Oh No! The Consequences of my own actions! | HBR News 520

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is HBr News number five twenty oh no, the
Consequences of my own Actions, where we discussed the news
of the week and give it the Badger treatment. Hello everybody,
and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio. I hope you
guys are doing well this week and that you're laughing
at all of this absurdity so that you are not
consumed by it. I am your host, Brian. I'm joined
by my co host Hannah Wallin, doctor Randa mccam appears

(00:23):
to be Mia right now, which is why we started
a little bit late, because I thought I would give
him a little bit of time to show up. It's
possible that he's not going to be here, because I
know that after the meetup he was supposed to, he
stayed in Calgary for a little while longer and then
went to Kelvington with Alison and Jonathan to the Badger Cave,

(00:43):
and I guess he was staying there for a little
while and then he has to return to the UK,
so he's been doing a lot of flying around and
I don't know if he's like in transit or he's
just out there in the flat wilderness, not like basically
hooked into some project with Allison, so I will my
door is open. He knows how to get in here.
If he shows up, I will put a mouth to

(01:06):
his cartoon. But for now, you'd have to look at
the panda not saying anything. But that doesn't mean that
Mike isn't here with us spiritually, so anyway, but that
out of the way. I have Hannah. That's plenty. It's fine,
and we have a great show lined up for you
guys today, so please be sure to continue the conversations
in the chat, the live chat which I will be

(01:26):
looking at as well as the comments section on this
week's HBr News. We're going to be talking about, well,
let me see, what do we got. We have a
lot going on here. For some reason, I didn't change
the description, but we're gonna be talking about the fallout
or some of the downstream events and happenings that have
occurred since the Charlie Kirk assassination. That would be the social,

(01:47):
the cultural, the political, and more so. Stick around. It's
going to be a good time and be sure to
join us afterwards for the patron only show. So I
came across something interesting that I thought would be good
to share, So you know that Antifa is one of
the central subjects of the topics because they've been coming

(02:07):
up this week in the light and light of recent events,
because there's a lot of speculation around that, and as such,
some people who have been doing a lot of hard
work with regards to journalism surrounding Antifa. Guys like Andy
no for example, have been doing the rounds and getting
onto multiple news platforms and discussing things. And I overheard

(02:28):
something really weird, well weird and interesting, and I thought
it might be fun to do in the Patron show.
Apparently there are anti fascists that make games, and we're
going to look at some of the anti fascist games
that have been created, and one of them is a
video game. There's a board game that's an anti fascists. I
think it came out of France, and we're gonna look
at that because there are some articles written about it

(02:49):
and I'm kind of curious about how it works as
a board game, which is funny because Hannah's working on
a board game right now. But there are also video games.
There is a developer called Wobbly dev and they have
a bunch of socialist common games. This one Syndical, These
are not jokes. This is like real shit that this
guy made, Okay, Syndical Crossing Okay, which is about anarcho syndicalism,

(03:11):
syndicalism Antifa the game, which basically is inspired by Mario
Brothers and the Conquests of Bread, an anarchist fun game.
I'm sure it's a blast and the union makes us strong.
So yeah, I think you guys got like a sense
of what we're gonna be looking at, and we're gonna
be going into the Patron Show to look at these
things because I think it could be educational, I guess.

(03:34):
So if you guys want to join us for this
romp through what I'm certain to I'm certain are extremely
entertaining and fun games based on communism and Antifa, then
you'll have to become a Badger yourself by going to
Feed the Badger dot com forward Slash subscribe five bucks
a month. We'll get you into our Discord server where
you'll be able to hang out with us and join

(03:55):
the community. And yeah, it should be like and there's
lots of stuff going on there, you know, works in progress.
Alison has writers' groups, and there are game nights, and
there are movie nights and all kinds of other fun
things there, and yeah, you should probably join us and
you'll be don't watch all the additional content and even
participate in the discussions yourself. And if you don't want
to wake up one morning to find that we've been
yeeded from the Internet, then go to badgerfeed dot com

(04:17):
or honey Badger Radio dot com. That is where all
of our content lives in archive form. Okay, with all
that out of the way, let us get into the story.
So I have a breaking news story I have to
share right off the bat. This wasn't something I had
write up for, but I thought it was worth sharing.
So the Google has formally admitted the Biden administration pressured

(04:40):
them to censor YouTubers and they're going to reinstate all
banded accounts, or at least banned accounts. And this came
from Representative Jim Jordan on X, who wrote breaking due
to oversight efforts, Google commits to offer all creators previously
kicked off YouTube due to political speech violations to return
to the platform. I'll just read a summary that I

(05:02):
hurriedly put together. The Google, through its parent company Alphabet,
committed to offering the committed reinstatement to all YouTube creators
whose channels were permanently banned for repeated violations of now
debunked policies on COVID nineteen misinformation and election integrity content
often tied to political speech. This move, detailed in a

(05:24):
letter from Alphabet Council Daniel Donovan to House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Jim Jordan, follows years of Republican led investigations into
big tech's alleged collusion with the Biden administration to suppress
dissenting voices. Google explicitly admitted that senior White House officials
exerted repeated and sustained pressure to remove user generated content

(05:46):
that did not violate platform rules, describing such censorship as
unacceptable and wrong, and vowing to abandon reliance on third
party fact checkers while prioritizing free expression. The decision could
benefit high profile concern figures like Dan Bongino's Theeve Bannon,
Sebastian Bolt Gorka, Computing Forever, Stefon Molinu, Alex Jones. You

(06:07):
know people like that, who's band stem from pandemic or
election related commentary, Signaling a broader shift amid the incoming
Trump administration's focus on combating federal censorship. The announcement hailed
by Jordan as a victory for oversight alliance with President
Trump's Executive Order one four one four nine, which mandates
federal agencies to end and rectify pass on unconstitutional speech suppression.

(06:31):
Google emphasized that its policies on these topics were rolled
back by twenty three twenty twenty three through twenty twenty four,
and read statement will be available to affected creators without
retroactive content restoration, aiming to restore civic discourse while maintaining
other community guidelines. Critics, including civil liberties advocates, have mixed reactions,

(06:51):
praising the free speech pivot but questioning the timing post
Biden and potential for selective enforcement, while others other outlets
like Fox News and Type Art frame it as a
capitulation to accountability efforts. So just I mean this, I
don't know if this is going to like change people
who have been you know, like demonetized, or there are

(07:12):
other ways that their visibility has been limited. Like doctor Ranbrackham,
I was I was kind of hoping that Mike would
be here because his channel was definitely on the rise
for a while there it was going to be really big,
and then he started getting hit with crazy, like you know,
fishy suspicious things like losing subs whenever he uploaded a video.
But this is still a victory, and I do think

(07:34):
it's good news, So I would say, yeah, I would.
That was basically the breaking thing I want to point out.
So I don't know, Hannah, if you want to say.

Speaker 2 (07:40):
Anything, yeah, I would call this a victory. But it's
a minor victory because there are things that YouTube has
not admitted to that we know are true. We know
that the same pressure that businesses, other businesses in the
US and other social media in the US was applied
to YouTube the same as every other social media to

(08:01):
censor all kinds of content, not just election content and
content about COVID, but also content about gender issues. And
so all of our channels, every one of us that
is a men's rights activist that discusses men's issues, all
of our channels have been hit with something like my

(08:22):
channel was entirely demonetized for the egregious act of pointing
out that men have as much right to bodily autonomy
and to choose whether to consent or decline sexual content
as or contact as women. That was just beyond the pale,

(08:43):
apparently for YouTube. Reddit didn't like it either, Like the
idea that men can tell women know first x was
very upsetting, and the idea that men have a right
if you're telling them yes, for there to be clear
communication that you mean it and that you're not going
to come back later and say I was under duress

(09:07):
and that time I consented, you were actually raping me.
Like those things were such terrible statements according to YouTube
and Reddit, the changes had to be made. Reddit actually
changed their platform in response to a combination of that
and shuwan heads video where she went down the Men's

(09:29):
Rights Movements list of statistics on domestic violence, and like
a lot of us, she cited original sources, not the
people she heard it from, which that's fine, But the
big thing is they didn't like the fact that she
drew attention to the plight of abused men, And they
didn't like the fact that I drew attention to the

(09:51):
plight of falsely accused men and men who don't receive
equal treatment from their partner during a sex act of
communication and consideration. YouTube was the same way, and they
haven't admitted to that they haven't admitted that the same
powers that pressured Reddit to censor us, and in particular

(10:14):
people who were gamer Gate supporters. No, mister three or
three shoo did not get the socialist protection on that
Reddit banned political videos from there. There are slash videos. Subreddit,
which was their biggest video posting Subreddit created a separate
r slash political videos that had a much smaller or

(10:36):
smaller following to prevent any video like that or any
video like mine from ever making the front page again.
And like I would say, probably eighty percent of it
was to get rid of the video that she made,
and the other twenty percent was my video because her
videos routinely get more views than my video got. Totally.

(10:59):
That's so she's a bigger YouTuber than me. That's my
assumption is that it was a bigger deal. Her video
was a bigger deal to them. And this is not
a new thing. This is a long standing thing with Reddit.
Feminists have been trying to get rid of men's issues
discussion that is not feminist controlled on that platform since

(11:21):
two thousand and nine twenty ten. Somewhere in there, there
was a discussion that yeah, yeah, mister three or three
her her channel wasn't shadow band on YouTube, but she
got no socialist protection on Reddit. Like that's that's the thing.

