That should be the focus, and that should be the
narrative here, not you know, race baiting for clicks and
to rile up sentiment. That's how I feel about this
(26:51):
at least. But you guys, let me know what you
think in the comments blow where you was horrified by
this as I am. Have you seen this unhinged discourse?
I genuinely want to know how if you guys feel
about this, let me know in the comments down below. Okay,
one more story I want to talk about that I
actually missed last week while I was traveling for a
couple weddings. But the news broke that the Trump administration
(27:11):
is considering restricting trans people's right to own a gun.
So forget that whole Second Amendment shall not be infringed,
forget that whole you know, gun control bad. Actually, maybe
some gun control good if we disagree with the group
in question. I don't know. Apparently it's something the Department
of Justice under Trump is considering. Here is reporting from
(27:35):
the Hills Rising.
Speaker 8 (27:37):
Following the deadly mass shooting on the campus of a
Minneapolis Catholic school. The DJ is reportedly considering some gun
restrictions for transgender individuals.
Speaker 9 (27:45):
ADJ spokesperson told The Daily Wire quote individuals within the
DJ or viewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals
suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while
they're unstable and unwealth The move by the DOJ appears
to have support from the magabase. Alex Marlow, author and
(28:05):
host of The Alex Marlow Show, took to X saying
gun ban for trans is a win win proposition. We
get to watch the Democrats explain why trans need AR
fifteen's and the courts uphold gun rights as inalienable or
the trans contagion is officially classified as a mental health condition,
which it is checkmate.
Speaker 8 (28:25):
But the proposal unsurprisingly sparked outrage on the left. Ed
Krastenstein writes on X, where all the Second Amendment people?
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Now?
Speaker 8 (28:33):
Does it only apply to some people?
Speaker 2 (28:35):
So the first thing I have to say about this
is that I believe there's a constitutional right to defend
yourself in bear firearms. I believe this is an extension
of a natural human right, and of course I support
trans people having that same right as everyone else. I
don't think there's anything about being trans, even if you
think that it's a mental condition or delusion. As you know,
(28:56):
right wing people say that means you don't have cunts
juditional rights. To me, you still obviously do. And I
have to say there's a huge, glaring hypocrisy here. I'm
just going to read you. I found a list of
quotes from Trump. I asked GROC about the Second Amendment
and its nature as a sacro sanct human right and
(29:17):
constitutional right. Listen to this. Responsible gun ownership saves lives,
and the right to self defense is essential to public safety.
Our police and sheriffs know that when you ban guns,
only the criminals will be armed. I am a strong
supporter of the Second Amendment and believe that law abiding
Americans have the right to self defense. The right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
(29:37):
infringed upon. People have to protect themselves. I'm a Second
Amendment person very simply, people have to protect themselves. The
Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all
law abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn't create that right, it
ensures the government can't take it away. We want to
ensure you all of the sacred right to self defense
for all of our citizens. Those are all direct quotes
(29:59):
from about how self defense and the Second Amendment is
a core right, constitutional and human right, natural right that
all law abiding citizens are entitled to. Well, news flash, like,
no matter what your views are on trans issues, and
I've been very critical of gender ideology and transactivists, many
trans people are law abiding American citizens and they have
(30:21):
every very much the same constitutional rights as you or I.
So were the Trump Department of Justice to go forward
with this or pursue this, it would be blatantly hypocritical
and a total betrayal of the values they say they
stand for. Now, the NRA actually put out a statement
after this news broke. Let me read that for you.
(30:43):
They wrote, the Second Amendment isn't up for debate. The
NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of all law abiding
Americans to purchase, possess, and use firearms. NRA does not
and will not support any policy proposals that implement sweeping
gun bands that arbitrarily strip law abiding citizens of their
Second Amendment rights without due prop So I agree with
that statement, but I do think it's like a little weak.
(31:04):
I mean, you don't even mention Trump. You don't even
mention trans people by name. I think if a Democratic
president had said we are going to ban all Christians
from owning guns or some other group of people because
their beliefs are delusional or they're disconnected from reality, I
think the NRA would have called them too rannical, mention
them by name, mentioned the issue. But it is a
(31:25):
partisan organization. Unfortunately, the Gun Owners of America put out
a much stronger statement. So if you're a diehard second
I'm a person you want a non partisan group that's
not just like Maga flack pr group, maybe check them
out instead of the NRA. But anyway, they did put
out a statement. Now, I don't think Trump will move
forward with this because I think it is blatantly unconstitutional,
(31:45):
and I actually think he'd get a lot of backlash
from his own side if he did try to pursue this.
But some people on the right are all in. They're
all about it, like MAGA YouTuber Michael Knowles, who any
value or principles he apparently will compromise if it would
allow him to own the libs or, in this case,
(32:06):
own the trans people. Let's listen to his comments on this.
Speaker 10 (32:10):
President Trump is threatening to disarm, to take guns away
from the trans identifying people. Seems to me pretty obvious
that a guy who thinks that he's a woman, a
guy who's grasp of reality is so tenuous, so loose
that he doesn't know what his sex is, probably should
(32:31):
not have a firearm. People say, look, shall not be infringed.
