Man Assaulted by Streamers, Cons for Pr0ns | HBR News 525 - Honey Badger Radio

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
This is HBr News number five, Man assaulted by streamers
cons for Ponds, where we discuss the news of the
week and give it the Badger treatment. Hello everybody, and
welcome back to Honey Badger Radio because they're doing well
this week and that you're laughing at all of this
absurdity so that you are not consumed by it. I

(00:26):
am your host, Brian. I'm joined by, as always, my
lovely co hosts, doctor Rand mccam and Hannah Wallin. We
have a great show line up. Oh what's up, Mike,
I said?

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Hello? Oh, hello, hello, yep, yes, hello, goodin Doug.

Speaker 1 (00:46):
We have a great showliner for you guys today, so
please be sure to continue the conversations both in the
chat as well as the comment section and this week's
HBr News we're gonna be looking at you know. Last
week we covered the sexual assault of twitch streamer Ameiru
and we have a follow up one that is even
more interesting, and there are prison guards that are using

(01:11):
convicts to make content for their OnlyFans and more so,
stick around, it's going to be a good time and
be sure to have joined us afterwards for our patron
only show. So I was trying to find, like, you know,
opinion pieces to look at, because usually those are good
for patron only show. I did not look up to
see what Arwa Madawi was up to. I just couldn't

(01:32):
be bothered. But I did get in something kind of
interesting came across my desk. First of all, there was
a really good substack that's been making the rounds by
a woman named Helen. I believe Helen Smith. It's really straightforward,
but she wrote a substack and she's been doing the

(01:54):
rounds on the internet called the Great Feminization, and I
thought it was pretty interesting. But also there is a
pretty big gamergate YouTuber right now who has his own
website called smash jt, and he recently gave me a
shout out on his channel and said he knew who
I was and that he was a fan. So he
must know about this channel because my channel doesn't get

(02:16):
any views, So we might look at that. And once again,
it just shows that Honey Badger Radio was basically like
on the cutting edge of the culture War. So people
who are talking about the culture war now that are
trying to understand what's going on in it and so on,
they're kind of like gonna have to come across content

(02:37):
like ours, if not our content.

Speaker 2 (02:40):
So this channel is at least gaining subscribers, by the way.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
Yeah, we are where we are.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
Unlike my channel, which which loses thirty subscribers every month
and another thirty subscribers every time a video. Badgr live
streams is gaining about one hundred subscribers a month, which.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
Is Helen Andrews, by the way, not Helen Smith.

Speaker 2 (03:04):
I'm sorry, go ahead, but yeah, that's that's why you
should all come to this channel and give it some love,
because it hasn't been a line of code, hasn't been
added to an algorithm with regards to this channel as
of yet, so please please give it some love. It's
the only channel in our empire that is on the up.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
Now. If you can also smash smash that like button,
it really helps us reach more people if you're if
you're able to, And for those of you guys who
are following on Rumble, thank you for doing so, because
we want to make Rumble the more viable platform if
at all possible. So shout out to the Rumble gang,
shout out to all of you guys for supporting us.

(03:49):
And now we're going to get into.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
And shout out to Helen Andrews for saying feminization when yes,
simply another word for feminism.

Speaker 1 (03:59):
Well she's she's she's not avoiding the topic of feminism,
but she's taking it further on.

Speaker 2 (04:04):
So the in the title she is and that's quite clever.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
Oh yeah, I guess so yeah, yeah, Well you have
to be careful because what she's talking about is essentially
that feminists run everything, and so you have to figure
out how to get around it so you can talk,
you know, because they're otherwise they'll shut you down. But yeah,
so we might look at this a bit in the
Patron Show and other things. So if you want to
join us for that, you have to become a Badger

(04:28):
yourself by going to feed the Badger dot com uh
and starting a monthly subscription. As I said, five bucks
a month will get you into our discord. We'll be
able to watch all of the additional content and that
includes patron shows and things of that nature. And if
you don't want to wake up one morning to find
that we've been needed from the internet, go to badgerfeed

(04:48):
dot com. That's Badger Feed. No, yeah, it is badgerfeed
dot com. That's where all of our content lives, all right,
So now we get into today's stories. So oh, let
me get my write ups here, excited to them all.
So it's fine though. So we have this Twitch streamer
Nina Lynn pictured here known as Nina Daddy is back,

(05:11):
I guess and Zoe Spencer faced Swift backlash in October
last week when a May four live scream live stream
clip resurfaced. So there was an older live scream, that
sort of livestream that resurfaced in I guess surrounding like
you know, all these things about Twitch sexual harassment and
things like that, and it showed them restraining and toerking

(05:34):
on phase. Silky's assistant said, I don't know any of
these people because I'm old who appeared visibly uncomfortable and
attempted to escape in the video, lin Holds said down
on a bed while instructing Spencer to do your shit,
prompting accusations of on stream sexual assault. So let's actually
have the video, So why don't we just look at it? Well,

(05:56):
so I have here, this is a clip, it's about
two minutes long, and this is is the the event,
and then I'll read the rest of my right up. Okay,
let me know if you guys can hear this?

Speaker 2 (06:05):
So what if he says, I.

Speaker 1 (06:06):
Feel like you did some shit wrong? No, so the
o SI you thang?

Speaker 3 (06:08):
No one say that's why today I let you're looking
for say, I'm gonna talk the who definitely.

Speaker 2 (06:12):
Felt disrespected as a person me.

Speaker 3 (06:14):
I think it's und on what I do. If you
did askbout.

Speaker 2 (06:16):
Respected, I don't know.

Speaker 4 (06:19):
I will walk the home, just go with people.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
But if I him to.

Speaker 3 (06:21):
Walk around say all that crazy ship, you never think
about what I he's thinking too, though, Like who wants
to walk around being called that?

Speaker 2 (06:26):
That's a bad thing for him.

Speaker 1 (06:27):
I'm a guy today, I feel him.

Speaker 4 (06:29):
I was where for him.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
I gotta cash that up too. But I didn't say
about what's on it?

Speaker 4 (06:34):
You just appeared the moment people by it.

Speaker 1 (06:36):
He was an here it is.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
Always hold on?

Speaker 1 (06:42):
Is this like skinny kid kind of nerdy? He's the
one that these chicks are like messing with.

Speaker 3 (06:47):
I don't here, I've got you twenty three say nothing.

Speaker 4 (06:58):
Hold on, hold on, hold on project a second.

Speaker 2 (07:03):
I don't think you.

Speaker 4 (07:04):
Want are you able to project there?

Speaker 2 (07:07):
Right there?

Speaker 4 (07:07):
Then?

Speaker 1 (07:07):
Right hold on?

Speaker 4 (07:09):
Hold on?

Speaker 1 (07:09):
Sit down?

Speaker 5 (07:12):
You bum me in that one video, Bryan pose, it's
like my car. Oh my wait, bro, he runs down
from Well, you don't want it, bro, you did not
tell you that I don't want it?

Speaker 4 (07:31):
Bro?

Speaker 2 (07:44):
Take all this.

Speaker 1 (07:49):
Hey, you cut the cameras. Cut the cameras. You'll cut
the cameras.

Speaker 3 (07:51):
Bro, So do you said, bitch?

Speaker 4 (07:56):
No?

Speaker 2 (07:58):
Off?

Speaker 1 (08:01):
Look at that. This is a nice bag. They're trying
to take his pants off. Now all right, I'm gonna
stop it.

Speaker 2 (08:15):
There.

Speaker 4 (08:16):
Can you go back to the beginning.

Speaker 1 (08:19):
Yet, to the beginning of the video where she's talking the.

Speaker 4 (08:21):
Whole beginning, Yeah, the beginning of the not the beginning
of the video, the beginning of the assault.

Speaker 2 (08:26):
Oh, thanks, by the way, just so you yeah, I
don't know.

Speaker 1 (08:31):
All right, here is that the bit you want to see?

Speaker 4 (08:42):
Nope, the part where I asked you to pause it.

Speaker 1 (08:45):
Oh I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you tell me that.

Speaker 4 (08:47):
Yeah, you're a little more, Just a little more.

Speaker 1 (08:50):
She's gonna say something, Did I miss it?

Speaker 4 (09:00):
Going? Keep going right there?