(11:42):
My channel wasn't shadow she's you know, yeah, yeah, but
my channel wasn't shadow band either. They just totally demonetized it.
I can't anything I post isn't isn't monetized. It's like,
that wasn't why I stopped posting on my channel. I
just couldn't keep up with that and the stuff I
was doing for HBr at the same time, and the

(12:03):
stuff I was doing for HBr is more important. But
in any case, yeah, this YouTube has had the same pressures.
YouTube has had the same reactions, and YouTube has done
the same things that basically came out in the Twitter
files that Twitter had been doing, and they've been doing
them in response to the same financial pressures, and they've

(12:26):
been doing them in response to the same political views
of their leadership. So as much as I like, yeah,
this is a victory, it's not enough. More needs to happen.
More protections need to be put in place, if you know,
and not protections where the platforms are told what they

(12:47):
can and can't allow on their platforms, but protections where
government entities and powerful financial entities have to be told
you can't choose your power to censor these platforms beyond
what's legal to post and what's illegal to post, you know,
like you can't you can't give them some sort of

(13:08):
social credit score and say you can't get loans and
you can't get funding if you post this kind of
content or that kind of content. Aside from the difference
between X rated and G rated stuff, there really shouldn't
be any differentiation whether it's political or not, whether it's
medical or not, and so on, and that should be
up to that should be up to the especially as

(13:30):
long as the platforms are not liable for if I
give medical advice and I say it's rock solid and
somebody follows it and they get sick, Like YouTube's not
liable for that, Twitter x they're not liable for that.
Facebook is not liable for that. I would be And
as long as that's the case, there shouldn't be these

(13:51):
kind of limitations placed on the platforms where the platforms
are told you have to censor people who are doing this.
If they still do it, you know, then then they'll
fail on their own. But yeah, this this is a
small victory and I want to see more.

Speaker 1 (14:09):
Yeah, for sure. Same, but you know, we just got
this announcement. We'll see what happens. I would say, you know,
Google should follow its own advice and you know, not
be evil, but they haven't had that as their tagline
for a long time, so I'm not holy my breath.
But let us on, you guys think about this one
of the comments again, who would you like to see
restored to YouTube? Or should everyone just go to rumble

(14:31):
and then we're just like fine, I mean that's another option,
right anyway, let me know what you guys think about
this one in the comments.

Speaker 2 (14:38):
Into the amnesty like like X did because there there
was too much. YouTube had a major cheese pizza problem.

Speaker 1 (14:53):
Cheese pizza problem.

Speaker 2 (14:54):
Yeah, YouTube had a major problem with content, elicit content
of underage kids that was specifically targeted to attract a
certain type of people. And it's I don't want to
see that come back.

Speaker 1 (15:08):
For sure for sure. Mike, you're back. Did how long
have you been here? I didn't know. I didn't notice
you until now.

Speaker 3 (15:14):
I literally just got in. Sorry, I got my time
zones mixed up, that's fine.

Speaker 1 (15:19):
Where got from? What are you in? Are you in
the UK right now.

Speaker 3 (15:24):
I'm still in the budget cave.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
I see.

Speaker 2 (15:26):
That's why in your own time zone, to keep track
of what time it is in any time zone.

Speaker 3 (15:35):
So sorry, did you I have?

Speaker 1 (15:38):
This is the first one. It's not even really the
first one because this is a breaking story that just
came out today where Google was basically they have admitted
that the Biden administration pressured them to censor YouTubers and
they're going to reinstate like banned YouTube accounts. And we
were just talking about that. Okay, that was yeah, So

(15:59):
I don't know if you've seen that, if you know
about that or whatever.

Speaker 3 (16:03):
I did not, so I have nothing to say about it,
which is good. We can move on.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
Are we holding our breath to see if tho?

Speaker 1 (16:10):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (16:10):
Shadow well, uh.

Speaker 1 (16:11):
Yeah, unshadow banning or whatever is a different thing. But
maybe I don't know. Maybe if they're adamant enough, or
we keep the pressure up on the current administration, maybe
they will look into that.

Speaker 3 (16:22):
So all right, there's no such thing as shadow banning.
There's no such thing as bots, there's no such thing
as algorithms. The only thing that's to blame is how
irrelevant we are. I have the own good authority. Yes exactly.

Speaker 1 (16:38):
All right, let's some of you guys think about this
one in the comments. Now we're going to get into
the stories, all right, the official first story. So before
we get into all of the sort of like highly
charged stuff, we got to do at least one on
women behaving badly. So this is Ali Bardfield. She's a

(16:58):
thirty four year old former substitute teacher at Hope Academy
in Decatur, Illinois, pleaded who pleaded guilty to predatory criminal
sexual assault involving an eleven year old student she taught.
The abuse occurred during multiple play dates quote unquote, at
Bartfield's home in twenty twenty three and twice in March

(17:20):
of twenty twenty four, when the boy and Bardfield engaged
in sexual encounters. The boy's mother noticed behavioral changes after
the second twenty twenty four visit, and upon checking his phone,
found inappropriate social media messages and up to seven hundred
dollars sent via cash app from Barfield. The woman. This

(17:41):
led her to report the matter to Mount Zion Police
in April of twenty twenty four. During police interviews, Bartfield
admitted to the sexual intercourse, claiming the child initiated advances.
She reached a partial plea deal with prosecutors for the
single count of assault Bartfield a schedule for sentencing on
September twenty twenty five. The child's parents have also foiuled

(18:03):
the lawsuit related to the incidents.

Speaker 2 (18:06):
So, so before anybody says anything about the plea deal,
that's a routine thing that happens with both sexes. But
I want you to understand, and I expect comments from
both feminists and MRAs on this on your star in
I want to say two thousand and nine, her research
found that in the same type of circumstances. So say,

(18:28):
if if you just flipped her to mail, like there
was a gender switch and you could just flip it
and she was Mail and everything else stayed the same,
the plea deal that he would be offered would not
be as favorable to him as the plea deal that
she was offered was likely to her. That is confirmed,

(18:51):
like documented by her research. And there was a second
I want to say her name was Dorner, that that
did similar research and found the same thing. So this
is definitely not going to have the same impact on
her that it would have on a male teacher. If
he did the same thing. But all of that said,

(19:14):
I'm glad that the parents are suing. Like this needs
to happen every single time a student is sexually assaulted.
There needs to be a consequence. Schools have this routine
behavior where when they find out in particular female teacher,
they'll prosecute male teachers. But a female teacher does something

(19:35):
like this and they want to sweep it under the rug,
they'll do it, especially if the student is older, like
high school. This was an elementary school student. Her claim
that the student initiated I'm going to get to that
in a minute. But if the schools get sued every
time this happens, then their insurance companies are going to

(19:56):
start pressuring them to apply more consequences to prosecute when
this happens, and instead of passing the teacher along to
another school teachers that do stuff like this, female teachers
that do stuff like this, besides the fact that they're
just as sick in a head as male teachers who
do something like this get passed from school to school
until they get caught like this by parents, and parents prosecute.

(20:19):
And it's a serious issue because there usually are or
often are a trail of victims behind them. The female
that did it at my school came from another school
and went to another school. She did not get prosecuted
and just like went on to do it again as

(20:44):
far as I know. But in any case, this claim
pedophiles will do this. Oh, the child initiated it. If
you are a reasonable adult and a child comes to
you and initiates something like that, not only should it
be profoundly disturbing that a child as that knowledge and
those impulses toward you, but you should be concerned that

(21:08):
something has already happened to that child that needs to
be rooted out and helped. The child needs to be helped,
and the first thing you should do, the first instinct
you should have, is to protect the child. Alert the
child's caregivers. This child came and said these things to me.

(21:28):
That's very disturbing. Or alert at least your supervisor so
an investigator can come in and determine who did what,
if anything happened, or if the child saw something on
TV or heard something from another kid, or whatever, so
that the child can be protected and helped past this

(21:49):
function that is happening and allowed to progress in his
or her development normally in a healthy manner, as opposed to, Gosh,
this child isv one role here comes. You know, molestation
time like that is the absolute most predatory thing you
can do. So anybody that comes along to defend this woman,

(22:10):
well she you know, this is probably her first defense,
and she's she was groomed by the child or some
stupid bullshit like that. No, only an absolute disgusting predator
would respond to a child engaging in this type of
adult behavior with anything other than concern and being disturbed

(22:36):
and seeking assistance from somebody higher up in helping and
protecting a child. There's something profoundly wrong with someone who
responds by taking advantage of the child's vulnerability. Whatever they
have done, it isn't going to be enough. Whatever the
legal system has done with her isn't going to fix

(23:00):
the problem. More likely than not, she's going to get
a slap on the wrist, and she might do some
lip service of going through a perpetrator program where they
will treat her like a woman instead of a pervert.
And I don't have any faith that this woman is
going to come out of this unlikely to re offend

(23:21):
when she gets back out into the public so that
lawsuit is very important. And like I said, I will
repeat this every time something like this happens. The family
needs to just sue the shit out of everybody that
let it happen.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
All right, might do you have anything to say about
this story?

Speaker 2 (23:40):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (23:41):
I think I've I think I've done this round like
a dozen times already, where this shit keeps happening. So
let's go around again.

Speaker 1 (23:47):
Why not?

Speaker 3 (23:48):
This time we're talking about an eleven year old boy,
So I have to ask how young is too young?
And I'm asking all this psycho chuckle fox out there
who continue to insist that incidents like this can be
laughed off because the boy enjoyed it. I realize most
of the people I'm talking to aren't listening to this

(24:09):
show because you're not in our audience, but you are
just about everywhere else. It's it's one thing that seems
to unite the right and the left, by and large,
they're both saturated with these pedophile apologists who think it's
funny when adult women rape underage boys.