As clear as day, you can't take the guns away.
We already agree in principle that there are people who
are not sufficiently in command of their reason to have
a gun. Should a baby be allowed to go buy
a gun? Should a baby? Should a baby listen? I'm
(32:51):
a lifetime member of the NRA, I have guns. I
should a baby be allowed to go buy a gun?
Speaker 9 (32:58):
No?
Speaker 10 (32:59):
Severely retarded person be allowed to go buy a gun?
Probably not. Should your grandfather with advanced dementia, who doesn't
know what day it is be able to go buy
a gun? Would be Would that be good for him?
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Would that do? No? No?
Speaker 10 (33:17):
I think we would all admit no. Transgenderism is a
severe mental illness.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
Wow, So there's a lot there, but sorry, no self defense.
And the Second Amendment is a core constitutional and human
right that all law abiding adult citizens are entitled to,
and that absolutely includes trans people who may very well
need to defend themselves like any other American would. Second
Amendment doesn't say asterisk except the groups whose belief system
(33:46):
I disagree with. And it is not remotely comparable to
being a baby or having dementia to simply be a
person who experiences gender dysphoria and chooses to transition. You
might disagree with that, you might have feel some type
of way about that. That's your right, but you cannot
use that as a basis to declare them mentally invalid
and strip them of their constitutional rights, even if you
(34:08):
think that being trans is a mental condition of some kind,
which I do think it is an underlying mental condition
of gender.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Nice for you.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Well, people with mental conditions or health issues of different
kinds are still allowed to exercise their constitutional rights. People
with anxiety, people with ADHD, people with depression, all these
people are allowed to buy and own firearms. That's very
much a thing.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Now.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
If you have concrete evidence that an individual trans or
not trans, is a threat to themselves or others. Then
I think you can justify intervention in that particular case,
but not blanket dispossession of millions of people of a
core right because you think they're delusional. Okay, are under
that logic? Are we going to disarm Mormons because some
(34:54):
of their beliefs are no shade your right to your
views a little out of touch with reality? Are we
gonna what about people who think dinosaurs aren't real, or
don't believe in evolution or other kind of easily objectively
what beliefs that people view as objectively like wrong and delusional?
Are we going to deprive them of their constitutional rights?
(35:15):
This is very clearly a slippery slope that in a
Pandora's box that you should not want to open if
you actually value these underlying rights. And that's not even
saying about the fact that you should just care about
these millions of our fellow Americans still having the rights
they're entitled to. Also, not all trans people are delusional
and think they're something they're not. I mean, some certainly do.
(35:37):
I react to delulu people on the regular from the
trans community, but many do know what sex they are,
but they just have this condition and want to live
life as if they're the other gender. But there's nothing
delusional about that belief because, like they know, they're a
biological male or a biological woman. They don't genuinely think
something out of touch with reality. But even then, just
(35:59):
because somebody has a that's out of touch with reality
is not a proof they are dangerous in any way,
And frankly, could be used to disqualify most Americans or
many Americans on different beliefs that they have that are
just totally wrong or baseless or delusional or out of
touch with reality, from exercising their human rights. But that's
not how human rights work. It's not how oh asterisk,
(36:20):
unless we think you're crazy, unless we think your ideas
are bad, unless we disagree with you. That is not
how the constitution works, and it is not how human
rights works. And frankly, people like Michael Knowles, I think
they would just flip flop on any principle if it
just meant being anti trans in whatever way. And that's
not a principled or moral or serious way to approach
(36:41):
public policy or the constitutional rights of any group of Americans.
But that's just my take. You guys, let me know
what you think in the comments below. Do make sure
you're subscribed. It that like button while you're at it,
And that'll be it for today's episode of the Red
Versus Everyone Podcast. Thanks guys, and we'll talk again.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
I would do
Speaker 1 (37:03):
The voting.
What restaurants you choose to highlight sends a message to
your audience and about where you stand politically. That food
is political.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
TikTok is reminding us that we simply can't have nice
things free from politicization, even restaurant going. We're going to
break this down plus so much more on today's episode
of The Barad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where
(00:29):
we take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet,
our media, and our politics, all from an independent perspective.
Up first, guys, we're going to be talking about the
world of food TikTok, right, the sphere within TikTok where
people do recipes and restaurant reviews and all this kind
of stuff. I can't say I'm huge into it, but
(00:52):
it is a huge sector of the Internet for sure.
Lots of people enjoy this kind of content. And we're
going to talk about one woman who's blown up recently.