Speaker 1 (09:08):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (09:08):
Right, here's here's here's what she did. Okay. This guy
is going no, no, no, He is trying actively to
get away from her. He's he's acting embarrassed. That's an embarrassed. Laugh,
that's not, and I'm having fun laugh and you can tell.
I can tell, and I'm autistic, that's not and I'm

(09:29):
having fun laugh. And she says that because of his age,
it's consensual. Right, So when women, when women talk about
age of consent, they don't talk about it the way
men talk about age of consent. Right When when men
talk about age of consent, they talk about it in

(09:50):
terms of somebody cannot consent before a certain age. Right,
when women talk about age of consent, they're talking about
it as I can assault this guy and it doesn't
count because he's old enough. Women presume men's consent even
when it's quite obvious that he's not consenting. This is

(10:16):
what's wrong with the enthusiastic consent narrative. Men will get
treated under a circumstance like that where a guy you
know is actively saying no, no, no, and a woman
is embarrassing herself by engaging in an aggressive action as

(10:38):
though they have done something wrong because they didn't ask
the woman's permission and she didn't enthusiastically say yes. But
they will not have their discomfort recognized. And women will
go through actions like that all the way into the bedroom,
all the way into trying actively while he's fighting back

(11:02):
as best he can without injuring her, trying to take
his clothes off. Yeah, and and say he consented because
he's not underage, right. That is that is the gap
in accountability for sexual conduct. A man is accountable for

(11:24):
a woman's feelings about a sex act, even if she
willingly engaged in it, even if she verbally said yes,
even if she verbally agreed in in other ways, and
even if her physical actions demonstrated consent. But a woman's

(11:48):
not even accountable for a man's feelings when he is
actively trying to escape from her and later says he
didn't want it.

Speaker 2 (11:59):
Yep, and don't.

Speaker 4 (12:00):
And if he defended himself and he hurt her in
the process, they would consider that to be him assaulting her.
But if I tried to do that to me, I
could go so far as to rip his fucking balls off,
and people would be like, well, he asked for it,
he was assaulting you.

Speaker 2 (12:19):
Yeah, And don't think for a moment they wouldn't do
this to a thirteen year old on the grounds that
he would enjoy it because.

Speaker 4 (12:28):
Here was a thread.

Speaker 2 (12:29):
Because he's so young, an unexperienced that he's obviously going
to enjoy it if he's say enough.

Speaker 4 (12:37):
That was their first experience what you just describe. There
was a thread on Twitter back in the Twitter days,
there was a thread on Twitter of guys saying that
was their first experience, and eventually it got deleted, but
there were hundreds of guys commenting that what you just
described was their first experience.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
I'll show me finish. Let me finish the ride up
because I just want to show the clip and and
they tell you what happened afterwards. Okay, and more about
let's say so, said the guy who was assaulted in
the video, who appeared visibly uncomfortable and attempted to escape.
In the video, Lynn holds Sayid down on a bed
while instructing Spener to do your shit. Spencer was the
other girl. The black girl, prompting accusations of on screen

(13:18):
sexual assault, said later shared on x that he had
voiced his discomfort multiple times before but felt invalidated, reigniting
public outrage as viewers highlighted double standards in content moderation.
Twitch suspended both streamers channels on October twenty fourth, citing
violations of community guidelines, with prominent figures like Asmen Gold

(13:39):
decrying the literal video evidence of misconduct Lynn, who pictured here.
Lynn issued a public apology, admitting her actions were really
really wrong and expressing regret for hurting said, while Spencer
remained silent. However, the bands proved short lived, so basically
was just like a day. Their accounts were restored within
a day or two, Trying criticism for Twitches perceived leniency

(14:02):
compared to longer suspensions for similar offenses by male creators.

Speaker 4 (14:06):
So contrast, I have to say about this, all right,
if the sexes were reversed, she would not have to
report the crime to police for him to get charged
for sexual assault, just saying he's he's clearly been sexually assaulted. There,

(14:32):
she would not have to go to police for him
to get a charge, to catch a charge if he
did to her what she did to him. But you
notice that there's not even a discussion about a criminal
charge here, just a twitch band. That's another part of

(14:54):
that gap.

Speaker 2 (15:00):
Bit more serious than the attempted hugging and kissing we
addressed last week, isn't it? And it wasn't just us
I knew about the EMRU story in advance because it
was covered by several channels to whom I subscribe and listen,
which for the most part, as you can imagine, is
people who are ostensibly based, people who I expect not

(15:24):
to get embroiled in the whirlwind of female victim mentality.
But sure enough, within hours of the Emru incident at
twitch Con, everyone was falling over each other bemoaning the
besmirched honor of some airheaded twitch thought whose bread and
butter is titillating thirsty randos and so lo and behold

(15:48):
a thirsty rando thought he'd shoot his shot and attempt
to hug and kiss Emru. Outrage across the board. Oh mg,
it's a sexual assault. Get me my smelling salts. Something
must be done. Cut to this week, when we find
out about this, said chap, someone's personal assistant, a man

(16:12):
who is absolutely not in the business of titillating anyone,
gets pinned down and attacked with an anus. Yes, attacked
with an anus. You can call it twerking when it's
just hitting air, but when it's making contact with a person,
it's it's it's hitting someone with an anus, not punching,

(16:32):
but definitely hitting. To offer the and be heard quote
unquote defense, and to further invoke, is heard shitting in
someone's bed isn't a million miles away from thrusting your
anus onto someone. You may or may not consider it
to be a serious sexual assault, but even if it

(16:54):
is risen, it's certainly unsanitary. I mean, a man's lips
can be unsan sure, but it's surely a hell of
a lot worse when it's a woman's anus. I put
it to you, I don't. I don't. I don't put
my woman's anus to you. I'm not. I would. I
wouldn't do that. It would be rude at best, sexual

(17:15):
sexual sexual assault at minimum, and chemical warfare at worst,
depending depending on what's going on in the vicinity of
the anus in question. And I wouldn't want to speculate
what kind of diseases go on in the anus of
the average twitch thought, But I get a feeling it's

(17:37):
less like a Japanese toilet and more like an Indian toilet.
If you catch my drift, yeah, and again I have
no intention of you catching my drift. That would be disgusting.
And the the the icing on the ship cake is
This incident happened six months ago. For six For six months,

(18:01):
Twitch was sitting on this shit doing fuck up. Sorry,
I'm not making these innuendos on purpose. They tend to
appear spontaneously when you're talking about ars attacks razing. But yeah,
not only did Twitch do nothing about this ass attack
for six months, nobody else talked about it either. The

(18:25):
supposedly based misogynists of the supposedly far right didn't care
about it either. They're still not talking about it. It's
apparently a total non issue. I didn't even know about
it until it appeared in the Honey Badger Discord last week,
as is so often the case, So I suppose I'm
not one to judge either. All I do is doom

(18:48):
scroll through Twitter. Sometimes. I don't go looking for these stories.
I have a small regiment of tenacious, autistic news hounds
to do it for me. But I think there's a
reason everybody heard about the Emru story immediately while this
story remained in the shadows. It's because the mainstream left
wing media jumped on the Emru thing instinctively. Why wouldn't they.

(19:12):
It's an opportunity to paint a woman as a victim,
and that's why the online right picked up on it
instantly because it's what the legacy left is talking about.
The right makes a living watching the left like a hawk.
That seems to be the pecking order. The left gets

(19:32):
outraged about any possible feminist blood in the water, and
then the right addresses that outrage, and that makes sense.
The left is in charge of everything when it comes
to the legacy media, and the right is trying to
push back against it. And again, I'm not one to judge.
I'm I'm I'm at least one rung below all of

(19:56):
that shit and getting outraged about the outrage about the outrage,
But I'm I'm glad that honey Badger, the honey Bade
Brigade is here with its tenacious, artistic news hounse. It
seems to be the only place that picks up on
the stories that don't even make it into the pipeline
having not been picked up by the leftist legacy media

(20:17):
in the first place, namely the stories where a man
has been the victim of something and or a woman
has perpetrated something. And yes, that is what is entailed
in most of the stories you're going to talk about tonight.
It's not big, it's not popular, it's not even necessarily clever,

(20:40):
but somebody's got to do it. Doctor Random mccam wanted
news honeybuger radio.

Speaker 4 (20:47):
So I got a question, actually, was that that guy
wasn't a streamer that they assaulted. He was he was
an assistant or something, right he was? Was he a
paid worker? I don't know, because I mean if he's
a personal assistant. If he's a paid personal assistant, that's

(21:09):
workplace harassment on top of being sexual assault.

Speaker 2 (21:13):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (21:13):
Sure, Like again, you know, this is something you should
be able to go to work and do your job
without having to experience anything like this on a job.
This is this is something that women have established that
this is inappropriate workplace behavior toward an employee, and it

(21:37):
doesn't It's not limited to just the employer. If a
company interacts regularly with other companies and their their employees
are experiencing something like this from employees of the other company,
there can be lawsuits. So, uh, this is this just

(22:02):
got one step bigger if it was again, if it
was a woman, there would be and this was a
paid woman who you know, had had to pay taxes
on her employment and everything, like somebody who was getting
money for the job. This was an on the job assault. Uh,
there there would be lawsuits. There would definitely be lawsuits.