Speaker 2 (24:27):
Mike, Okay, I was just about to type a message
and did I just lose you guys? Because I hear anything.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
I'm here is Mike still here? Did he drop?

Speaker 2 (24:36):
I think he did?

Speaker 3 (24:37):
Hello? Hello, Hello?

Speaker 2 (24:38):
Hello? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (24:38):
Yeah, what happened? Okay? Okay?

Speaker 3 (24:41):
What I What was I up to?

Speaker 1 (24:42):
What did I get? Uh? You were talking about? Chuckle fox.

Speaker 3 (24:45):
One thing that seems to seems to be common in
the right and the left is, by and large, they're
both saturated with pedophile apologists who think it's funny when
adult women rape underage boys because boys always enjoy it.
So what if I gave Heroin to a fourteen year
old boy? He enjoyed it, He loved it. It was the

(25:07):
happiest day of his life. He was bragging to his
friends about how fun it is taking heroin. What's the problem? Okay,
So where is he now? How's his life going a
few years down the line? I don't know. Why does
that matter? I'll tell you. He's on the streets selling
ass for heroin. He wants nothing less than to wear
a little dress. So how was that mine fault? All

(25:30):
I did? All I did was give him what he wanted. Newsflash,
ladies and gentlemen, you're not supposed to give underage people
the darkest excesses of what they want. Not drugs and
not sex, not boys and not girls. Do you think
teenage girls don't enjoy sex, especially with attractive adult men.

(25:51):
Absolutely they do, and absolutely they will brag about it
to their friends. But that doesn't make it okay? Why not?
I don't even need to ask, do I. It doesn't
matter how much she enjoys heroin. If it was given
to her by a teacher, that teacher should be buried
under the fucking jail. Everyone knows this instinctively and logically

(26:13):
when it comes to men taking advantage of girls, but
it falls out of their brain when it comes to
women taking advantage of boys. Why because they see female
sexuality as pure, as a pure and innocent gift, and
they see men's sexuality as a filthy and corrosive blight.
And this includes Trump, by the way, he was posed

(26:35):
to this question recently and he gave the same sick,
psychotic Joe Rogan response, Well, boys enjoy it, so it's fine,
it's funny. The leftist legacy media could have run with
that like they ran with the grabber by the pussy line.
They could have ran every headline as Donald Trump is
a pedophile apologist, and in this case they would actually

(26:56):
have a point because that's exactly what that is, but
they didn't care because they agree they can't find anyone
on their side or on the side of their mortal
enemies who gives the slightest shit about female pedophiles. This
is one of the reasons I can't throw my lot
behind the right or the left, behind traditionalists or feminists,

(27:16):
because they're both just slightly different flavors of miss andrik
dickheads and psychotic beedophile apologists. We have much bigger fish
to fry, much deeper levels of rot to disinfect. And
so I ask again, how young is too young? In
a world where a sixteen year old boy is considered
a nons for fancying a fourteen year old girl, how

(27:37):
young can a boy be before that pedo apologist mechanism
in your brain can switch itself off. Here we have
an eleven year old boy raped by a thirty four
year old woman. Are you still going to stick to
your story? If that eleven year old boy enjoyed the rape,
are you going to brush it off like it's nothing
and laugh about it? And the sick thing is some

(27:58):
of you will, some of you will still be going well.
I mean, if he got an erection. Fuck you, dirty
fucking nuns like you've never heard of a nervous erection,
the first kind of erection boys get when they're anxious
and scared. You're really going to act like that counter's consent?
Are you okay? Then? I ask again, how.

Speaker 1 (28:20):
Young is too young?

Speaker 3 (28:21):
If a one year old boy gets his face shoved
up the festering, cancerous kind of a pedophile rapist, is
that okay? If he enjoys it, does that make it okay?
And I reckon some of you are still gonna say yes,
calling it now. Some of you are actually that sick
because you're that fucking buried in this paradigm of women

(28:41):
can do no wrong to men or boys. I won't
even gain to present the gender swap of that sexual
scenario are just outlined, because to even mention it would
make me sound like a fucking psycho. Well, you people
are fucking psychos. I hope you burn for your sins
in this life the next.

Speaker 1 (29:01):
All right, Well, let us know what you guys think
about this one in the comments. I mean, the only
thing I would add to that is the interesting thing
is the only other time they'll talk about an instead
of rape, that involves this same boy is in the
off chance that because he was raped by this woman,
if he grows up and he does not understand consent

(29:22):
because of this trauma, and so he goes on to
violate someone else's consent at some point in the future,
then all of a sudden that matters, and it'll it
won't be because of this experience with this woman. It'll
be because he's a man, and so that like that's
because like the vacuum, the vacuum of of of sort
of like you know, cycle of trauma ends when a

(29:45):
woman is a perpetrator. So like there was nothing happened
then because he enjoyed it, But then why didn't he
learn what consent was later? Again, this is in the
off chance that becomes an issue. But most people who
don't who are that violate other people's boundaries or consent
are people who have themselves had their boundaries and consent

(30:06):
violated in many many cases as because they don't know
what the consent is because that was what it was
for them, you know. And I think that when you
normalize it by saying he probably enjoyed it, that actually
adds to the confusion of that. So like, yeah, you're
creating rapists by permitting rape essentially, and then you're pretending

(30:27):
like you didn't do that.

Speaker 2 (30:29):
But anyway, she said, yeah, there's actually a whole bunch
of things that happened to boys. Uh, there's there's research
that shows that most and by the way, most victims
of childhood sexual abuse do not go on to become abusers. Yeah, audience, right,

(30:50):
They go on to become poly victims, which is some
of them go on to become sexual poly victims where
they get sexually abused by the next predator in the
next some go on to become poly victims in other
ways where they are their boundaries are no longer solid,
so they get violated in other ways. And among these things,

(31:12):
it becomes easier to talk them into using illicit substances,
and boys in particular have been found to be up
to forty four times more likely to abuse illicit substances
after an incident like this, and it's likely that they're
doing it to try to forget or escape, and sometimes
they don't even know what they're trying to forget or

(31:33):
escape because they are also sixteen times more likely to
sort of rewrite it in their head as they're growing
up as having not happened, or having not having not
been the perpetrator's fault, having been their own fault, or
something they chose to do, and it's something that they
struggle with throughout their lives. And that's one they become

(31:56):
up to fourteen times more likely to commit suicide. So
this is this is a very serious issue. Then the
part of the reason why I went off about it
so much is because of those types of statistics.

Speaker 3 (32:10):
M h.

Speaker 1 (32:11):
Thank you for that. All right, So we're gonna move
on to next one. Let us know you guys think
about this one. I'm gonna read some super chows because
I got some superchows that have come in and if
you guys want to send one again, it's Beth Batchel
dot com Ford slash. Just a tip. I'll be looking
for super chest super chows and rumble rants. Okay, So
I got a couple that came through yesterday that I'm

(32:33):
gonna just read out really quick. So an anonymous person
gave us five dollars, added no messaging to that. Thank
you to whoever that is, appreciate it. And then we
got one from maintaining Frame number one seventy five Cosplayer
molested by handbeasts for five dollars, and they say, I
bet the guy didn't want to breast charges because he
may have felt there was a likelihood of social retaliation

(32:56):
by his female feminist friends who were involved with the
smut can. Yes, of course, he doesn't want to look
like a bad ally, so he just kind of just
became apologetic with it basically, or tried to like downplay it.
But I'm sure it wasn't really pleasant for him. And
then Zara anxious sent us a really big superchow this
might be a long sausage, so for five dollars and says,

(33:20):
look at the following. I was looking for the article
related to the first story mentioned, the one I guess
that we just talked about, but because of how these
things are reported, I couldn't call it rape, and the
AI was using that I was using couldn't find it.
I had to say the twenty one year old woman
had sex with an eleven year old boy she was babysitting.

(33:41):
What the hell? A twenty one year old babysitter, Megan
Nicole Hayes, was accused of having sex when eleven year
old boy she was babysitting in Cocoa, Florida. Hayes admitted
to having intercourse with the child, and investigators reported that
she told another person about the incident, who then notified
the victim's parents. She was charged with sexual battery on
a child under twelve and release on thirty five thousand

(34:04):
dollars bail, though authorities expressed concern that she might have
had other victims. Her father claims she had low IQ
and did not understand right from wrong, but police stated
they believed she was aware of her actions. In a
separate case, a twenty year old babysitter, Jade Hat, admitted
to sexual activity an eleven year old boy she was
caring for in the UK in twenty fourteen. The judge

(34:24):
in that case, Tim Mouseley, QC, gave her a six
month jail sentence suspended for two years, citing her immaturity
and the boys perceived maturity as reasons to deviate from
sentencing guidelines. Hyatt was also required to register as a
sex offender for seven years and was subject to a
sexual harm prevention order. The decision grew criticism or drew
criticism for downplaying the severity of the crime and implying

(34:47):
the victims shared responsibility. These cases highlight the serious nature
of sexual abuse involving miners, particularly when the perpetrator is
in a position of trust, such as a babysitter. Child.
Sexual abuse can have long lasting psychological effects on victims,
and such incidents often prompt public and legal sudany over
how justice is administered. So Zarians is basically confirming that

(35:07):
AI doesn't. It's a language model, so it's just modeling
the way people talk about these things all the time.
And that's true.