Her name is Elizabeth Eats NYC. She goes around to
different restaurants in New York City, does this kind of
dry humor while she's visiting them, and eats the food,
and she's supposed to kind of demystify it just give
(01:15):
a blunt look at what it's really like. She does
remain kind of anonymous. You can hear her voice, but
she doesn't show her face in the videos, and she's
grown a lot lately. She's got up to over a
million followers on TikTok now. But she is, of course,
because this happens really whenever anybody finds any success being
targeted by miserable cancel culture harpies on the internet, particularly
(01:40):
on TikTok because she committed the apparently egregious war crime
of going to an Israeli restaurant. Yes, seriously, that is
what all the hubbub is about. We're going to react
to a couple clips from one of the many, many,
many videos being made hating on this women. We'll look
(02:02):
at a couple different parts of this, but here's the
first one.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
Let's try really food before we all knew each other
into space. I got a schnitzelpedup, please Jimmy Cherry sauce
on the side. I'd be evacuating to a fallout shelfa
right now.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
So this is Elizabeth Eats NYC, and she's a popular
food content creator, and I don't want to send any
hat to this creator. I just want to make some
really important points as I continue to show you some
of these videos. First of all, I want to say
that visiting an Israeli restaurant during an ongoing genocide is
a political statement. Whether or not she states in her
videos that she's not.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Political, excuse me. So the argument is that because this
person believes that the conflict in Israel and everything they're
doing in Gaza right now is a genocide, and guys,
for the purposes of this conversation, I don't even want
to get into that debate whether it is or isn't,
but say that it is. Your argument is therefore that
(02:56):
patronizing and Israeli restaurant in a mayor is supporting that
or endorsing the actions of the government there. That's simply
not true. I don't know when I go to a
Mexican restaurant, I am in no way supporting the current
government of Mexico or any of the things that they're doing.
(03:17):
That's just not a thing. And in fact, many Israelis
don't support their current government, don't support the course of
the war in Gaza, and object to it. So for
all you know, these are Peacenick Israeli Americans or second
generation Israeli Americans who don't even support any of that,
but you're saying they should be boycotted just because of
(03:38):
their national origin or their heritage. That just seems discriminatory
to me. And I don't accept for a moment that
simply patronizing someone's business means that you endorse their home government.
That's not a thing. That's a wild assumption. And I
think it's really unfair to this Elizabeth Eats person who
is not political, to assign her endorsement or support for
(04:02):
a highly controversial government because she went to a restaurant.
What I find this really a bizarre leap of logic.
But it actually it continues, and this person is very
offended by Elizabeth Eats's original video, which is admittedly dry
and kind of makes some edgy jokes, but that's her stick.
(04:23):
She does that everywhere she goes. And we're going to
take a look at some more of this backlash. The
next part features this individual on TikTok who's video got
a lot of traction, getting very upset over the jokes
that Elizabeth Eats dared make amid what I think everyone
would agree is a humanitarian catastrophe. But you can't joke
(04:43):
about that. That's so terrible and so bad. Yeah, okay,
let's listen.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
She also mentions in that video about going into a
bomb shelter, which is extremely insensitive. Joking about needing a
bomb shelter while eating Israeli food is insensitive and very harmful.
For Palestini, bomb shelters do not exist, and we're joking
about Israeli's having bomb shelters. Meanwhile, there's an ongoing genocide
(05:08):
happening in Palestine. Families in Palestine experience bombs on the
daily without any sort of protection, and these types of
comments really minimize suffering.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
You're so right, babe. I'm sure that over right now
in Gaza, the people whose apartments have been flattened by
bombs and who are forced to relocate, and who are
trying to find food, I'm sure they're really pressed about
Elizabeth Eats joke about Israeli bomb shelters in her video
at an Israeli restaurant in New York's. Do you hear
(05:40):
yourself like, come on the idea that because something is
sad or tragic or serious, or people are experiencing something
really awful, you can't joke about It is just not true.
We joke about all sorts of things. In fact, that's
often through levity is how people cope and process with things.
And it's not that deep. Show me on the doll
(06:01):
where the joke touched you. Okay, you're not going to
be profoundly affected by this joke. A joke doesn't do
harm in any meaningful sense of those words. And the
actual Palestinian people do not give us yet. They have
much bigger problems to worry about right now than what's
some influencer. Also, guys interjecting here. I turned my camera
back on to add a little more context. I actually
(06:23):
got in touch with Elizabeth Eats, the TikTok creator that
this whole show or episode is about, and she told
me that the joke she made about bomb shelters and
nukes actually wasn't about Palestinians at all. It was she
posted and she made this video the day after the
US struck Iran and struck the nuclear facilities and everybody
(06:44):
was worried about World War III and nuclear war and
all this stuff. It was not even a direct intended
to be a direct reference to Palestine at all. So
I thought that was some context that I think honestly,
I wouldn't care anyway. If it was a joke about
Israel and Palestine, that's okay. We can joke about upsetting
and serious things. But it wasn't even intended to be that,
(07:08):
and people have stripped that of its contact. So I
thought that was important to hop back in here and
add the reason they don't have bomb shelters in Gaza,
and I wish that the innocent civilians in Gaza had shelters.