(22:25):
Women have established a right to cash in on this
because after something like this happens, Uh, it's hard to
go back to the same workplace and you often need
therapy to get over it, and so you have expenses
related to it. And also it's to punish the employer

(22:49):
for allowing it to happen. Uh. So yeah, this like
this is this is a woman engaging behavior that uh,
and and treating it as ordinary behavior and nothing, you know, Uh, inappropriate,
No big deal, she's she's treating it even you know,
the idea of just apologizing public Oh my actions were

(23:11):
really really wrong. I'm sorry, But in the moment, she
had no like was she drunk or something, or was
she sober?

Speaker 1 (23:21):
If she I don't know, I mean they look they
look drunk because of the way they're acting, but that
could just be them just being ratchet.

Speaker 4 (23:29):
Yeah, if she did this, if she did this drunk,
she should never drink again, you know, because clearly she
cannot prevent herself from engaging in criminal acts while drunk.
But if she did this sober, that's even worse because
she knew fully. You know, the she was fully able
to appraise her actions. She was clearly not too drunk

(23:50):
to to be the aggressor, right, But yeah, this, this
is she should be criminally charged for.

Speaker 1 (23:59):
This, both of them, there were two twos.

Speaker 4 (24:03):
These two women should both be criminally charged for this,
and they should both be sued for this. But neither
of those things is likely to happen because they're female.
And when when you hear about the accountability gap, it's
not just how how women think, it's how the law

(24:26):
treats them. But women women won't be aware of the
accountability gap because they don't take it seriously. When women
behave this way toward a guy at all.

Speaker 1 (24:39):
M but you know what, twitch gave them what for?
Ban them both for twenty four hours. That'll show them
the Yeah.

Speaker 4 (24:49):
See, I care very little about what social media does
in terms of if if somebody does behave this inappropriately, Okay,
maybe maybe they should be banned. It should happen the
same to men and women. But getting banned from social media,

(25:09):
as much as it sucks, it's it's nothing compared to
a jail sentence. A man who did this wouldn't just
get banned from some social media profile or you know,
some social media website. He would go to jail.

Speaker 1 (25:31):
Yeah, yeah, no, I know. That's that's my point is
not making a joke about the actual penalty, which is
basically nothing. Yeah, twenty four hours suspension on Twitch. That
was basically the extent of what's happened, and the thing
is too.

Speaker 4 (25:46):
Definitely.

Speaker 1 (25:47):
One of the things worth pointing out is when the
Emerald thing happened, people knew about it the moment it happened. Yeah,
this is This is a livestream clip from May of
twenty twenty four, so over a year ago, and it
probably only resurfaced because of the AMRU thing. Someone may

(26:07):
have come across and say, hey, wait a minute, why
isn't this Why wasn't this being talked about, and then
like put it up, you know, because if you think
about it, I guess in a way we have we
have the AMRU clip to thank for this one resurfacing
and getting more traction than it did originally. That happened.

(26:28):
This is over a year old.

Speaker 4 (26:30):
Yeah, there was when we looked at a while back
that I thought of and didn't say anything at the time.
It probably should have. Do you remember, God, I can't
think of his name. Uh.

Speaker 6 (26:38):
He he was a competitive gamer and he won some
sort of competition. This story is old enough that I
cannot remember all the details. The only thing I remember
was a meme that came out of it.

Speaker 4 (26:53):
Because this this chick that was a supporter of another
game who didn't win, came up and grabbed him by
the shirt. And this guy, you know, he kept his
hands back and he leaned away from her and just

(27:14):
just yelled for you know, whatever guy she was associated
with to come get her. But the the memes that
came out of it came out of it because you know,
he was he was really really you know, it was
real slang, kind of like who bitch is this or
something like that. Oh yeah, But this kind of stuff

(27:34):
happens to guys all the time, and people just expect
them to take it in stride. They act like it's
no big deal. Women can be very childish in terms
of their boundaries towards guys, and can can portray themselves

(27:55):
as having a childlike innocence while engaging in all forms
of assault on a guy, and people will treat it
like they'll they'll ignore it, they won't notice that it happened.
They won't care that it happened. And if you bring
it up and you start talking about it, people will

(28:16):
actually get upset that you dare compare it to quote
unquote what women go through, and like, women will get
more outraged at a guy who notices if a woman
is half naked in public, then they will at a
woman who has done something like this, somebody who has groped,

(28:37):
somebody who has grabbed a guy in a way that
is aggressive, like like the chicken and who bitches this mean,
they'll get upset if you notice that that that behavior
is inappropriate and a guy would not be tolerated engaging
in that behavior rather than recognizing that. Actually women get

(29:03):
a lot of lenience and guys get a lot of
flack for the most minor things.

Speaker 1 (29:10):
Yeah all right, so yeah, so like one one last
thing I'll say is now I got a super chat here.
And by the way, guys, you send us uh, send
us some super chows if you want to, just go
to feed the Badger dot com forge last, just the tip, uh,

(29:31):
and we'll read your super childs on stream. So that's
feed Thebadger dot com fords last, just the tip. But anyway,
I will read the super chat. But before I do that,
remember this generation of women, this youngest generation that's sexually active,
is the rapist in recorded history. So they're generally fearless

(29:53):
in more aggressive sexually than any previous generation. And this
it usually expresses itself in the form of entitlement, which
may have come from, you know, like downstream of the
sex positive feminist movement of the sixties, where you get,
you know, women that were allowed to be sexual, and
then now you get women that are like aggressively sexual

(30:16):
towards men just for fun too. It's really just like,
you know, not because they like those men or whatever,
they just have something to prove, so and yeah, so
we're in uncharted territory, all right. Anyway, ZARAANX gives us
five dollars, thank you, ZARAENNX and says, years ago, there
was a Law and Order SVU episode where a man
was assaulted by three women. They showed Stabler or Stabler,

(30:40):
the man dismissed the situation. I guess Stabler is a
character on the show that dismissed the situation, which that's
usually and I guess the other the women corrected him
and said, no rape can happen to men too, and
it can you know, so he like learned something And
the thing is I think that Yeah, I mean this
is just the way they frame things. But anyway, thank

(31:01):
you zarians for that. Let me know what you guys
think about this one in the comments. Let's move on
to the next story.

Speaker 4 (31:08):
All right, to that last super chat. Yeah, historically the
crime of rape was was described in terms of only
being perpetrated against female victims historically, but when feminists started

(31:30):
changing the definitions of different sex crimes, they bent over
backward to preserve it and then claimed that they solved
the problem by extending the terms describing other forms of
sexual assault to men but not rape, just saying.

Speaker 1 (31:53):
All right, I got another super chat. Wells way, but Mike,
did you want to say anything else to that or no?

Speaker 2 (31:57):
Well no, just historically by us, it's still the case
in the UK that women can't be charged with rape
no matter what.

Speaker 1 (32:04):
Wow, well they can't be charged with rape here, they
can be charged with like sexual.

Speaker 4 (32:11):
So if you charge, if you charge a woman with rape,
pier and they use the definition that feminist wrote the lawyers, now,
based on a Supreme Court decision in Ohio, can argue
that because she didn't penetrate the victim, it wasn't rape,
and she can get off scott free. So she she
will more likely get charged with other sexual assaults, other

(32:34):
forms of sexual assault. All right, So feminists, feminists didn't
do jack shit for men when they changed the definition.
What they did was change it so that more men
could be charged. That that's that's all that they changed
it to.

Speaker 1 (32:50):
All right. So I got another super chat from Master
Rogue nine to seven eight zero for five dollars, and
he says, I don't know why I got so many
weird looks the other day. All I said was, do
you guys take walk ins? Maybe I shouldn't have gone
to the morgue, but ompsh and I got a super
chow Thank you Meredith for five dollars, and she says,
HPI news number five twenty five, honey for the Badgers,

(33:12):
thank you.

Speaker 4 (33:13):
What is it?

Speaker 1 (33:13):
Why do you guys have like weird numbers next to
your names?

Speaker 2 (33:16):
Now?

Speaker 1 (33:16):
Is that like some new thing YouTube did? It was
like Meredith G seven seven one six what is that?

Speaker 4 (33:22):
Probably?