Speaker 2 (35:14):
Like this is basically to search for a story with
rape in the headline, it won't find a.

Speaker 1 (35:21):
Story because they don't worry at that.

Speaker 2 (35:23):
Rape in the headline, just the same as Google search
engine or any other search engine. It doesn't interpret. But
the big issue there is that the people that wrote
these news stories did not use the word rape to
describe what this woman or these women did to these children.
And it's again, this is a regular social attitude. This

(35:43):
is a standard social attitude, and I pointed this out
on X. But for people that are listening on platforms
where they can't see our chat that if it scrolls
up in the screen, because we had we had a
commentary that said we all want a world world that
is safe for children. Everyone agrees, and the problem is
everyone does not agree. Mike's rant pointed that out, and

(36:07):
I've had extensive arguments on x both with feminists who
claim that it's just not the same and it's not
a big deal when it happens to boys, and women
who are prosecuted for it are victims, and so on,
even when the boy is as young as eleven years old.
And by the way, the United States has imposed child

(36:28):
support obligation on boys as young as eleven years old
to pay child support to their rapist who is a
pedophile and has custody of a child conceived by raping
a child. That has occurred in the United States, and
it's been more than once, and there have been multiple

(36:50):
cases where women have committed rape and it's been confirmed
that it was rape and not consensual sex, and they
retain custody of a child conceived by that rape, and
the father, who is a rape victim is forced to
pay child support to his rapist. Right, So that's one thing.

(37:12):
But the other thing I pointed out is that there
are a lot of a lot of guys out there
who have this mistaken idea that this is fun. That's
obviously never happened to them, because if it had, they
would know better, all right, And I pointed out some
of the statistics and my comments there that I mentioned
on the show. But this is that this is a

(37:34):
subject that people are very ignorant on and very uncomfortable
admitting is as serious as when it happens to little girls.
Like nobody would suggest that a rapist who molested a
little girl and got her pregnant should get custody of
the child, and that she should be forced to pay
support or should get visitation or anything like that, but

(37:56):
it is routinely done when a boy is the victim.
And these problems. People don't like to talk about these problems,
but these problems affect real existing children, and they are
just as harmful as any other exploitation of a child,

(38:17):
whether that child is a boy or a girl. And
these perpetrators like you can't imagine how tricky and sneaky
and like this woman when she got her picture taken,
she's she tried very hard to keep her face neutral.
You can see that she tried very hard to keep

(38:38):
her face neutral, and you can barely tell that the
smirk she's holding is there. It's just barely present. You'll
see it, I think on the left side of your screen.
It's the right side of her face, the right side
of her mouth, and the tension in the cheek muscle
on the right side of her face that's not relaxed.

(39:00):
She knew she was going to get away with this
for the most part, Like the moment that she was caught,
she probably knew there were going to be consequences. But
it's I don't believe that she didn't understand what she did.
And I will point out one more thing, like because
he talked about UK cases, in US cases, the United

(39:22):
States has executed intellectually disabled men where their crimes weren't rape.
There were other things they might have excluded rape.

Speaker 3 (39:34):
But.

Speaker 2 (39:36):
They've executed intellectually disabled men for crimes that they've committed
in the past. And there have been intellectually disabled men
who have been put in jail for their whole lives
on allegations of sex crimes. So the idea that a
woman should get a pass because she has lower maturity

(39:58):
or some degree of intellect disability, uh uh. There's and
her parents coming in and saying that her dad coming
in and saying that you let her take a babysitting job.
If you're now arguing that she shouldn't have been in
there doing that and she wasn't mature enough, you should
be prosecuted for letting her take that job.

Speaker 1 (40:19):
All right, thank you for that, really big super child,
Ren Sanks appreciate it. And then he sent another super
chat for ten dollars and said, regarding the first case
with Megan Hayes, what I remember reading is the father
was involved with Megan Hayes, and the judge in the
case reduced her maturity to fifteen and raised the boys

(40:39):
to match. The father of the boy was involved with Hayes.
I mean, okay. And then thank you for those super chants.
And then I got one from a rumble rant from
the Fishcott nukes On Rumble and he says Matt from
church self deleted last week. That's suicide. Pray for Matt
depression and could not find a marriageable woman. Really good guy,

(41:00):
It's a stupefying waste if you ask me, well, that
is a shame. I'm sorry that happened. Yeah, and then
Mariath she gives us five dollars and says HBr News
five to twenty Honey from the Badgers from my lovely
vacation location. All right, thanks for joining us on your vacation.
Appreciate that. I know that's like you just want to
like get away from everything, right, I know I do sometimes.

(41:20):
All right.

Speaker 3 (41:21):
Way, I'm sort of in my vacation home the moment. Yeah,
guess that's what the budget cave is.

Speaker 1 (41:26):
In a way, there's probably a lot of mistake come
away from home. It is. It is a home away
from home. The tits cake gets you there, all right.
But anyway, let's what you guys think about this one
in the comments. We got to move on to the
next story. Yeah, like I said, this is probably gonna
be a long sausage, so ah okay. In a recent
executive order signed on September twenty second, twenty twenty five,

(41:49):
President Donald Trump formally designated Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization,
fulfilling a long standing promise to crack down on what
he describes as a radical left wing or as radical
left wing violence. The order characterizes ANTIFA as a militarist
anarchist enterprise that explicitly advocates for the overthrow of the

(42:09):
US government, law enforcement and societal structures. This move comes
amid heightened tensions following events such as the assassination of
conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which the administration attributes to leftist
extremism because it was and I could prove that, and
there's basically plenty of receipts that demonstrate that. Antifa, however,
is not a centralized group but a decentralized movement opposing fascism,

(42:34):
supposedly making the designation controversial and raising questions about its
enforceability under US law, which traditionally applies terrorist labels to
foreign entities. Steps outlined in the executive Order include directing
federal agencies to prioritize investigations and prosecutions related to ANTIFA
linked activities, potentially aligned for enhanced surveillance, asset freezes, and

(42:56):
restrictions on associated individuals or networks, to be looking at
who is it that is paying these groups, And they're
going to be looking at education as well, because a
lot of the radicalization occurs online obviously in various like
online places like Reddit, but also in schools. We don't

(43:16):
know like how effective this is going to be, but
there are people who are concerned about free speech, supposedly.
The critics from civil liberties organizations worn it could broadly
suppress dissent and peaceful protests. Legal experts note the order's
impact may be limited due to Antifa's informal structure, and
it could face court challenges, but it signals a broader
push to combat perceived domestic threats from anarchist groups. And

(43:40):
I just want to add a couple of things to
this before you guys say your piece. One is that
Andy no who has done a lot of coverage on Antifa.
He has a book called Antifa Unmassed where he's done
a lot of research into this stuff, said in a
video that in Trump's first term he said he did
mention going after Antifa, but he didn't do any It

(44:02):
was more of a sentiment that he was expressing at
that time. This time, though, there appears that between him
and Mike Miller, I believe is are Stephen Miller, Steven Miller,
they are actually going to be looking at where Antifa
gets its money from however way they can do that,
and that's going to be where the vehicle through which
they're going to be approaching this. And Andy Nos says

(44:22):
that there's a lot more potential to at least like
limit antifa's reach and prevent them from acting out. But
there are it's it is true that it's not really one,
you know, like centralized group. It's more like a bunch
of radicalized students that are scattered all over the place,
and not just the United States, because Antifa originated from
Europe and there's plenty of them over there as well.

(44:44):
And the other thing I was going to say about
this is that the you know what, I can't remember
what I was going to say, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (44:52):
And take issue with the claim that Antifa is not organized, right, noral,
not central Well that at Antifa's not I'm going to
take issue with that claim. And here's why. You can't
be organized without having some centralized structure. You can't be
that organized without having some sort of centralized structure. And

(45:14):
by that organized, I'm talking about the fact that every
time Black Lives Matter had a protest, Antifa showed up
and there were piles of bricks and cement ready for
them to use every single time, that every time there

(45:35):
needed to be some sort of counter attack against the
United States for something that Trump did or something that
happened that could be used against Trump or that could
be used against conservatives or so on, that Antifa was
able to bring in hundreds of people from all over
the country on transportation that was expensive buses and so

(45:59):
on charge by the way, not like informal everybody buys
their own bus ticket and gets there. There is no
truth to the claim that Antifa is not a centralized
group but a decentralized movement. And I believe that the
surveillance and investigation that takes place is going to prove

(46:20):
that that there is a higher up funding organization that
is pretty much calling the shots by manipulating some probably
very dumb people or very ideologically driven people.

Speaker 1 (46:34):
And Stephen Miller is going to follow the money. I
think that was his y. That was what he kind
of said in so many words.

Speaker 2 (46:40):
Once they follow the money and the communication networks, there's
going to be no doubt that Antifa is an organization.

Speaker 1 (46:49):
NGOs are involved for sure.