Of course they could go to. The reason they don't
is because Hamas didn't build them and instead build tunnel
networks for their own people. So it's not at all
(07:31):
an endorsement of Israel. To simply it eat Israeli food
and joking about things is actually fine, okay, And y'all
need to get a grip now. Elizabethea Its did do
a follow up because she got so much backlash and
harassment and doxing where she went to a Palestinian restaurant
and did not calm down this controversy. It heated it
(07:53):
up and of course has now prompted another round of
the backlash, which this user continued to engage in focused
on Elizabeth decision to kind of, in reaction to the criticism,
go to a Palistinian restaurant and here's that part.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
She got some backlash for that video, so she decided
to visit a Yat, which is a Palestinian restaurant in
New York City. Check this out.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
When people start docting and canceling you because you didn't
eat somewhere, we're here at AA in Manhattan to finally
appreciate some Palestinian food while there's a devastating human rights
crisis in Gaza. This is simply a channel for food
and not a space for global news.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Palestinian cuisine isn't just something to try because people force
you into it. It's a reflection of a people that
are suffering. What restaurants you choose to highlight sends a
message to your audience and about where you stand politically.
It also sends a message about whose culture is legitimized, platformed,
and supported. It is always important to remember that food
(08:53):
is political. Where you choose to spend your money, what
you eat is political.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Ay, so this is unhinged. What There's nothing wrong with
what she said. She's allowed to have a TikTok account
where she reviews restaurants without taking stands on global news
and international relations, which frankly she probably knows nothing about.
And we would actually, in my view, be better off
if influencers more routinely stayed in their lane and didn't
(09:22):
talk about every complicated political issue they don't know anything about.
And I just totally disagree with this idea that going
to a restaurant signals a political message or like y'all
gotta touch grass, y'all gotta get off TikTok. It's not normal,
it's not healthy, and I think it suffers from this
(09:42):
kind of boy who cried Wolf phenomenon that we talk
about a lot on this show because it affects so
much of internet discourse. If everything is political, then nothing
is political. Like if you guys act like everything is
so deep and so connected to policy, at some point
people are just going to tune y'all out and you
won't be able to actually highlight, you know, serious things
that it's like, hey, don't support these people. They are
(10:04):
directly doing this thing. If y'all want everybody to boycott this,
object to that, don't go here, don't promote this all
the time everything, it loses all its meaning, and normal
people that aren't TikTok brain rotted are just going to
tune y'all out which has happened and continues to happen.
But y'all plagued yourself. I don't know what you thought
was going to happen. I don't know if you thought
(10:25):
you did your big one. But like claiming food is
political is absurd. Sure, there are aspects related to food
that are political, whether that's like food related public policies
about agriculture, or about you know, welfare and food stamps,
or whether it's foreign policy for example, like aid being
(10:46):
released or blocked into a targeted territory. All of that
is true, but that is literally true about anything. Anything.
There is an aspect that intersects with politics or government
in some way, it doesn't therefore render that thing to
totally political, and every minute decision needs to be microanalyzed
to see if it's problematic. Y'all are exhausting. I am
(11:08):
exhausted just listening to y'all. I cannot imagine being you.
It must be ty ring, constantly fixing your mouth, to
be so pressed and so upset over every little thing.
When you know what, you could actually be using that
energy to help people in Gaza, rather than policing influencers
for ordering food at an Israeli restaurant. Like I find
(11:32):
this ridiculous and absurd, no matter how you feel about
the conflict. By the way, because I know I have
followers who fall on other side, I acknowledge the complexity.
I think people of good faith really can disagree about
complicated subjects like this, but we should all be able
to agree that this is absurd, and I think it
actually has its roots in something not related to Israel
or Gaza at all, which is just envy and just
(11:55):
wanting to tear people down. The Internet, many people they
become jealous when they see someone succeed, and they just
look for ways to bring that person down a peg
or somehow declare them problematic. And it's all rooted in envy.
And envy is one of the worst, I think worst
human emotions. So we should be resisting when we feel it.
(12:15):
It's natural to feel it sometimes, but we should be
resisting it and trying to shut that down, not giving
into it and joining random witch hunts meant to tear
down successful people. To try it for bogus reasons, just
to try to quiet that voice inside that we feel
that's talking to us about our own inadequacies. That's my
take on all this. This discourse is megaviral on TikTok
(12:37):
going after this woman. I don't really think she did
anything wrong, and I think it's insane that people are
trying to cancel her or they're doxing her. Y'all need
to touch grass, But frankly, I could say that most
days about the people on TikTok. What do you guys think?
Let me know in the comments. Do make sure you
subscribe the part yet to hit that like button. While
you're at it. Remember you can listen to the Brad
(12:58):
Versus Everyone podcast on Apple podcast Spotify. iHeartRadio YadA YadA yah,
And if you are listening to audio podcasts, do take
a second to rate and review this show. It helps
us grow and guys, remember to also send in your
voicemails for my Voicemail Friday episodes where I react to
your woe car stories, give you advice and your personal
life scenarios, and answer any questions you guys have for me.
(13:20):
As always, the link to send one of those in
is in the description butt Next, so we're going to
talk about a really horrifying crime that's going viral. It's
just breaking the internet and it's leading to some very
disfunctional media coverage and online political commentary because we really
just nobody knows how to be normal or act normal
(13:42):
about any news story. First, though, here's an interesting video
from the news content creator Dylan Page summing up the
horrifying crime that's going viral, and I think from his
summary you'll be able to see why this is like
resonating with people more than just a normal crime story.