Speaker 1 (33:23):
And anyway, and let me know what you guys think
about that story in the comments. All right, Moving on
to the next one. A significant shift in UK family
law was announced on October twenty first, repealing the presumption
of parental involvement under the Children Act nineteen eighty nine
in England and Wales under the ChIL YEAH under the
Children Act nineteen eighty nine in England and Wales. Previously,

(33:45):
courts assumed contract contact with both parents was in a
child's best interest unless proven otherwise, often leading to unsafe
arrangements for children exposed to domestic abuse. The change requires
judges to evaluate each case individually, prioritizing evidence based assessments
of the child's safety, well being and voice over automatic

(34:05):
parental access. This reform, stemming from a twenty twenty Government
Harm Panel report and recent findings on court failures, aims
to prevent instances where abusers exploit the system for continued control,
with implementation pending parliamentary time. Domestic abuse campaigners, survivors and
legal experts have welcomed the move as a victory for

(34:25):
children and a step toward justice, though they stress it's
not a complete fix. Figures like barrister doctor Charlotte Proudman
highlighted YEAH highlighted how it could save lives by curbing
forced contact with abusers, while Women's Aid CEO Parah Nazir
noted its re orientation of court priorities towards survivor's safety.

(34:49):
Campaigner Claire Throssel, whose sons were killed by their abusive
father after court granted contact, expressed cautious hope for future protections. Experts,
including DOMES Abuse Commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs, call for mandatory
judicial training to recognize abuse patterns and eliminate pro contact biases,

(35:10):
ensuring the reform truly safeguard's vulnerable children.

Speaker 2 (35:13):
Okay, okay, Well, wasn't the idea always about the safety
of children above all else? It was framed as the
best interests of the child. But what that means in
practice is the mother gets custody because women are better
than men. So surely the safety of children above all

(35:34):
else also means in practice, the mother gets custody because
women are better than men. Seems kind of like painting
over the military gray with ocean gray, or is it
the other way around? We can't tell because they're exactly
the same color. And that may seem like it's nothing

(35:54):
and that it changes nothing, but the fact that it
has a different name is all to take for these
corrupt identity politicians to now claim that they get to
change everything else in a direction that always, without fail,
favors women over men. Their their modus operandi is reality

(36:18):
is whatever we say it is. After all, we've decided
that a man is a woman if and when we
say so. Therefore, public toilets have no rules, sports tournaments
have no rules, and prisons have no rules other than
men will be rewarded when they disavow their masculinity. And

(36:39):
it'll be the same shit here. We've changed best interests
to safety. Therefore, a man will never get custody of
his children unless he identifies as a woman. It'll be
that It'll be some stupid shit like that. We've called
a thing a different thing, therefore we can call a
bunch of other things other things. And every institution in

(37:01):
the country has to gut itself and turn itself inside
out based on these toothless linguistic shakeups on which we're insisting.
Needless to say, we can still call ourselves the good guys,
and you can't call us the bad guys, or else
you're the bad guys. I mean, if Charlotte fucking Prowdman
is in favor of this. I don't know how much

(37:25):
more evidence you need that it's a scam and a
lie and a power grab. If the Guardian is talking
about this like it's the best thing since sliced bread,
I mean, for fox's sake, there's your answer. I didn't
read the Guardian article in question because they don't let
you read their online articles unless you tick the accept

(37:47):
cookies box or the reject and subscribe box. Those are
the only two options. And that's the legacy media in
a nutshell, isn't it. It's heads I win, tails you lose.
If this so called significant shift is supposed to change

(38:08):
anything for the better, I will believe it when I
see it, and I'm not going to see it, because
the family courts in the UK are still operating in secret,
in mandatory secret, presumably for the sake of the safety
and best interests of women who, let's not forget, are

(38:30):
better than men. If anything needs to change, it's that
you need to show us what happens in these fucking
kangaroo courts, or at least don't injunction everyone from even
talking about it in any context. You need to show
us these trials, show us the women who beat their

(38:53):
kids and alienate their fathers and still somehow get custody.
We need to see it, we need to cataloze how
often it happens. But that's never going to happen because
then the public would get to see how often this
shit happens, and that would shatter the miss andrac oricophobic

(39:15):
narrative into a thousand pieces, or at least, so at
least let people use the Freedom of Information Act to
gain access to all this secret, sequestered information, even if
the people asking for this information under the Freedom of
Information Act happen to be people who are skeptical of

(39:39):
this miss andrac chophobic narrative. If we don't have transparency,
we don't have freedom of speech. So yeah, give me
transparency or give me death narrator's voice. He was given death.

Speaker 1 (39:59):
I I hereby die, all right, Hannah.

Speaker 4 (40:06):
Interestingly, if a nation makes their statistics more public, like
the United States, did you find out that the majority
of children who have been subjected to maltreatment they refufer
to all the various types of abuse, physical, sexual, and

(40:28):
neglect in one term maltreatment who have have been fatally
or terminally maltreated by one parent acting without the other,
are killed by their mothers, are killed by their mothers,

(40:50):
not their fathers, their mothers. But when you hear talk
about how the courts should discriminate against parents universally by
denying them equal custody on the basis of the possibility
that a percentage and we're talking about a fraction, tiny

(41:14):
fraction of parents you know that that do this, but
the majority of them are women. The courts are being
admonished to discriminate against fathers. And this isn't one that
can be like, I know a lot of people, Oh,
it's the stepfather, it's the step No, there's a statistic

(41:37):
for parent and other. And in the US statistics, stepfathers
are counted as fathers and stepmothers are counted as mothers.
So it's the female parent in all those cases. Now
maybe mostly stepmothers, I don't know, But it's not biological fathers.

(42:01):
And that is the point. Only about thirty percent are
killed by a father, whether it is the stepfather or
the biological father. And the majority of abuse perpetrated is
done to boys. The majority of abuse perpetrated by one

(42:22):
parent acting without the other is done by mothers. The
majority of abuse perpetrated in conjunction with another person that
isn't the other parent. Is done by mothers, So we're
talking all of the statistics. When you look at other

(42:44):
areas outside the home where children get abused, it's most
often in daycare, which is run by women. In fact,
it's very hard for a guy to get a position
as a day care worker at all, and he's treated
as suspect, not as an equal worker when he does

(43:08):
get a job. So again, the majority of perpetrators of
child abuse are women. The majority of killers of children
are women. And that is not counting the three and
ten pregnancies that is in the world that is terminated

(43:30):
by elective abortion. Because if you counted that, the leading
cause of human death in the world is abortion. Is
being aborted, being killed by your mother, in other words,
before you're born. So this idea that men are dangerous

(43:53):
to children women are not utter bullshit, absolute utter bullshit.
And the courts favoring mothers on the idea that mothers
are safer than fathers are going to kill children.

Speaker 1 (44:20):
All right, well, thank you for those thoughts on that story,
and yeah, I agree, transparency is what we need. When
you hear Charlotte proudman. Red sirens should be going off
for sure, all right. I got a super chow from
ZARANX for ten dollars, and he says the idea that

(44:42):
the current gen is downstream of the sex positive types
gives them an out look at Simone de Beauvoir's history
with girls. Consider Eve Ensler's good rape. The current teachers
are no different from Mary kay Letourno. Remember the stories
of men wearing kilts and women trying to see if
they're wearing them authentically. They're not new. We're just noticing

(45:03):
more now than we're allowed ourselves to in the past. Well,
I'm not saying it never happened. I'm saying that there's
a certain like level of because then the data, like
I said, bears out that, at least for as long
as we've been recording it, this generation of women, the
generation z the Zoomer women are the rapist in recorded history,

(45:27):
which means they're the Maybe we are changed the way
we measure these things. I'm not saying that doesn't happen.
I'm saying the scale and perhaps the brazenness to where
it's to which it happens is a lot worse than
it was and I think that that part is.

Speaker 4 (45:43):
I think I think part of it is that we're noticing,
and part of it is that feminists have taught women
to be entitled. Yeah, in our day, like graduating high school,
going to college, women's studies was a class, not a
you know, some colleges may have made it a department

(46:05):
and there may have been you know, women's studies one
oh one, two O two, three oh three and so
on four oh four, graduation not found. But uh, you didn't.
You didn't major in women's studies very often, and there
was no interdisciplinary studies, and there wasn't a women's studies

(46:26):
infection in every area of academia, including medicine and business.
But there is now. You can't take a course of
study that that is touched by any area of psychology,
whether it is you know, how to sell things to people,

(46:47):
how to help people medically, how to how to counsel people,
anything like that, or any area of the soft sciences,
social sciences in any way without a feminism infection in
your curriculum. And among the things that feminism teaches is

(47:08):
that it is not the same for a woman to
victimize a man or a girl to victimize a boy
or a woman to victimize a boy, as it is
the gender reverse, and so you have this sense of
entitlement you have, and they do push this duel. They're

(47:30):
sex positive toward women and sex negative toward men. Men's
sexuality is aggressive, dirty, you know, taking damaging, harmful, but
blah blah blah. Women's sexuality is giving, helpful, it's it's passive,

(47:52):
blah blah blah. And so if a woman engages in
any kind of sexual behavior, it's supposedly good, it's her right,
she's entitled. You're shaming her, slept shaming her if you
criticize what she did, even if she's trampling someone else's boundaries,

(48:16):
even if she's engaging in something a man would go
to jail for, even if you know she's she's not
she's not welcome to engage in it, even if she's
hurting somebody. Right. But but if a guy engages in
sexual behavior, even if it's at the behest of the

(48:38):
woman that he was engaging with, they treat that as
either you know, he got away with something, or he's
guilty of something. And as a result, you do see
more women, more girls, young women and girls engaging behaviors

(49:01):
that they think are playful and they think are cute,
and they think they're entitled to engage in and you
can't criticize them because you're slut shaming them right where.
You know, in previous generations, we would have recognized that
you were trampling on someone else's boundaries and you don't

(49:24):
have a right to do that because you have a
right to expect someone not to do it to you,
and that means other people have a right to expect
you not to do it to them. That's been overwritten
by feminism where girls are concerned, and it takes parents
teaching their daughters, and particular fathers teaching their daughters. That know,

(49:49):
if you have a right to expect other people to
not do it to you, then they have a right
to expect you to not do it to them for
girls to understand that. But unfortunately, over the last fifty years,
there has been a systematic removal of fathers from the home.
And so who's teaching them. They're mothers. They're sexually entitled

(50:12):
single mothers, so of course they're going to be more raping.