Speaker 2 (46:51):
Right And so that's the first thing. Second thing is
this goes right along with everything I've said in the
past about when you when you use an ideological drive
claims that a group of people are murderous and evil
and that they're going to uh create an unlivable world,

(47:14):
when in fact they haven't killed anybody and nobody has
suffered any harm as a result of their actions. You
create a circumstance where and a number of young men
are going to be feel obligated, by their upbringing, by
their social situations, by their belief systems, their codes of ethics,

(47:36):
to join whatever army you are creating to fight this,
this ideological opponent that you have made up in place
of the people that actually exist, and they're going to
engage in in crimes and violence that is going to
come back on them. They're going to get arrested, They're
going to get injured. When people defend themselves. They might

(47:57):
get shot and killed when somebody defends their life, or
their property or their family. This this, this is actually
an exploitation of young college aged men on a grand
scale as political canon fodder. And many of them have
been so indoctrinated and so manipulated, and probably many of

(48:20):
them have been so drugged over the years by by
their own schools common tendency in the United States to
over drug boys in particular, that you know their their
agency in this is is reduced, it's not eliminated. They
still know right from wrong. You still know that if

(48:41):
somebody didn't do anything to you directly and you attack them,
you're in wrong, but it does make it more likely
for them to do the mental gymnastics that that and
Antifa and their associates do that convinced them that it's
okay for them to engage in violence against nonviolent people.

(49:05):
And then you also have the other side of that,
where young men whose neighborhoods are being attacked and whose
families are in danger, or whose family businesses might be
in danger, whose friends are in danger, and so on,
might feel obligated by their social upbringing and their family upbringing,

(49:25):
their moral code, and so on to fight back and
defend against this, and they may be wounded, they may
go through what Kyle Rittenhouse went through where he had
the whole legal ordeal after defending himself against three attackers
who were using deadly force. And this is all pitting
young men against young men for politics. And when I

(49:50):
said in the past that the United States is in
the middle of a civil war, it just doesn't look
like civil wars from history. This is what I'm talking about.
Neighborhoods have been burned down, people have died. People have
been held accountable and other people have gotten away with
their actions. Some people have been held accountable for things

(50:12):
that they didn't do wrong. So this is overall, women
who are involved in this, women who are pro one
side or the other, are doing nothing to cool it down,
nothing to put the brakes on the violence, nothing to
protect their young men from getting involved in this, and

(50:33):
now we're having to see government action to do it.
It's a sad thing for a group like this to
have to be designated as a terrorist group in order
for the government to put a stop to violence. That
these young men's sisters and mothers, girlfriends and wives, if

(50:57):
they have them, friends, class mates, colleagues should all be
trying to rein in instead of encouraging and a women
that are involved. The women that are engaging in violence
themselves are not facing the same consequences. They're not in
the same level of danger, they're not getting the same

(51:20):
level of pushback, and they're getting bailed out when they
get arrested. So it's it's really mostly about the men.
And unfortunately, you know it's this is a situation where
once again women have left the government to do a
women's job because they're not doing it.

Speaker 1 (51:42):
All right, A mike, do you want to say anything
about this?

Speaker 3 (51:45):
Yeah, I'm gonna gonna reiterate a lot of those points.
The two most popular defenses I hear against proscribing antifa
as a terrorist organization are, well, it's not an organization.
It doesn't have leaders or centralization or conferences or whatnot.
You can't possibly point to it as an entity. And two,

(52:05):
it's literally just anti fascism. Bro, It's just a general
declaration of the rejection of fascism. Bro. Shouldn't everyone be
anti fascist? Aren't you anti fascist?

Speaker 2 (52:17):
Bro?

Speaker 3 (52:18):
If not, doesn't that make you pro fascist? I'm not
sure why the following question needs to be asked, given
how obvious it seems, But where exactly is this fascism?
Can you point to it? This fascism? Who are its leaders?
Where are its conferences? Exactly? Well, duh, Its leaders are

(52:39):
Donald Trump and Jadie Vance and Elon Musk and that
podcaster with the small face who just got murdered by
someone who had absolutely nothing to do with us. Well,
hold on, you seem to be talking about the Republican
Party and its most prominent supporters. They don't call themselves fascist.
Of course they don't, but they clearly are. Ah, just

(53:00):
because they don't call themselves fascist doesn't mean they're not.
I am not a fascist. It's exactly what a fascist
would say. Okay, you've already made a mistake there. I
don't know if you spotted it. But moreover, isn't antifa
a communist entity? No, it's just anti fascist. It's in
the name. Can't you read? All right? Interesting? Just out

(53:23):
of interest, my dear average card carrying, flag waving, actively
campaigning member of Antifa, per chance, are you a communist? Why? Yes,
I am. I am a communist, and so is my wife,
and so is my wife's boyfriend. What's wrong with that?
Real communism has never been tried. There certainly knows this

(53:44):
thing as communist terrorism, and if there was, it certainly
would not manifest in the form of hired rentor mobs
violently attacking any smattering of people whose priorities do not
align with our miss andrik icophobic, heterophobic, a gena that
I positively do not know what you're talking about. And
I will cave in your skull with a bike clock

(54:05):
if you don't shut the fuck up, all right, well,
just don't do any terrorism. Yeah, can you handle that.
I know it's difficult for you, because that's all Antifer
has ever done. You turn up at other people's peaceful
protests and you terrorize them, and you get away with
it because you're communists, and so are the police, at

(54:27):
least in Europe. You've got away with it in the
US for so long because no matter how heinous your
terror crimes are, there's always someone to bail you out
of jail, be it George Soros or Kamala Harris, and
they're associated coffers of taxpayer money. Well, hopefully they can't
do that anymore because that would officially be aiding and

(54:48):
abetting a terrorist organization, but they'll probably find a loophole anyway.
So pardon my gollbladder if I refuse to cry you
a river. You know, after a dozen years of hearing
you fuckers chanting men's rights advocates have been declared a
hate group by the most illustrious and trustworthy Southern Poverty
Law Center. So you deserve the cancelations and the blacklists

(55:11):
and the bomb threats. Even though advocating for men's human
rights is not an organization, It's literally just a fucking verb.
I'm going to enjoy reminding you that your terrorist group
has been declared a terrorist group by the US government
while you cope and see the insist that the US
government is not a reliable good faith actor like the

(55:33):
fucking splcs. Eat my balls on rye bread with horseradish,
you bunch of dysgenic mutants.

Speaker 1 (55:43):
Now do BLM.

Speaker 3 (55:45):
I'm serious that they haven't done a terrorism since five
years ago, but I was a pretty fucking big terrorism
they did internationally with total impunity, despite the lockdowns, and
with the unconditional blessing of the mainstream media. I for one,
do not want that to happen again. If declaring BLM
a terrorist organization is what it takes for the police

(56:07):
to start doing their fucking jobs and for the courts
to start doing their fucking jobs, so be it.

Speaker 1 (56:15):
Do it.

Speaker 2 (56:15):
Do it.

Speaker 3 (56:17):
Drag those violent retards into an underground torture garden and
lynch the bustards. I said what I said. They're going
to accuse us of that kind of ruthless authoritarianism anyway,
even when we're in fact treating them with six layers
of kid gloves, So we might as well fucking do it.
Let's become the ball busting knocks. They want us to

(56:40):
be layers, vault get in the back of the van,
you muppet in Charah and so on.

Speaker 1 (56:48):
Yeah, I don't have a problem with any of that.
Notice that you mentioned the SPLC. I was gonna mention them.
These these groups that supposedly, like you know, identify and
catalog and sort of keep trying of all of the
hate groups in the United States and elsewhere, they don't
see they don't usually list Antifa. That's why they say,

(57:10):
you know, all most of the hate crimes are done
from the right. But that's because the way these people
measure things. Catholics are far right, Paul Elam is far right.
He made the list of the the ADL, Citizens United,
the SPLC, and so on, So why wouldn't it be
the case? What like they're obviously the ADL says Antifa
doesn't real, So clearly they couldn't possibly be a real organization.

(57:34):
This is why we don't We can't rely on these
people because they don't do it. They're they're they're captured
or they are in charge of maintaining this like overall
narrative of what we how we define extremism. Who engages
in it, who doesn't what counts as an organization and
so on, and the ADL is one of the worst

(57:55):
about that. So yeah, they're the ones that called like
what is it called like males premises, But there's nothing
for Antifa or BLM for that matter, because those those
kinds of terrorisms are useful terrorisms because they're uppunching terrorisms.
I guess. So that means that we got to take
you know, we got to take things into our own
hands to some degree, and I hope that that continues.

(58:17):
In fact, I don't know how you start something like
in ADL, but I would like to start one that's
actually like that actually tracks this kind of thing and
doesn't do so along ideological lines. By the way, just
as an aside, has anyone ever heard of hola demor denial?
I don't think that's a thing. Why isn't it a thing?

(58:37):
I feel like it should be a thing. But anyway,
let us know what you guys think about Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (58:42):
I would say it is fair to call the SPLC
a terrorist communication hub, given the fact that they they're
naming of specific groups and shaming of specific groups has
led to violent attacked against those groups. Yes, that's all

(59:03):
I just wanted. That's all I wanted to add.