Listen to this.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
This twenty three year old Ukrainian woman fled a country
at war to live a safer and better life in
the United States, so recently, one evening, heading home after work,
her life was ended in the worst possible way. The
horrifying incident occurred on the twenty second of August in Charlotte,
but security footage of what actually happened was just released
(14:22):
for the first time. It was nine forty six pm
and the video shows a very normal looking train with
everyone minding their own business, talking or on their phone.
But there's one man in a red hoodie identified as
de Carlos Brown looking restless and agitated. Around thirty seconds later,
Irena Souretzka gets on the train wearing a cap and
a T shirt from a pizzeria and sits in front
(14:44):
of De Carlos. She has AirPods in and just like
everyone else, is minding her own business and using her phone.
And it remains this way for the next four minutes
until De Carlos can be seen randomly taking out a
pocket knife, standing up and completely unprovoked, stabbing eye Rayna
several times from behind. She didn't even have a chance
to see the attack coming. Now. As for the attacker,
(15:06):
De Carlos, Brown actually has a history of biden crime
and mental illness. He's been arrested multiple times and even
served a five year prison sentence for robbery with a
deadly weapon. To make matters worse, he wasn't even supposed
to be allowed on the train that night because he
didn't have a ticket. Please detained him just hours after
the attack, and he's since been charged with first degree murder.
As for the other passengers on board, some told local
(15:27):
news that they were traumatized by what they saw and
that they don't know how long it'll be before they're
able to use public transportation again.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
So wow, this story is bleak and it's dark, and
I feel so bad for this woman and her family
and friends. I mean, it is just crazy to me.
I think the reason this resonates and is going so viral,
there's a few reasons. One is the fact that she
is a refugee from Ukraine. She's survived literal war and
then came here and then it was murdered, just makes
(15:57):
this story exponentially more unique and more traged The other
piece of it is that this was like a random attack.
He didn't know her, they weren't like in a relationship.
Most crime isn't committed by total strangers like this most murders,
and just the idea that you could be on the
train and some random person just decides to stab you
for no apparent reason. I mean, it's horrifying. It's really scary,
(16:21):
and I see why it's going so viral, especially because
they did release the video, which that's what made it
go so viral. Is this insane video. I can't show
you the actual moment, but I did watch it. You
can find out on the internet if you want to
see it. It's like genuinely bone chilling stuff. The other
reasons that this is viral is one is that there's
(16:42):
a criminal justice policy element to this, like this is
a guy who frankly should not have been on the streets,
and we'll get into that, but he was arrested over
and over again. He should have been locked up or
institutionalized in some way, So there's a policy failure here.
And then there is a race angle, unfortunately, because everything
has to be about race for some people. This black
guy killed a white girl the same way that when
(17:04):
a white cop kills a black guy that becomes national
news in some circles. Though when a black cop kills
a black guy, or when a white cop kills a
white guy, that story doesn't resonate the same way. In
the same way I mean this story, there's a racial
angle to why it's going so viral because these topics
are infused with that kind of discourse. The first piece
of this I want to talk about is kind of
(17:25):
the media spin on it, because the mainstream media that
is originally like immediately after it happened, most national kind
of liberal establishment media outlets didn't touch it much, didn't
cover it much, which is kind of strange because they
kind of do cover these types of things in different contexts,
Like Daniel Penny, that man who restrained in what he
says his self defense and killed an aggressive homeless person
(17:48):
on the New York subway, that got all this coverage,
but this story didn't. And it's like, well, why because
maybe it doesn't suit certain narratives. Well, when they finally
did decide to report it, mainstream media outlets had an
interesting spin on this where they attempted to like tie
it to MAGA in kind of interesting ways. So here's Axios.
(18:09):
The gruesome video of the fatal knife attack on Erna
Zurutzka on a light rail car in Charlotte is drawing
attention from mega influencers seeking to elevate the issue of
violent urban crime and accuse the mainstream media of undercovering
shocking cases. So they've been kind of ridiculed for that framing.
And I understand why it is true that mega voices
(18:32):
and influencers are seizing on this story and promoting it,
But like the fact that that's the main thing Axios
is focusing on rather than the story itself does reak
of misplaced priorities. It's like, actually, you should just be
covering the crime, you know. And then others like CNN's
(18:54):
Brian Stelter are getting criticized because of similarly, how they're
talking about this, kind of making it into a connected
issue with MAGA and Republicans when really, I mean, the
story itself is an issue of policy and crime and victimization.
It shouldn't be about like, oh, MAGA pounces. Is a
(19:15):
very frustrating framing on the story. Here's CNN's Brian Stelter.
Speaker 5 (19:19):
Really over the weekend, Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, other Trump
aligned figures succeeded in making this senseless death a symbol
of big city crime. We heard President Trump asked about
it yesterday when he was heading home from New York City.