Speaker 1 (50:22):
All right, thank you for the super child zaranks. All right,
let us move on to the next story. This one
is wild. So pictured here is Linda Desuza Abreu, a
former prison officer at HMP Wandsworth. This is in the UK,
That's why it sounds like a wizard's town in Wandsworth

(50:42):
was jailed for fifteen months in early twenty twenty four
after pleading guilty to misconduct in public office for engaging
in sexual activity with an inmate in June of twenty
twenty three. The incident of this crime, this misconduct, this
miscond of crime, and captured on video by another prisoner

(51:04):
and shared widely online, showed Desusa Abro, who ran an
OnlyFans account under a pseudonym, promoting herself as a sexy
Latina swinger, performing sex acts in her work uniform before
full intercourse. She claimed that she acted under duress, fearing
assault if she resisted, but the judge rejected this, highlighting
how the virabl footage undermined prison discipline and in danger colleagues.

(51:28):
She didn't look like she was resisting. The scandal exposed
vetting gaps as her explicit content evaded initial checks due
to the alias. So, just to reiterate this woman, Linda
Desuza Abreo was she's a prison guard and she has

(51:48):
an OnlyFans account and she made a pornographic movie with
inmates of the prison that she guards. Okay. So despite
the high profile, what one's.

Speaker 2 (52:00):
Worth is in London by the way, in case you're
wor one's worth out in the stakes, it's it's a
borough of oh Okay.

Speaker 1 (52:08):
Okay, It's like a neighborhood in London.

Speaker 2 (52:10):
It's where that happens to be a huge prison. Makes sense.

Speaker 4 (52:15):
Borough in the UK is similar to county in the Yeah.

Speaker 2 (52:19):
No, it's like Burroughs. Like in New York you have
the five boroughs in Okay. In London we have the
thirty two boroughs. Okay.

Speaker 1 (52:29):
Despite despite this being a high profile case, Priven Office
prison officers remain permitted to operate only fans accounts, with
the Prison Service clarifying that the platform hosts non pornographic
content from various creators and does not automatically bar applicants.
Officials have since bolstered procedures to detect pseudonyms and reject

(52:49):
unsuitable candidates, but no outright ban has been imposed. Critics
point to the risks of such activities compromising professional integrity,
while the service maintains high standards without prohibiting personal side
hustles outright, fueling debate over boundaries between private online expression
and public sector roles.

Speaker 4 (53:06):
So wait, they're not talking about the fact that these are.

Speaker 1 (53:12):
Inmates that she made pornograph.

Speaker 4 (53:14):
Well, no, no, no prison inmates over whom.

Speaker 1 (53:18):
She has authority.

Speaker 4 (53:21):
It's not just an unprofessional thing here. We're right back
to the issue of if a man did this, all right,
if this was a women's prison and a mail guard
did this, there would be a whole discussion going on
in the public about this. This is a man in
a position of authority, and these women would have been

(53:44):
afraid to say no. These women would have faced potential
repercussions for saying no, because this is a man in
a position authority. But in this situation, she is in
the position of authority, and these are men who are
under her authority, and it's not just authority to hire

(54:05):
and fire. They can't leave. They are in jail, they can't.
They're in a cage, all right, uh, And their whole
building is a cage, So they're in a cage within
a cage, and she has the ability to write them
up for for infractions that she doesn't have to prove
they did it. All she has to do is indicate

(54:27):
that they were were unruly in some way or another.
And if they they get get in trouble like that,
they lose rights in in prison that are that are
considered to be privileges, things that you get to do
any time that you want, like go shopping. You know
that they're they have an internal i think it's called

(54:49):
the canteen, an internal uh place where they can get
items like deodorant and cigarettes and stuff like that, and
things that they use as an internal currency in the prison.
And you know, if they've traded favors with somebody and
they owe some of that currency and they can't get

(55:12):
it because she's written them up for an infraction, they
get their shit beaten out of them by other prisoners.
So this is a situation where there is a physical threat.
If if these men tell her no, they cannot be
considered eligible to consent to this, and she involved them

(55:34):
in it. This is sexual exploitation. This is no different
than sexual exploitation of students or patients suffering from dementia
or intellectually disabled adults under your care. They can't be

(55:55):
considered capable, fully capable of telling her no, not because
they can't appraise their actions, but because they can face
penalties for telling her no, and they know it, and
it doesn't matter whether she threatened them or not. Her
authority represents a threat. That is the standard that women

(56:16):
have set for men, that if a man in authority
does something like this, that the women can't be considered
capable of consent. So because of that, again, this is
a situation where you know, we're we're talking about whether
or not this woman gets fired. She should be in jail.

(56:38):
This is a woman who should be arrested and prosecuted
because she has done something that feminists have deemed that
men get charged for rape for doing, and she's getting
away with it. If all she's getting is fired or

(57:00):
publicly embarrassed, she's essentially getting away with what, because of feminists,
could be prosecuted as rape if a man did it.

Speaker 1 (57:11):
Yeah, she's she's fleeting to misconduct in public office. So
I don't know how like serious that she's basically pleaded
guilty to miss good not that serious.

Speaker 2 (57:22):
I didn't initially plead guilty. She pleaded duress.

Speaker 4 (57:26):
You know, Hell, yeah, she initially pleaded duress, which makes
it even worse, like, oh poor me. And again you're
in a position to authority there, you're the one who
could put the cabash to the whole thing. In fact,
you know this is something she should have blown a
whistle on, not participated in. But you know, I'm gonna

(57:47):
go right back to a misdemeanor. Is still getting away
with it in that instance. Can you imagine when when
Brock Turner got uh six months for sexual assault instead
of years for rape when he and a gal were

(58:09):
going back to God drunk together and we're going back
to his dorm together to have sex and started in
an alley and then she passed out and and feminists
showed up in my area because he came back to
community in the Dayton metro area. Feminists came here with

(58:32):
guns capable of shooting through brick and mortar and and
patrolled the streets outside of his neighborhood, which means they
protested with these guns in a neighborhood where other families
lived and had kids. Uh, And they don't know if
you know, those people wanted those guns in their neighborhood.

(58:54):
They didn't know if those people wanted guns on the
street in their neighborhood. They didn't know if they were
uh setting off you know, alarm bells for for for
gang activity in that neighborhood or anything. They just knew
that they were protesting this guy not getting heavy enough sentence.
And that was in a situation where the the the victim,

(59:17):
according to the court, was older than him, had graduated
university and had gone back gone to the party, partied
with him all night. And again like they're they're not
going back to the dorm room to play totally winks, right,
They're not going back to play Parcheesi monopoly, and they're

(59:37):
they're going back to to play hide the Salami. And uh.
But but according to the law, since she passed out
during it was a rape and uh and then and
and they didn't they didn't agree with the with the sentence. Right,
So this this chick, like, in my opinion, what she's

(01:00:01):
pleading guilty to is nothing compared to what would happen
if she was a dude.