Speaker 1 (59:05):
Yes, all right, so but anyway, just something to think
about if you guys know a way to start your
own SPLC. But you know that's actually like doing the
real work. Maybe let us know in the comments. I
think it's something worth looking into. We're gonna move on
to the next one and let us know you guys
thinking about this one in the comments. In related news,
this is sort of like bringing together the last two stories,

(59:25):
the Antifa political violence story which is sort of like
what brought it on and the teachers abusing their student story.
So a Toronto based Canadian teacher has been placed on
suspension suspension not fired, okay, after showing the death of
Charlie Kirk multiple times to students as young as ten

(59:48):
years old. The teacher, who was not a school regular
and was there only to supervise a French immersion class.
I'm sure that was French immersion like the French Revolution,
played the video repeatedly and gave a speech to the
students regarding anti fascism, anti trands and how Charlie Kirk
deserved this, for his deserve for this to occur According

(01:00:10):
to a source, several students from his class went home
and complained to their parents, traumatized at witnessing the on
camera death on repeat by the way, which they were
forced to witness numerous times over. After parents reached out
to school administrators, the announcement was made that the teacher
would be immediately suspended with pay. In a letter to parents,

(01:00:33):
Corvette Junior Public School principle Jennifer Copty wrote the following.
During class, students were said to have been shown a
portion of a violent video in response to questions being
asked about a recent tragic event in the United States.
While an investigation must still be conducted to learn all
of the details, the report of this incident is extremely
troubling and completely unacceptable. We recognize the seriousness of this

(01:00:57):
matter and have taken immediate steps to follow all appropriate
policies and procedures. The teacher has been relieved of all
teaching responsibilities pending the outcome of the investigation, and will
not be at the school. Assistance is being offered to
any children traumatized by the incident. I also want to
assure you that our top priority is supporting students. Social

(01:01:17):
work support has been made available at the school or
to the school rather, social work support has been made
available to the school. I will be visiting the class
along with a member of our social work team to
check in with students and provide support.

Speaker 3 (01:01:33):
I want to check this bitch is hot drive as well.

Speaker 1 (01:01:36):
Yeah, it was a male teacher, just as an aside,
but definitely fucked in the head. So anyway, that.

Speaker 2 (01:01:44):
Also doesn't stop him from being a bitch, right.

Speaker 1 (01:01:47):
No, for sure, absolutely, Okay, that's anyway, that's the summary
that is fucked up. Okay, Like if anyone saw the
unedited footage, the unedited footage of Charlie Kirk getting shop
in the neck up close, I mean, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:02:02):
I actually had some bitch on x posted to my
feet and a conversation multiple times like.

Speaker 1 (01:02:11):
She was arguing in favor of that.

Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
Or no, she was arguing about something else. And when
she got mad because the people in the thread that
were on my side of the argument all trumped every
single one of her arguments, she started doing that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:26):
Yeah. Well, anyway, anybody have any thoughts on the teacher
making their students?

Speaker 2 (01:02:30):
Yeah, go ahead, Okay, so it's gonna be kind of
a roundabout thing, right, But jen X ers. You remember
what RoboCop three parodied. What the sarcasm in RoboCop three
was about the extended amount of violence, like gratuitous, ridiculous
levels of gun violence and so on in that movie.

(01:02:52):
Why that was done?

Speaker 1 (01:02:55):
No, I never saw RoboCop three. That's the one with
the little with the child sidekick and the jet hack.
So I was like, na, child's side kick come out.

Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
So there was there was this push right, there was
this objection in in Hollywood. And I want to say
it was RoboCop three, It might be, it might have
been two. But there was this big, I don't even
want to say controversy. There's a big panic over violence
in movies that were targeted toward young adult and teenage audiences.

(01:03:23):
And the idea and this this this has been a
long time existing claim that has been debunked over and
over again, but it's been made by people who uh
are are similar to this, this individual, this teacher, and
wanted to control what kids could see on TV, what

(01:03:44):
parents could allow their kids to watch, and so on,
that if you see violence, you will be violent. If
you hear say rape jokes, you will decide even though
the rapist is being made fun of you'll decide that
that's normal, acceptable behavior, because we always make fun of normal,

(01:04:05):
acceptable behavior. That's that's how we deem it normal and acceptable,
as we ridicule the shit out of it, right, Like,
that's that's what we do. Don't don't pretend that you know,
people dislike behavior that they're ridiculing. And and of course
anything that's portrayed on TV must be the same as
real life, and therefore everybody should engage in it, even

(01:04:25):
when the bad guys are the ones doing it. That's
that's clearly the way that it's looked looked at, right,
And then along comes this this teacher who decides to
play a live action, real news story, real video of

(01:04:46):
a real person being assassinated using a gun to a
group of students whose political views that that teacher doesn't know,
whose future such your attitudes, that teacher doesn't know, like
either seeing violence normalizes violence all the time or desensitizes

(01:05:12):
students to violence all the time so that they'll engage
in it, or it doesn't, right, It can't be that
it does when you don't like what they're seeing, but
it doesn't when you want to show them something that's
a bullshit kind of attitude to have. Of course, the
students were traumatized, and of course this is going to

(01:05:32):
affect the way that they look at politics and violence
and people because they're at an incredibly impressionable age. Everybody
that I know has seen a movie they shouldn't have
seen when they were a kid, and it gave them nightmares,
and some of us developed phobias from them. I have
an issue with porcelain dolls because of Barbarella. Actually, long story,

(01:05:58):
but I don't porcelain dolls. I will never like porcelain dolls,
and it is because I saw a scene in a
movie when I was a little kid, and it created
an impression that I can't get rid of. This is
in a movie. These kids know this really happened to
a real person. They know a human being experience this.

(01:06:20):
Some ten year olds don't even have an understanding of
their own mortality. Some ten year olds in that classroom
developed an understanding about death from that video, and they
may spend their whole life fearing it, even though it's
inevitable it's going to happen to them at some point

(01:06:42):
in their lives because this teacher did that to them.
People will tell you The worst thing that can happen
to you is being raped. This teacher raped those students' minds.
They will never get that image out of their heads.
They will never get that moment out of their heads.
There is not a level of therapy that will make
them unsee that and unexperienced that moment.

Speaker 1 (01:07:05):
He didn't just show them the video. Remember, he used
it as an opportunity to educate them on anti fascism
and others. So well, I'm just saying he didn't just yeah,
he tried to radical.

Speaker 3 (01:07:17):
I get it.

Speaker 2 (01:07:18):
Yeah, he did try to radicalize them. Yes, like that,
that adds to it, all right, that's an extenuating like
this makes it even worse. But just the fact of
showing that, you don't show ten year old gore. There's
a lot of gen xers that were traumatized by God.
I can't think of his name. That the hey Man,

(01:07:40):
nice shot guy, the guy that song was was inspired
by that. Damn it. Why can't I think of his name.

Speaker 3 (01:07:47):
You have to be careful playing Bambi to a child
because you can can get traumatized by saying a cartoon
did get killed off screen.

Speaker 2 (01:07:57):
Yeah, but this was this was a hell of a thing.
There was a there was a guy that committed suicide
on on the six o'clock news. Back in the day
when after dinner the whole family would go into the
living room and watch TV and the the six o'clock
news was on like that was that was what was
was on TV was being watched. And there were there

(01:08:18):
were kids that saw that. There were kids that saw
the incident. I was one of the kids that saw
the incident where uh it was supposed to just be
a cute filler story, right, and there was this there
for for uh jumping out of an airplane with a parachute,
that that was teaching a student to uh use use

(01:08:42):
his parachute, and so they jumped together. So the student
is protected by the teacher. In case the student doesn't
parachute correctly, the teacher is able to protect the student.
Right the news cameraman, there we go, Emery, I think
that's Callum got it right. It's Bud Dwyer. Don't look

(01:09:03):
that up. By the way, it is a horribly gory video.
If you if you have if your stomach has any humanity,
you'll throw up when you see it. But in any case,
this this other video, it goes along for a while
and you're watching and the student and the teacher are
doing what they're supposed to do, and then they both
shoot and and their shoots go up correctly, and all

(01:09:26):
of a sudden, you hear this from the from the cameraman,
you hear no, and it was just this fatalistic oh no,
And that's when you realize he didn't pack a shoot.
And then the camera just looks down at the ground
and and it fades out like it it immediately they
cut from it because they knew the cameraman hadn't packed

(01:09:47):
a shoot, and that was that was another gen X
trauma where you know, you saw, you didn't even have
to know or you didn't even have to see what
happened to the guy. You didn't have to see the death.
You just knew. And there was the explosion of the
Challenger that was played in classrooms across the country. Students

(01:10:08):
had to get therapy because of that. And again there
was an explosion. You didn't see the death, There wasn't
visible gore, and students were traumatized. There were students traumatized
for life by that. And this is going to be
this generation's moment. This is not the only teacher that
got in trouble for this. So I've seen stories about

(01:10:32):
other teachers or discussions about other teachers, and this was
all over social media, and kids were exposed to it
on social media, and it's just one of those situations
where you know, parents should be reminded your kids shouldn't
be on social media unsupervised because of things like this.

(01:10:52):
But what this teacher has done to these students is
at least as bad as what happened to every kid
that saw the Bud Dwyer suicide, Worse than the experiences
of the kids that saw those other two incidents I described,
Worse than the experiences of the kids who did understand

(01:11:13):
what was going on when they saw the explosions and
the towers falling on nine to eleven and their parents
getting upset and not understanding what was going on because
this was this was gore in their classroom, And then
he tried to indoctrinate them on top of that, like
this person should have not just the book, but the
whole fucking library thrown at him. And these poor kids,

(01:11:37):
they're gonna need years of therapy for this.

Speaker 1 (01:11:39):
Well, he was suspended, so take that. I hope you
learned your lesson.

Speaker 3 (01:11:45):
Okay, Mike, I'm fucking fucking woodchip. What this is?

Speaker 2 (01:11:48):
Why to see the shit out of them again?

Speaker 3 (01:11:52):
I suppose this isn't as bad as physically raping the
kids or physically killing them, but it's still it's one
leg in the wood chip, just just the right in
the wood chipper, and then when it gets up to
the pelvis, you pull them out. You don't even turn
the word chipper off. Just when it gets to the pelvis,
you play tugawar with the woodchipper, and you see if
you can pull them out, that'll do. I don't have

(01:12:12):
much of a rent for this. I'm gonna save it
for the next story, because yeah, I'm gonna I'm going
to combine my mega rent with this story in the
next because they are connected and in the interesting of times,
let's move let's move on.