He didn't seem to know much about it. He said
he would get briefed, and then today Trump did know
all about it. That's exactly what has happened here. This
story has trickled up from local news to social media
(19:42):
and now to the President's attention, and it's being news,
as you said, Brian, as a political symbol, with MAGA
media calling for more forceful punishments and more incarceration. I
have to say some of the replies to Musks, some
of the comments around the story are baldly racist, stoking
fear of African Americans because this attacked a white woman.
The open racism on sites like x today, it's eye popping.
(20:05):
But there are also legitimate questions about this so called
career criminal, someone who had been a repeat offender, and
those questions I hope they're not lost amid all of
the cesspool kind of comments on social media.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
So here's the thing. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the
idea that mainstream media didn't cover this story enough originally,
But I don't necessarily find anything that objectionable about what
Brian Stelter says here. He's getting attacked by MAGA people
online over this. I mean what he says basically every
point is true. It was highlighted by MAGA influencers. They
(20:38):
did do so to highlight, you know, failed Democrat policies,
as they would frame it. I think they have a point,
And he even says that that there's some underlying serious
issues here. But then there actually is genuine racism being
attached to this online, particularly on x which has turned
into a racist cesspool, And I wish we could just
talk about this in a way of like, how do
(20:59):
we deal with these mentally ill people with dangerous criminals.
We need to lock them up, we need to stop
them hurting random people rather than black black black. But
that really is that all some online voices on the
right have to say about this. I mean, this girl
who her whole career started because she said the N word,
I guess named Lily Gaddis. She's now become like an
(21:20):
alt right influencer. Let me show you her YouTube thumbnail
white girl killed by black, white women under attack by
black's shocking footage revealed one hundred and seven thousand views
on that YouTube video. Here's the clip of her making
this one anecdote into a story of a supposed race
(21:42):
war from all black people against whites.
Speaker 6 (21:45):
Listen to this a day like many others, where a
white woman is the victim of a black crime. He
was working at a pizza restaurant and just had gotten
off her long shift and was headed home on public transportation,
which used to be safe, but now you might get
your you know, you might end up not making it
to your final destination if you happened to be on
(22:07):
public transportation with people of color or black people. So
this is just what happens in America, This is what
is happening in white countries around the globe right now
because we have black people, we have immigrants. This is
not just blacks, it's also illegals that are coming into
these countries that are butchering white people in their homelands.
(22:28):
And we no longer feel safe in our homeland because
we have these people roaming around, lurking around looking for trouble.
They are mentally unstable, They rove in packs, they rove
their lone wolves, and they commit atrocities upon white people.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
This genuinely is racist. All black people or even most
black people, are not responsible in any way for the
actions of one deeply mentally ill black person on a
subway somewhere and making that you're also spewing a false narrative.
There really isn't an epidemic of black people killing white people,
(23:10):
especially in these kinds of targeted random attacks, non targeted
random attacks, which are incredibly, incredibly rare. So to act
like modern America, it's not even safe anymore to go
on a train because the blacks be out here. It's
insanely racist and baseless and two and most of the
time murders are committed within racist So black people mostly
(23:32):
kill other black people and white people mostly kill other
white people. So to make this all like this insane
race bating narrative is genuinely racist. And I think Brian
Stelters of the world have a point when they point
this out, that this cesspool of extreme racists right far
right rhetoric has interjected into this kind of discourse in
(23:53):
this news story, It's still not the main story. The
main story is this woman's life being lost and the
policy failures that brought us here, and I think we
should talk about that. But I mean, the right does
need to push back on this racialization and this hyperfixation
because it really is toxic, I think, and it does
(24:13):
muddy the waters on the real issues we should be
talking about here, which are criminal justice related in nature.
So here's the Free presses Maya Sulkin talking about the
policy or criminal justice failures that may have led to
this terrible situation where this man took this young woman's
life so prematurely. Listen to this.
Speaker 7 (24:32):
Twenty three year old Ukrainian refugee, Irena Zarutska, fled a
war zone only to be viciously stabbed to death on
a train in Charlotte, North Carolina. What feels like an
inexplicable tragedy is actually quite the opposite, and that's because
the man who murdered her, to Carlos Brown Junior, is
a career criminal with over fourteen arrests, including robbery and assault.
He also has a serious history of mental illness, so
much so that after the last time he was released
(24:54):
from prison, his own mother kicked him out of her
house for aggressive behavior. Even more troubling is that the
courts were aware of Brown's menntal health and criminal history
and continuously failed to hold them accountable. Despite his record.
A judge allowed for Brown's release from prison on a
written promise to reappear in court at a later date,
a decision that ended up being fatal. The murder of
Irena Zerutzka is in part so troubling because the twenty
three year old had successfully escaped a war that has
(25:16):
taken more than one hundred thousand lives, only for hers
to be brutally cut short in the country where she
had sought refuge in. Others question why there had not
been media coverage of the story. In the liberal media
and Charlotte's mayor vy Lyles had released a statement saying
we will never arrest our way out of issues such
as homelessness and mental health. But in this case, there
were dozens of chances to arrest to Carlos Brown for
exactly that severe mental health issues that resulted in the
(25:38):
murder of an innocent civilian by a repeat offender. I'm
a sulkan and you can read my story on this
murder at the FP dot com.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
So I have no interest in racializing this discourse. For me,
it's a policy question of how do we keep these
repeat offenders off of the streets, people who are clearly dangerous.