Speaker 2 (01:00:06):
Yep, you know how I said earlier about how prisons
have no rules, just like sports tournaments have no rules
and whatnot. What with identity politicians scrambling our language with
their arbitrary identity politics. Well, it doesn't just apply to

(01:00:29):
the inmates you like to pretend they're women. It applies
to the screws, the prison officers in the event that
they are females. If the inmates identify as women, they
can go wherever they like within the prison system, And
if the screws identify as women, they can do whatever

(01:00:49):
they like within the prison system. Like I don't even
care about the only fans thing. That's fine. There's nothing
wrong with having a side job where you can and
some extra coin and maybe eventually earn enough to quit
your day job. That's fine, even if your side job
is a bit dodgy. I mean, online prostitution is arguably

(01:01:13):
more than a bit dodgy. It's well, prostitution is a crime.
It's only a legal loophole that it doesn't count as
a crime as long as no bodies are touching each other.
Whatever you've gained the system, best of luck to you.
My issue lies in this laughable notion that a prison

(01:01:35):
officer acted under duress from a prisoner, as we've already covered. Sorry,
what in what world, if you please can that happen
under YOURSS? Means that in one way or another, you
are or you were unable to escape the situation. Do

(01:01:58):
I need to repeat that for those of you in
the back row of upside Downland? Do I need to
repeat that the jailer was unable to escape the jailed.
How in the electric blue fuck does that even happen?
How can it happen? I suppose if the jailer is
a small child and the jailed is a fully grown,

(01:02:19):
prison sculpted adult. Yeah, all right, I can see how
that can happen. And that's why we don't put children
in charge of jailing adults. No kind of Stamford prison
experiment is going to shift that balance, no matter what
kind of weapon you give to the children. For the
same reason, you probably shouldn't put one hundred pounds sucking,

(01:02:40):
wet women in charge of prison sculpted monsters. You shouldn't
even put paunchy, wheezy, out of shape men in charge
of prison sculpted monsters. You'll just be feeding lambs to
the lions. Maybe the screws should be subject to physical qualifiers,
just like fire fighters and police officers are supposed to

(01:03:04):
be given in the absence of DEI, maybe Pete Hegseth
should get involved, they get on the ground, give me
fifty at a moment's notice, or you can't be trusted
to control a bunch of hench psychopaths who have nothing
to lose. Yes. No, and I'm not for a moment
suggesting that this woman was actually overpowered in any way

(01:03:29):
or was actually under duress as she initially testified. I
think she was indulging in this fetish that so many
women have for violent criminals. You all know the meme
random man women bored and uninterested and drier than the

(01:03:52):
Gobi desert, whereas random man serial killer women lose their
shit and get wet them an otter's pocket. And I
imagine it's the same for lesbians. In the event that
they're attracted to women, they're just as likely to be
attracted to criminally violent women. It seems unfathomable to so

(01:04:16):
many people, but yes, it's complicated. Women are complicated. They
want to be with someone who is capable of anything
up to and including acts of extreme violence, but someone
who does not exact that violence on her on the

(01:04:36):
woman with the fetish, and that archetype is perfectly encapsulated
in the prisoner situation one who is capable of whatever
it was that landed them in prison, but situationally incapable
of enacting that violence on her the gatekeeper of that

(01:04:58):
prisoner's freedom. Hashtag not all blah blah. This is a
fetish that in extremists only affects probably a minority of women,
hopefully just a minority of women, but it's a large
enough minority to make it very important that women are

(01:05:19):
vetted thoroughly in the event that they want to become
prison guards. And what should be controlled for above all
else is any possibility that a woman thinks she can
get away with claiming duress as a defense against raping prisoners.

(01:05:41):
And yes, it is rape. It is prison rape. No
less when the woman is in complete control of any
and all applicable freedom, it is rape. She is the
one applying the duress. If she can even entertain the

(01:06:01):
notion that she can davo that shit and get away
with it, just slip into upside downland and act like
the rape victim is the rapist, she should never, under
any circumstances, be permitted to hold that position of authority.
And alas we live in a society, yes we do.

(01:06:24):
We live in a society where an alarming amount of
women think they can do that and get away with it.
It's very probably because so many of them can do
that shit and get away with it. This is just
the story of a woman who didn't get away with it.
We almost certainly never hear about the women who did

(01:06:47):
get away with it because their victims are already prisoners.
They don't have all that much legal protection. The only
legal protection they can possibly have comes in the form
of video evidence. Video evidence beyond reasonable doubt, video evidence
that is not simply ignored or destroyed. That appears to

(01:07:10):
be what swung the verdict in this case, and that's
what makes it such an anomaly, an anomaly that has
brought it to our attention in the first place. So yeah,
in conclusion, maybe don't put women in charge of prisoners,
not male prisoners, not female prisoners, not miscellaneous prisoners. At

(01:07:34):
least at least like put a hold on this ship
until we can figure out what's going on. Spoiler alert.
What's going on is the society we live in is
one of which women have been taught to do whatever
they like, to indulge in whatever fantasies they like, sexual

(01:07:57):
or otherwise, and they will do so. Like, first, we
need to stop de eyeing women into these grossly inappropriate
positions of power. Then we need to overhaul this society
we live in and deprogram these women from this insatiable
victim mentality. And then maybe we can reintroduce women into

(01:08:22):
these roles of power once they are no longer by
and large warped and twisted and fucked up beyond all
recognition into this psychotic victim mentality. It's going to be
a long haul, ladies and gentlemen, because we're dealing with
at least four generations of this bullshit, of this teaching

(01:08:47):
women to be victims and nothing else, no matter what
they do. Maybe it will take another four generations before
we can get back to normal, but at least I
can draw it there. At least I can perceive of
an exit plan of roughly four generations. We won't get
there in my lifetime, but at least I can conceive
of when we can, in theory, get back to where

(01:09:11):
we want to be. That is far more than the
feminists ever gave us. Feminists have no exit plan whatsoever.
They will keep going, not for four generations, not for
eight generations, not for two hundred and fifty six generations,
but forever, until all positions of power are held by women,

(01:09:35):
all men who are rare, or men who have disavowed
their masculinity, or indeed, until the human race is extinct,
which will probably come first. I'm best of luck everyone,
and godspeed. Sorry I'm supposed to be dead. Yeah, I'm dead.

Speaker 1 (01:09:59):
Sorry.

Speaker 4 (01:10:00):
By the way, just so you know, this starts in juvi.
What this woman has done, she did with adults. But
when juvenile detention inmates in the US were surveyed, approximately

(01:10:22):
fifty fifty eight to sixty percent of sexual misconduct that
they reported being victimized by they reported staff perpetrators, not
other inmates, and approximately ninety five percent of that was

(01:10:42):
perpetrated by women alone, and another two to three percent
was perpetrated by groups of adults that included women. So
women were involved in between ninety five and ninety eight
of the majority of incidents as sexual victimization, and these

(01:11:07):
were minors. These are boys, not men that are reporting this,
mostly minority boys. And it goes as young as ten
years old.

Speaker 2 (01:11:29):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:11:30):
Well, let us know what you guys think about this
one in the comments and Yeah, let's move on to
the last story. So pictured here as Sean McMaster, and
a federal jury has just awarded former Detroit police officer
Sean McMaster fifty eight point four million dollars this month

(01:11:55):
after dismissing charges of sexually assaulted and assaulting his young daughter,
which stemmed from a twenty nineteen prosecution by Michigan Attorney
General Diane nessel amid a bitter custody dispute with his
ex wife, Joanna McMaster. The allegation serviced during parenting visits
in Michigan, but a twenty sixteen recording revealed Joanna offering

(01:12:17):
to halt a criminal probe in exchange for McMaster terminating
his parental rights. McMaster, who maintained his innocence and dured
one hundred and fifty one days in solitary confinement in
Oakland County Jail before charges were dropped following scrutiny from
the seven investigators, which highlighted investigative flaws including omitted exculpatory

(01:12:38):
evidence like a therapist's report of the child admitting to lying,
and no medical confirmation of abuse. McMaster's twenty twenty one
civil lawsuit targeted Michigan State Police trooper David Bussaka and
a former Assistant Attorney General, Brian Cologiege, for constitutional violations,

(01:12:58):
malicious prosecution, and excessive pre trial punishment. US District Judge
Stephen J. Murphy the Third ruled that there was no
probable cause for warrants, setting Busaka's omissions and Colodiege's probe
allegedly motivated by a personal relationship tied to the ex wife. COLODIEJ.

(01:13:23):
Later resigned and was disbarred for unrelated misconduct. After a
three week trial, the jury deliberated for a day and
a half before massive award, which McMaster's attorney said compensated
for lost job, reputation and family ties. Despite the findings,
Busaka was promoted to lieutenant, sparking criticism over accountability and

(01:13:43):
law enforcement and prosecute prosecutorial oversight. So there was a
bitter divorce apparently, and a child custody hearings were going on,
and his ex wife accused him of sexually assaulting his
which apparently went through, and it resulted in him McMaster

(01:14:05):
here enduring one hundred and fifty one days in solitary confinement.
And it was all done just so that you can
get access, but he you know that the uh I
guess the case was turned over, it was found that
he was innocent and that the wife was trying to essentially,
you know, pressure him into giving her full custody in

(01:14:27):
exchange for his freedom, and he didn't take it. So anyway,
what do you guys think.