Speaker 1 (01:12:26):
Okay, thank you. I got a super chat from Albatross
for five dollars and he says, when was the last
time activists were as dogged about someone like they are
with Kirk. They're seriously singing their teeth into this one. Well,
every every tragedy is an opportunity if you are the

(01:12:46):
right kind of shithead. So unfortunately, that's what this is
all about. And and also this was in a lot
of ways, it's it's a very big pr campaign to
try to alter the optics. Remember when this initially happened,
the guy who did this was a MAGA guy apparently,
or first it was we don't know, and then it was, oh,

(01:13:09):
he's a MEGA guy, and then it was you know,
I don't know. Like that A lot of people are
still running with that, and because it's all about like,
how is it seen? Not necessarily how bad is this tragedy?
So and I think it's important because it does tell
you a lot about who you are dealing with, and
it's really important that we know that. But anyway, moving

(01:13:29):
on to the next story. All right, So, in a
stunning move, ABC announced the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel
Live on September seventeenth, following host Jimmy Kimmel's controversial monologue
about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, where he
made remarks criticizing former President Trump and Mega supporting supporters' responses.

(01:13:52):
That decision made by Disney executives during including CEO Bob
Eiger came amid intense backlash from conservatives, who accused kl
of insensitivity during a national crisis, also lying about what
the identity and the motives of the shooter because Kimmel
said it was one of their one of their own
that did this. FCC chair Brendan Carr and major affiliates

(01:14:16):
like Sinclair and Nextstar threatened to pull the show from
their stations. Activists on the right celebrated the move as
a victory against woke Hollywood bias, while media outlets framed
it as a free speech flashpoint, without lets like The
New York Times and PBS attempting to highlight the political
pressures involved. Just kidding, though after widespread outcry, they brought

(01:14:38):
them back so reverse course and I think that was
announce today and announced that the shows will return to
air on Tuesday, September twenty fourth, Wednesday tomorrow, basically, though
some Sinclair stations may continue to withhold it. This has
been a very brief suspension and I wanted to say
the reasoning behind this though there it appears that I

(01:15:00):
don't know if you guys know, but when, because this
was so short, like it just they put him back
on the air. He's going to be back on like
tonight or tomorrow. So this isn't like hardly anything. But
what I think is funny about it is that when
it happened, when he was getting canceled, and I talked
about this on my on my weekend show on my
own channel, Honey Badger Arcade, I do a weekly culture
show there, and at that time we knew that Kimmel

(01:15:22):
was suspended, but we weren't. We didn't know he was
going to be back. The way it was being framed
online by leftists was and I'm just gonna say leftists
for the sake of simplicity, because I don't want to
get into like all of the nuance there. It doesn't
really matter. Their claim was this is an attack on
free speech. He got fired, he was pressured to get fired,
et cetera. And I knew because I had looked into it,
that number one, he wasn't being fired, the show was

(01:15:43):
being suspended, and number two, it wasn't because of you know,
like Trump pro censorship or anything like that. It was actually,
this is one thing that people did not seem to know.
I think you guys probably do know this. The ratings
were in the toilet. So, like, you had a show
that nobody would I think the average views on it
were like one hundred and twenty thousand people on average.

(01:16:05):
We're watching this for a television show. That's awful. Like
there are posts of corn dogs on X that have
more views than this show. Okay. And and there's a
person who actually posted a corn dog and said, let's
see we can get more views on this than Jimmy Kimmel.
So the network saw a show that was failing and

(01:16:26):
they were like, they were looking for a reason to
pull it, but they didn't want to do it because
they they thought, you know, like they had to appeal
to their base. Okay. And then when it came that
Jimmy Kimmel lied about the shooter and was like, you know,
because he said things about the shooting that just weren't true,
then the network, the FCC was telling them, you know,

(01:16:48):
you guys got to fix this. And the network saw
an opportunity to get rid of Jimmy Kimmel without making
it look like they did it, but rather they could
blame the pressures from you know, the FCC to do it.
But the truth is, as the show was failing, just
like Stephen Colbert's show, just like Seth Meyers's show. I
think Seth Meyers show is doing the worst all of them.
Jimmy Kimmel, they're all They're all shit, John Oliver, none

(01:17:10):
of nobody watches them. Okay, Samantha Bee, I don't even
think she has a show anymore. They saw now his
opportunity to get rid of him, and then it also.

Speaker 4 (01:17:19):
Makes yeah, they saw an opportunity to get rid of
a guy that wasn't really good for them without but
also look like the good guys because they could.

Speaker 1 (01:17:29):
Say, well, you know, censorshit. But it turned out that
it was probably taken down because he wasn't really pulling
in any numbers at all, and there was also some
They've done some interviews with Letterman and Leno asking them
about this, and I think that they kind of co
signed on, like like nobody was watching their shit anymore,
because these guys Letterman and Leno were kind of legends

(01:17:49):
of you know, late show television. And the reason why
they came back though I don't think it's because of
the right either. I don't think it's I think actually
is because when they took down a bunch of leftists
that watched Jimmy Kimmel, and a lot of leftists in Hollywood,
we're all like, I stand with Jimmy Kimmel. We are
all Jimmy. They were literally trying to compare themselves to
Charlie Kirk. You know, we are all Jimmy Kimmel and

(01:18:11):
all this right, And but then like the ABC studios
were attacked by what I guess are our leftist activists
that didn't that didn't like ABC bending the knee to
pressures from the FCC, which of course wasn't true because
it was it was because of the ratings. So they
like did a drive by on ABC shoot at studios,

(01:18:31):
and I was gonna make that a story, but we're
just so overwhelmed with stories. I thought I would mention
that in this story because they're related. So there was
a drive by done in the studios, and so out
of fear, they decided to bring him back on the air.
So they're putting Jimmy k this is what they're claiming.
Who knows what the real reasoning is, but I'm trying
to paint the picture here. So Jimmy Kimmel's back on

(01:18:54):
the air for all whatever. Two hundred people that are
gonna watch, and I think that they were pressured by
terrorists in their own camp potentially. And so yeah, he's
back on the air, and basically his censorship and all
of this shit around it, all of this victimizing that
they were doing around censorship and the oppressive regime, it
amounts to nothing because he got to come back, and

(01:19:16):
the one thing that actually put him back on the
air was probably fear of their own people, probably, you know.
So anyway, Yeah, that's basically what I wanted to add
to that before you guys take over.

Speaker 3 (01:19:26):
So yeah, I've been trying to write something about this
for the past few days, and I keep having to
update it because it's gone from Kimmel's been canceled to
Kimmel's been uncanceled to Kimmel's maybe been recanceled by Sinclair,
but apparently not to God knows where we go from.
If I've learned anything, it's not to jump to conclusions.
Lets you be subject to the narrative whiplash that happens

(01:19:49):
whenever any degree of accountability is tentatively applied to the
to the mainstream quote unquote left. So I'm gonna try
and approach this generally as I can, and I know
I keep asking this question in various iterations, but I'll
ask it again. When has it gone too far? Ladies
and gentlemen. That is not a rhetorical question. It's an

(01:20:11):
important inquisitive question that is not asked enough, never mind
answered enough. If we want to avoid extremism, and broadly speaking,
we do, then the very least we can do is
draw a line somewhere, whatever the subject may be. What
should be the maximum speed limit seven miles an hour fine?

(01:20:35):
What should be the age of adulthood eighteen years fine?
Which recreational drugs should be legal? Nicotine, caffeine and alcohol
and cannabis? If you're lucky, fine. These lines are drawn arbitrarily,
but it's important that we at least draw the lines somewhere,
and then we can go on to argue amongst ourselves

(01:20:56):
if the line should be pushed forwards or backwards. That's
what laws are full. But it's not just a legal matter.
Private companies and private property owners can draw their own
lines regarding anything not covered by the law. If a
company wants to sack you for saying men are men

(01:21:16):
and women are women, sure they can do that, and
anyone who doesn't approve has every right to express their
disapproval that people being fired for telling the truth, the
obvious truth, and I mean the most obvious truth to
which any logic can be concentrated. X does in fact
equal X, and why it does in fact equal why?

(01:21:38):
But Okay, if you disagree, you are free to do
so and see how far you get in life. Similarly,
if a company wants to fire someone for saying, we
should murder anyone who says X equals X. Wait, isn't
that illegal? It's excitements of murder. Isn't that already covered

(01:21:59):
by the law, especially in my country, where it's effectively
illegal to say X equals X. No, it's not okay
to tell the truth, but it's okay to encourage the
assassination of people who tell the truth. Okay, that seems odd.
I guess we'll circle back on that. And what else? Yeah,
if a company wants to fire someone for costing them

(01:22:24):
millions of dollars every year, even though all they do
is mug expressionlessly into the camera with their fat, piggy
eyed face and reading from a teleprompter flagrantly declaring that
X does not equal X. That's too far? Is it
to fire that person? And anyone who's okay with that
has gone too far? Interesting While an innocent man lies

(01:22:49):
dead at the hands of the apocalyptic left, we should
be outraged that a millionaire mouthpiece for the apocalyptic left
has to endure the horrific scandal of facing a time
out from their job for four fucking days. That's quite
the heart take. It's something I would expect to hear

(01:23:09):
from the shameless hyper hypocrites on the far left, but
it's something we've been hearing over the last week from
people who are ostensibly supposed to be opposed to the
shameless hyper hypocrites on the far left. And they do
this while having the nerve to tell us you're becoming
the left? Why how are we becoming the left? Because

(01:23:30):
attacking free speech is leftism? Okay, first of all, we're
not doing that, and secondly, no, it isn't. Since when
was attack something that only the left does? The fuck
kind of bitch made cut bullshit you're talking about? Oh no,
don't attack anyone. That's not what we do on this

(01:23:52):
side of the aisle. We just have to hide behind
our shattered shields and whether whatever storm of arrows gets
thrown at us, How do you do, fellow non leftists,
are we making sure we never fight back?