We see this pattern especially in urban areas often governed
by Democrats, but not exclusively, where people are arrested, arrested,
(26:08):
they commit a crime after crime after crime, and yet
somehow just get released back on the street, somehow get
released without bail. It's like dangerous people need to be
locked up for their own good and for the good
of others, and yet we can also have it be
true that our criminal justice system, we have way too
many people in jail, and we have way too many
crimes that don't have real victims, and we over punish
(26:29):
people in lots of ways, yet at the same time,
we clearly don't punish some people enough, or we don't
actually take extreme enough steps to incarcerate people who are dangerous.
That should be the focus, and that should be the
narrative here, not you know, race baiting for clicks and
to rile up sentiment. That's how I feel about this
(26:51):
at least. But you guys, let me know what you
think in the comments blow where you was horrified by
this as I am. Have you seen this unhinged discourse?
I genuinely want to know how if you guys feel
about this, let me know in the comments down below. Okay,
one more story I want to talk about that I
actually missed last week while I was traveling for a
couple weddings. But the news broke that the Trump administration
(27:11):
is considering restricting trans people's right to own a gun.
So forget that whole Second Amendment shall not be infringed,
forget that whole you know, gun control bad. Actually, maybe
some gun control good if we disagree with the group
in question. I don't know. Apparently it's something the Department
of Justice under Trump is considering. Here is reporting from
(27:35):
the Hills Rising.
Speaker 8 (27:37):
Following the deadly mass shooting on the campus of a
Minneapolis Catholic school. The DJ is reportedly considering some gun
restrictions for transgender individuals.
Speaker 9 (27:45):
ADJ spokesperson told The Daily Wire quote individuals within the
DJ or viewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals
suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while
they're unstable and unwealth The move by the DOJ appears
to have support from the magabase. Alex Marlow, author and
(28:05):
host of The Alex Marlow Show, took to X saying
gun ban for trans is a win win proposition. We
get to watch the Democrats explain why trans need AR
fifteen's and the courts uphold gun rights as inalienable or
the trans contagion is officially classified as a mental health condition,
which it is checkmate.
Speaker 8 (28:25):
But the proposal unsurprisingly sparked outrage on the left. Ed
Krastenstein writes on X, where all the Second Amendment people?
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Now?
Speaker 8 (28:33):
Does it only apply to some people?
Speaker 2 (28:35):
So the first thing I have to say about this
is that I believe there's a constitutional right to defend
yourself in bear firearms. I believe this is an extension
of a natural human right, and of course I support
trans people having that same right as everyone else. I
don't think there's anything about being trans, even if you
think that it's a mental condition or delusion. As you know,
(28:56):
right wing people say that means you don't have cunts
juditional rights. To me, you still obviously do. And I
have to say there's a huge, glaring hypocrisy here. I'm
just going to read you. I found a list of
quotes from Trump. I asked GROC about the Second Amendment
and its nature as a sacro sanct human right and
(29:17):
constitutional right. Listen to this. Responsible gun ownership saves lives,
and the right to self defense is essential to public safety.
Our police and sheriffs know that when you ban guns,
only the criminals will be armed. I am a strong
supporter of the Second Amendment and believe that law abiding
Americans have the right to self defense. The right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
(29:37):
infringed upon. People have to protect themselves. I'm a Second
Amendment person very simply, people have to protect themselves. The
Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all
law abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn't create that right, it
ensures the government can't take it away. We want to
ensure you all of the sacred right to self defense
for all of our citizens. Those are all direct quotes
(29:59):
from about how self defense and the Second Amendment is
a core right, constitutional and human right, natural right that
all law abiding citizens are entitled to. Well, news flash, like,
no matter what your views are on trans issues, and
I've been very critical of gender ideology and transactivists, many
trans people are law abiding American citizens and they have
(30:21):
every very much the same constitutional rights as you or I.
So were the Trump Department of Justice to go forward
with this or pursue this, it would be blatantly hypocritical
and a total betrayal of the values they say they
stand for. Now, the NRA actually put out a statement
after this news broke. Let me read that for you.
(30:43):
They wrote, the Second Amendment isn't up for debate. The
NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of all law abiding
Americans to purchase, possess, and use firearms. NRA does not
and will not support any policy proposals that implement sweeping
gun bands that arbitrarily strip law abiding citizens of their
Second Amendment rights without due prop So I agree with
that statement, but I do think it's like a little weak.