Speaker 4 (01:14:31):
This is? This is the kind of case that actually
got me started with the online portion of the men's
Rights Movement. I. One of my earlier articles for a
Voice for Men is titled seven Years in Hell. And
fortunately in that case, the attorney was prepared for things

(01:14:55):
like this. Unfortunately the reason is because this is this
use of false allegations of abuse of various types is
frequently used by women in divorce cases to try to
leverage the court in custody battles. It's one of the

(01:15:17):
reasons why it is not a good idea for the
courts to to have as their default, the idea that
maternal custody should be presumed. And you know, men, men
should have to prove that they're a good parent in
order to continue parenting their child after a divorce, because

(01:15:40):
women then turn around and say, well, he's he's he
abuses the child, he engages in sexual assault and so on,
And these these allegations often are not criminally vetted at all,
and they don't have to be in order for them
to be used in a custody battle. And the only

(01:16:00):
way to fix this, the only thing that will put
a stop to this is when it is proved in
court that the allegation itself is a lie. And the
mother using that allegation in court to try to obtain
custody knew when she leveled the allegation that it was

(01:16:24):
a lie. That should result in prosecution of the mother,
And depending on what the victim suffered, it should be
commensurate with the type of crime that would cause a
violent crime victim to suffer the same thing. So in
this case, he was kidnapped violently by armed kidnappers and

(01:16:50):
he was held against his will, so he was prevented
from leaving the area where he was left. He was
tortured because solitary confinement is tortured. So this this should
go back on her for uh hiring, hiring uh hitman

(01:17:13):
to to kidnap, incarcerate, falsely, wrongly imprisoned, and torture her
ex husband. You know that that should be the equivalent
of what she's prosecuted for, and she should go to
jail for the amount of time that a man would
go to jail for if he kidnapped, wrongly, imprisoned, and

(01:17:37):
tortured a woman for that period of time. That is
the only type of accountability that will stop women from
doing this in the In the seven years in Hell case,
this this continued with allegations as serious as rape that
were demonstrably false. In fact, the accuser couldn't find a

(01:18:03):
time in the life of the accused when he couldn't
account for his whereabouts because the rest of us that
were friends with him were dividing our visitation time with
him like our time hanging out with him, so that
there was no point in time when he didn't have
a witness that could could say where he actually was

(01:18:24):
and what he was actually doing. He stayed on camera
as much as he could, He kept receipts from every
place that he went. He documented his whereabouts extensively in
order to ensure that she could not do this to him,
because the uh the situation had already gotten that bad

(01:18:48):
by the time that she made that allegation. The most
bizarre and minor allegation that the seven years accus are
made was a drive by greeting that never happened. She
had a restraining order on him, and she claimed he
drove past a location where she shouldn't have been able

(01:19:09):
to say she was because she was claiming to another
judge that she was going to be out of state
for two weeks, and claimed that he waved menacingly, which
I'm not sure exactly what that entails, you know, like
one fingerwave or what. But it never happened. It wouldn't
it wouldn't matter. So this this type of thing, like

(01:19:32):
I've had a lot of experience with this, Women get
false restraining orders. They then use the restraining order as
a launchpad for a false allegation. A lot of times
they'll try to make an allegation that can't be disproved.
You know, while I was here and he showed up
and he didn't leave, or I got a crank call
from him, or a number of other things. They'll show

(01:19:55):
up in his workplace and get him arrested. They'll go
into his neighborhood in the and if he goes outside,
he gets arrested. You know, just all kinds of things
like that. And and it's all to leverage false allegations
in custody battles. And so this this instance, it happened

(01:20:16):
to an officer, and because he was an officer, they
kept him in solitary confinement because if they didn't, he's
an officer in the prison system, he's going to get killed, right,
And so they use that as an excuse to keep
him in solitary And that's torture. But this case is

(01:20:37):
by far not rare. The other thing is after the
seven years, the accuser in the seven years case was
deemed a vexatious lit again, there was a lawsuit in
which the you know, the accused only sued her. He

(01:20:59):
didn't sue everybody that he could have sued. He only
sued her for vexatious litigation and Melissia's prosecution. And all
he sued for and sue for money. All he sued
for was for her to be deemed a vexatious litigant
and to not be able to make any more allegations.
That's the only thing that stopped it in his case,

(01:21:20):
but it won't stop other women from doing it. And
the first thing that I saw happen after that was
a bunch of feminist articles came out about how to
counter those types of lawsuits. So yeah, the accuser herself

(01:21:40):
needs to face jail time in situations like this, and
it is important for collaborating law enforcement and prosecutors to
face repercussions as well. But it's only fair if they
face those repercussions if their actions aren't dictated by law.

(01:22:03):
And unfortunately, in the United States, the Violence Against Women
Act does dictate their actions, so that would have to
be changed, but it wouldn't have to be changed at
all in order to prosecute false accusers. False accusation is
a violent crime. When you falsely accuse somebody of a
crime for which they will be arrested, You are hiring

(01:22:26):
thugs to go to that person's place of residence or
their workplace wherever they can be found and violently kidnap
them and wrongfully imprison them and subject them to at
the very minimum hours worth of psychological torture, possibly days,

(01:22:49):
possibly years. It is not a peaceful crime, it is
not a minor crime. It is a violent crime. Be
treated as such.

Speaker 1 (01:23:05):
Well said, thank you, Mike, Did you want to say
anything about this?

Speaker 2 (01:23:11):
I didn't write anything down, but yeah, the swamp of
lies is so difficult to legislate because if you give
the government the opportunity to legislate on lies, then I mean,

(01:23:34):
all the government does is lie, and all they do
is uphold these lies based on whatever the station's care
happens to be. And again, we live in a society.
We live in a society in which in which lies
told by women are truth and truth is told by

(01:23:56):
men are lies. And it's fucked up. I don't again,
I don't know how to fix this, and I don't
know if it's going to get fixed in any of
our lifetimes. So yeah, again, again, I didn't have time
to write anything up about this because of daylight saving time.

Speaker 1 (01:24:18):
I'm currentlying out you guys, like for us, it doesn't
happen until like Sunday.

Speaker 2 (01:24:25):
Yeah, we're we're in. We're in that one week where
I'm an hour behind. You'll so and and and that
caught me off guard, so I couldn't think of anything
to say. But you'll know what I have to say
by what I said about the last three stories. Yeah, yeah, Yeah,
it's fucking fucking men get fucked in every opportunity and
and women get pedestalized by their victimhood at every opportunity.

(01:24:49):
So yeah, just just just stop doing that, Just just
fucking stop doing that. Folks. Welcome to Honey Badger Radio.
This is the message we send you every opportunity and
I and I know no one's listening except the already
converted or already deprogrammed, should I say? But yeah, yeah, yeah,

(01:25:12):
this like good luck sending all the immigrants away, good
luck undoing all of the the trans bullshit. But once
you've done that, we still have this. We still have
we still have the head vampire to deal with. So please, please,

(01:25:34):
for the love of all of your gods, can we
deal with this first?

Speaker 1 (01:25:40):
Yeah, good idea.

Speaker 4 (01:25:42):
I you know, the more that we cover stories like
the ones we did tonight with a complete lack of
female accountability, the more I look at history and in
some countries, the current situation of coverture and guardianship and

(01:26:07):
wonder if those systems were maybe put in place, because
this is how women behave when those systems are not
in place, that they're completely unaccountable, that they fight for
unequal treatment, for unequal lenience toward women who behave as

(01:26:29):
sexual predators and as false accusers and violent criminals and
so on, like no wonder men felt like they had
to be If they're going to be the shield between
women in the state, they also have to be in
charge and they have to be women's chaperones. Like if

(01:26:54):
women can't be adult enough to take accountability for their
own actions, and that includes the the the consequences other
people face from their actions, then women shouldn't have the
right to make their own choices just the same as teenagers.

(01:27:15):
Like I I hate to say that, especially being female,
being you know, a co breadwinner in my family and
being someone who has worked very hard to be better
than that. And I value my freedom of choice, but
if this is what happens when women have that freedom

(01:27:37):
of choice, I'd rather live under a system like what
Islam does to women, knowing that at least men would
be protected from this ship and this wouldn't be happening.
Then then have that freedom of choice. Man, this is
this is insane that half the population can behave this

(01:28:01):
way and get away with it and not non face
any repercussions, and society doesn't even think anything needs to
be done about it because the other half the population
is treated like they're just disposable as to stop.

Speaker 2 (01:28:19):
The Islamic situation would not fix this either. That's the
thing to feminism.

Speaker 4 (01:28:30):
Either we have to go back to something like that.
Either we have to go back to something like coverture. Well,
we have to start teaching women to be as accountable
for the consequences of their choices as we expect men
to be. Those are our only two choices going forward.
If we go a different direction than one of those

(01:28:52):
two choices, the world ends. Right, we are already in
a situation where again three and ten is almost a third, right.
Almost a third of pregnancies in the world ends an
elective abortion. The leading cause of human death in the

(01:29:13):
world is being aborted, being killed by your mother. We're
in a situation where false allegations are common and they're
getting denied. We are in a situation where men are
being subjected to levels of abuse that cause them to
commit suicide just because they want to parent their children,

(01:29:37):
and then they're getting called deadbeats because the mother won't
allow them to see their child. We're in a situation
where women can be in charge and still claim to
be victims of things that they did to other people.
If we don't change that we're going to be in
a situation where the world just goes down the toilet

(01:30:00):
vanity will be an extinct species. Nature will heal because
we'll be gone. So if if we don't, if we
don't fix this, and you know, the women can can
learn to be accountable and men can stop tolerating unaccountability.

(01:30:21):
And that's what has to happen because otherwise, you know,
like I said, we have to go back to something
like coverture guardianship. Maybe women will figure out that they
can't act like this. If that happens again, I hate
to call for that. I'd rather see women be accountable.
But it's got to be one or the other. You

(01:30:43):
can't it can't be wavering between the two for all
of eternity, because we don't have that long.

Speaker 2 (01:30:49):
Yeah, I'm not going to concede to this idea that
we have to go backwards to something, because we would
be going backwards to something that never really existed. We
need to go forwards to something. And this is why,
it's why, why, what what we talk about is something
that the right and the left I can't conceive of,
neither the right nor the left, because we're talking about

(01:31:12):
going forward to something that has never really been achieved
at any point in history, and it's it's it's men
and women having equal rights under the law. Now, I
know that sounds leftist because it involves equality, and I

(01:31:33):
know it sounds right ist because it involves law and order.
But we're we're at a point that's historically has never
been predicted. We're at an absolutely mad time in history
where technocracy is and democracy have have skewed us out

(01:32:01):
of all recognition. And you know, a lot of people
like you'd like to say that progression is giving women rights,
and if you go back as far as ancient Greek times,
you could say that they got so far in the
first place because men were given so many more rights

(01:32:22):
than women. And yeah, those those things, those things are
both historically conceivable. But like the world has changed so
much in the past one hundred years, in the past
two hundred years, and indeed in the past thousand years
since romantic chivalry. Let's not forget that the world hasn't

(01:32:46):
been changing since the advent of feminism. Feminism has only
been around for one hundred years, but romantic.

Speaker 4 (01:32:51):
Chivalry has one hundred and fifty years.

Speaker 2 (01:32:54):
The Romantic chivalry has been around for a thousand years
at least, and and until we can get our heads
around that, we're not going to be able to fix
the problem that we in the manisphere are all talking about.
We all in the minisphere. There is a whole different
parts of the manusphere red pills and p uas and

(01:33:15):
I raising magtails and such. But yeah, no, it's that
that's what makes it so difficult to find the right answer.
And the right answer is not regressive or progressive. It's
just looking at men and women and the fact that

(01:33:37):
they are different, but there are many ways in that
they should not be treated differently among the law. And
and then we have to address what the law even
is and what and how we've been going wrong with
our approach to the law. And that's where we get

(01:33:58):
into the subject of democracy and whether that was even
a good idea in the first place. And that's you know,
there's this can splinter off into all manner of things
and yeah, sorry, there's there's no one easy solution. But
but we we can't let our left wing opponents describe

(01:34:20):
what progressivism means, because it's not progressivism, it's just left wing.
Not can we prescribe everything that our right wing opponents
consider it to be traditionalism, because traditionalism is it's I mean,

(01:34:41):
romantic chivalry has been around for so long that it's
it's made feminism a part of our tradition. Just just
because it looks traditional doesn't mean it.

Speaker 4 (01:34:55):
And it's very important to understand the the cure for
unaccountability in women is for girls to be raised by
their fathers. Yes, even if their mothers are part of that,
even if even a mother and father in conjunction with
each other, they cannot be raised without their fathers. And

(01:35:17):
while in the overwhelming majority of men's issues there's very
little difference between left and right, there is a stark
difference here between left and right. We can appeal to
traditionalists on this. Traditionalism includes the understanding that a family

(01:35:39):
is two parents and their children, not one parent and
their children, and that it should be only the worst
of extenuating circumstances. Somebody dies, somebody genuinely is abusive, somebody
is you know, forced to go into rehab because of drugs,
or their mental health is so bad they have to
be institutionalized or separated from their family. Aside from that,

(01:36:04):
you know that it should be both parents and their children.
We can appeal to that that understanding that father should
not be excluded from their children's lives, and we have to.
It is vital to the future of the entire human
race that the men's movement recognize that appealing to government

(01:36:28):
officials that are on the right side of the aisle
to ensure that fathers are not going to be removed
from their children's lives is a way to get equally
shared parenting, a way to get accountability put back into

(01:36:49):
the divorce system for women, and a way to reduce
divorce and reduce single parenting. And this is even unmarried.
Fathers should have equal custody rights as just as much
as the mother does, as long as they are able

(01:37:11):
to prove they are the father of the child. And
we should be writing to politicians, we should be influencing
the public through comments on social media and news articles.
It is absolutely vital. This is the biggest push that
should be happening in the entire men's rights movement that
fathers must not be excluded by outside forces from their

(01:37:36):
children's lives. If he chooses to abandon, that's on him,
But most of the time it's not him choosing to
abandon she doesn't think that he needs to be there
and she doesn't let him in, or the state doesn't
think that he needs to be there and the state
doesn't award him custody. That is what needs to happen.

(01:38:00):
And you can't appeal to the left with that because
they are anti family. You can only appeal to the
right With that. You appeal to what works. And if
you think that you can split families up and have
the children benefit from it, you need to do some
research because that is not the case. So father's rights,

(01:38:24):
out of everything that the men's rights movement does, father's
rights are probably fundamentally the most important thing that we
can support, and we need to step that up beyond
everything else. And then fathers need to teach their girls

(01:38:45):
to be just as accountable as they are teaching their
boys to be. And without that, we don't have a
way forward.

Speaker 2 (01:38:56):
Join us on the uphill struggle as gentlemen. Unlets us
not be sisyphus on our way up that hill.

Speaker 1 (01:39:05):
Yeah, take us t going to go into the Patron
show now and we're gonna continue this conversation there. So
if you guys want to join us, go to feed
the Badger dot com for slash subscribe to become a
member five bucks a month. We'll get you into the
discord where you'll be able to watch all the additional
content and you will make us happy. So yeah, go toe,

(01:39:30):
it'll help us out. It'll make it easier for us
to keep doing this work. And we welcome the company
in our discord server. And if you don't want to
wake up one morning to find that we've been needed
from the internet again, that's Badger feed dot com for that.
I don't know why I said that again, but anyway,
Uh yeah, so thanks guys for coming on the stream.
Thank you to Mike and Hannah for helping me out.

(01:39:52):
If you guys like this video, Oh I got ano
the super chow. That's right. Richard Rio gave us five
and said, what do you get for the woman who
as everything penicillin?

Speaker 4 (01:40:02):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (01:40:02):
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:40:03):
Penicillin doesn't It doesn't cure that much anymore. A lot
of stuff is antibiotic. You know, there's antibiotic resistant goner rhea.
Now body count matters.

Speaker 1 (01:40:13):
Oh god, yeah, right, if you don't want to make
super gonorrhea super chlamydia, maybe.

Speaker 4 (01:40:19):
Uh well, what's really scary is Syphilis is a bacteria,
it's not a virus. So if it becomes antibiotic resistant,
we are fucked.

Speaker 1 (01:40:29):
That's what I'm saying. Yeah for sure.

Speaker 4 (01:40:31):
Yeah, BodyCount matters a lot. It's a hygienic issue. It's
not a moral issue, and you have every right to
reject a woman whose body count is too high.

Speaker 2 (01:40:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:40:43):
Well, anyway, let us know what you guys think about
all these stories in the comments. If you guys like
this video, please h like, subscribe you're not already subscribed
to the buffalodifications, leave us a comment, let us know
what you guys think about what we discussed on the
show today, and please please please share this video because
sharing is caring. Thank you guys so much for coming
on today's episode of HBr News, and we'll talk to
you guys in the next one. See you next.

Speaker 2 (01:41:02):
Lamia is the way forward.

Speaker 1 (01:41:04):
See Chlamydia you next Tuesday.

All Episodes

Man Assaulted by Streamers, Cons for Pr0ns | HBR News 525

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Man Assaulted by Streamers, Cons for Pr0ns | HBR News 525