(31:04):
I mean, you don't even mention Trump. You don't even
mention trans people by name. I think if a Democratic
president had said we are going to ban all Christians
from owning guns or some other group of people because
their beliefs are delusional or they're disconnected from reality, I
think the NRA would have called them too rannical, mention
them by name, mentioned the issue. But it is a
(31:25):
partisan organization. Unfortunately, the Gun Owners of America put out
a much stronger statement. So if you're a diehard second
I'm a person you want a non partisan group that's
not just like Maga flack pr group, maybe check them
out instead of the NRA. But anyway, they did put
out a statement. Now, I don't think Trump will move
forward with this because I think it is blatantly unconstitutional,
(31:45):
and I actually think he'd get a lot of backlash
from his own side if he did try to pursue this.
But some people on the right are all in. They're
all about it, like MAGA YouTuber Michael Knowles, who any
value or principles he apparently will compromise if it would
allow him to own the libs or, in this case,
(32:06):
own the trans people. Let's listen to his comments on this.
Speaker 10 (32:10):
President Trump is threatening to disarm, to take guns away
from the trans identifying people. Seems to me pretty obvious
that a guy who thinks that he's a woman, a
guy who's grasp of reality is so tenuous, so loose
that he doesn't know what his sex is, probably should
(32:31):
not have a firearm. People say, look, shall not be infringed.
As clear as day, you can't take the guns away.
We already agree in principle that there are people who
are not sufficiently in command of their reason to have
a gun. Should a baby be allowed to go buy
a gun? Should a baby? Should a baby listen? I'm
(32:51):
a lifetime member of the NRA, I have guns. I
should a baby be allowed to go buy a gun?
Speaker 9 (32:58):
No?
Speaker 10 (32:59):
Severely retarded person be allowed to go buy a gun?
Probably not. Should your grandfather with advanced dementia, who doesn't
know what day it is be able to go buy
a gun? Would be Would that be good for him?
Speaker 2 (33:15):
Would that do? No? No?
Speaker 10 (33:17):
I think we would all admit no. Transgenderism is a
severe mental illness.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
Wow, So there's a lot there, but sorry, no self defense.
And the Second Amendment is a core constitutional and human
right that all law abiding adult citizens are entitled to,
and that absolutely includes trans people who may very well
need to defend themselves like any other American would. Second
Amendment doesn't say asterisk except the groups whose belief system
(33:46):
I disagree with. And it is not remotely comparable to
being a baby or having dementia to simply be a
person who experiences gender dysphoria and chooses to transition. You
might disagree with that, you might have feel some type
of way about that. That's your right, but you cannot
use that as a basis to declare them mentally invalid
and strip them of their constitutional rights, even if you
(34:08):
think that being trans is a mental condition of some kind,
which I do think it is an underlying mental condition
of gender.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Nice for you.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Well, people with mental conditions or health issues of different
kinds are still allowed to exercise their constitutional rights. People
with anxiety, people with ADHD, people with depression, all these
people are allowed to buy and own firearms. That's very
much a thing.
Speaker 1 (34:31):
Now.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
If you have concrete evidence that an individual trans or
not trans, is a threat to themselves or others. Then
I think you can justify intervention in that particular case,
but not blanket dispossession of millions of people of a
core right because you think they're delusional. Okay, are under
that logic? Are we going to disarm Mormons because some
(34:54):
of their beliefs are no shade your right to your
views a little out of touch with reality? Are we
gonna what about people who think dinosaurs aren't real, or
don't believe in evolution or other kind of easily objectively
what beliefs that people view as objectively like wrong and delusional?
Are we going to deprive them of their constitutional rights?
(35:15):
This is very clearly a slippery slope that in a
Pandora's box that you should not want to open if
you actually value these underlying rights. And that's not even
saying about the fact that you should just care about
these millions of our fellow Americans still having the rights
they're entitled to. Also, not all trans people are delusional
and think they're something they're not. I mean, some certainly do.
(35:37):
I react to delulu people on the regular from the
trans community, but many do know what sex they are,
but they just have this condition and want to live
life as if they're the other gender. But there's nothing
delusional about that belief because, like they know, they're a
biological male or a biological woman. They don't genuinely think
something out of touch with reality. But even then, just
(35:59):
because somebody has a that's out of touch with reality
is not a proof they are dangerous in any way,
And frankly, could be used to disqualify most Americans or
many Americans on different beliefs that they have that are
just totally wrong or baseless or delusional or out of
touch with reality, from exercising their human rights. But that's
not how human rights work. It's not how oh asterisk,
(36:20):
unless we think you're crazy, unless we think your ideas
are bad, unless we disagree with you. That is not
how the constitution works, and it is not how human
rights works. And frankly, people like Michael Knowles, I think
they would just flip flop on any principle if it
just meant being anti trans in whatever way. And that's
not a principled or moral or serious way to approach
(36:41):
public policy or the constitutional rights of any group of Americans.
But that's just my take. You guys, let me know
what you think in the comments below. Do make sure
you're subscribed. It that like button while you're at it,
And that'll be it for today's episode of the Red
Versus Everyone Podcast. Thanks guys, and we'll talk again.
Speaker 3 (37:00):
I would do
Speaker 1 (37:03):
The voting.
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.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.