Speaker 2 (01:24:06):
Good?

Speaker 3 (01:24:07):
Good, No, fuck you, no fucking greamer worm tongue, piece
of shit trying to tell us attacking is what ORCS do. Therefore,
we must not attack the ORCS lest we become orcs.

Speaker 2 (01:24:22):
Bro.

Speaker 3 (01:24:23):
We're just not going to payroll the OCS anymore. They've
made it very clear that they want to kill us
and then blame it on us. So we've decided we're
not going to pay the ORCS to kill us and
then blame it on us. Well, then you're just as
bad as the OCS. All right, good one. You want
to talk about principles, it's pretty obvious what your principle is,

(01:24:47):
and it's roll the fuck over and let the communist
demon mafia do whatever the fuck it likes. If that's
what you call free speech, fine, by all means speak it.
We want try to get you fired for that. Just
don't tell obvious, flagrant lies and don't incite murdering people

(01:25:08):
for their opinions. That's the principle we've always had and
it happens to align with the law. You can get
sued for lying about people, and in many cases you should.
And you can get arrested for inciting murder, and in
many cases you should. But the only thing that's happening
is your employers are no longer going to pay you

(01:25:31):
on account of the suable slash arrestable offenses you keep committing,
and in Jimmy Kimmel's case, only for about four fucking
days before ABC caved in to all the violent terrorism
that your precious leftists have been committing on his behalf.

(01:25:52):
In this case, I am indeed talking to people who
might be listening to the show, because I've heard this
from people who really to know better. After all this time,
you're accusing us of abandoning our principles, but we haven't.
It's just that we don't have the same principles as you.
We have drawn a line. That line is murder and

(01:26:14):
incitement to murder. When the demons cross that line, we retaliate,
not in kind, not an eye for an eye, but
at least something for an eye, like a fucking paycheck
for an eye. You have not drawn a line, or
you have drawn a line, but you suddenly get amnesia
when the demons cross that line. You just retreat and

(01:26:38):
retreat and retreat, no matter how much the demons advance
on you, because you're a weak bitch made punk cass.
You're quite welcome to be weak bitch made punkasses, but
don't act like you're better than us, and don't expect
us to join you in your secret hideout in bum
foot Pussestan.

Speaker 1 (01:26:59):
You man, save faggots.

Speaker 3 (01:27:01):
I said what I said. Don't make me say it again,
because I will even if I get arrested for it.
And I have to wonder how much of us stink
you'll kick up if that happens, because I'm not one
of your precious fucking leftist teams. Fuck all of you,
so sick of it?

Speaker 2 (01:27:18):
All right, I'll stop, Hannah Well, I would just like
to point out that on your social media, the reason
there is a report button on x it's because it
was there on Twitter. The reason it is there on
Twitter on your profile page that somebody can go and
not just report a tweet that you tweeted or a

(01:27:41):
post that you made, but your entire profile as hateful
or spammy or whatever, is because of an organized orchestrated
campaign by a group called Women Action and Media to
make their the advertis for Twitter pressure Twitter to give

(01:28:05):
them that button so that they could report, like mass
report people and get them get them banned by making
Twitter's administrators that have to deal with did this person
actually do what they've been reported for? We have to
now read their profile over and over again because of
these reports to say, oh, fuck it, we're gonna ban
this person because we're tired of having to go and

(01:28:26):
look at their profile because of these reports. And that's
why that exists. And there have been people that have
been mass reported for completely innocent things, like Janet Bloomfield
from a Voice for Men, who most of you today
may never have heard of because she got out of

(01:28:48):
a men's rights activism because her family was threatened. But
she was mass reported for a photograph of a decorated
cake by an organ or organized campaign done by an
account named takedown MRAs who got as many people as

(01:29:08):
possible to report it as child porn. There are no
people in the photo of the cake, so there are
no children. There are also no adults. There's no actual
human subject in this picture. I've seen this picture. You
probably have it on one of my hard drive somewhere.
It is literally just a three or four tiered cake

(01:29:33):
with white buttercream icing and some decorations made out of
icing on the cake. That's it. It's sitting on a
table in a kitchen. And she took a picture. I
don't even remember what it was for what, whether it
was a birthday or a wedding or whatever. She made

(01:29:54):
it for a friend or a family member and was
proud of her work and posted it and a mass
reported it and got her perma band on X on
Twitter actually before it was X, because they got that
ability for posting a picture of a cake. And you

(01:30:15):
want to make the comparison between the left's tendency, the
anti feminist leftists or the feminist left, especially their tendency
to do that to anti feminists, and Kimmel getting banned
because his show is absolute shit and people celebrating it
because he said something that was absolute shit, like you

(01:30:39):
have to be kidding me, saying he deserved it, saying
he deserved to have his show canceled or suspended or
whatever because a the show itself was not entertaining, and
b on top of that, he said some absolute bullshit
that was offensive, and so you don't feel sorry for him,

(01:31:00):
for being canceled, for being untalented and lazy. He only
has a goodfellow putting it this out. He only has
two jokes. I'll let you go, and now remember to
put six instead of G when you look him up
on YouTube, or you won't find his channel. But watch
his video on a subject and see if you don't agree. Kimmel, Really,

(01:31:20):
his show is completely worthless. But there is no comparison
between that. It is a bullshit argument to say that
it is an attack on free speech for a media
organization to stop supporting a product that the public is
not consuming and that is not making them any money,

(01:31:44):
and that the reason they have to continue to support
it is because people are mad about something that he
said the bullshit argument. Only an idiot would make that argument.
And if you're making that argument, you really should should
take a step back and look at why, because somebody
else has probably manipulated you into that, and you might
want to consider the fact that you're not as smart

(01:32:06):
as you think you are.

Speaker 1 (01:32:07):
Said, Yeah, I mean, like I said, like, I think
that they get power out of being in the victim
position and this was all they had. Like I'm I'm
sure that no one who said that they were on
Jimmy Kimmel's side, actually gave a shit about him or
even watched the show because it wasn't good. So I
think it was just about like, oh, my optics. So

(01:32:28):
it always comes down to my optics, my marketing. But anyway,
so yeah, he's back, so we can go back to
not watching it. Uh, and we'll see maybe it'll just
get canceled again and then they'll just be honest me, like, look,
the show is shit, like they at least Stephen Colbert's
team was honest, you know. But anyway, we're gonna move
on to the last story. I told you this is
gonna be a longer than normal sausage, but whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:32:50):
Yeah, Stephen Colbert was at least meanworthy. Kimmel doesn't even
have that.

Speaker 1 (01:32:56):
No, no, no, he but he even Kimmel's better than
Fallen or Meer because they have nothing, like there's like
nothing there. It's sad. But anyway, yeah, exactly, yeah, right,
I'm telling you they just just give give I don't
know which show, but give one of those shows to

(01:33:16):
Craig Ferguson. Don't don't censor him, just let him do
his thing. Be Scottish it'll be great, don't be he
won't be political. He'll hit on every woman that goes
on there. Everyone will love it and then and we'd
just get on with our lives. But anyway, Zarius gave
us a super chat for five and says, Mike, we
can only send them strongly worded letters or fight back

(01:33:37):
when we're falling. Falling after following the non aggression principle
to the cliff's edge, right, It's okay to alienate people,
to ostracize that. There's nothing wrong with that. We should
do that, We should that more. But uh, anyway, listen
what you guys thinking about this one in the comment
We're gonna move on to the last story. Uh, this one,

(01:33:59):
you know, kind of unfortunate but also kind of funny,
just like a story onlike, be careful of the women
you associate yourself with, especially if you own your own business.
So a thirty one year year old San Diego woman
named Megan Farina ignited widespread controversy shortly after the assassination
of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a Utah university when

(01:34:23):
she posted a TikTok video stating that she had no
sympathies for him, accusing him of using his platform to
spread hate and bigotry. In the video, which a mass
millions of you is farina contrastic kirks typical thoughts and
prayers responses to school shootings. This is usually how they
go after anyone on the right, like the recent because
they want to take your guns, and that's why they

(01:34:44):
do it. Just let's just be real, that's what it's about.
It's about taking your guns away, like the recent India
incident at Evergreen High School in Colorado, where a sixteen
year old shooter injured two before taking his own life.
With her similar sentiment towards his death. The backlash was swift,
with online users identifying and targeting her boyfriend, a thirty
four year old Justin Crinley, who owns a family electrical business.

(01:35:06):
This led to a flood of negative Yelp reviews that
dropped his rating to one star, Accusations of unsafe practices
and even physical confrontations. Not physical as in violence, but
there's videos of people confronting this guy and they're asking
about his wife. Turned out it's not his wife as
his girlfriend, such as a stranger entering Crinley's office to

(01:35:26):
harass him. Farina's family also faced doxing, according to Farina,
with personal information leaked and protests was leaving notes at
their homes, turning her life into what she described as
literal hell. Then, in a follow up video, Farina doubled
down on her stance, highlighting the irony of being attacked
by Kirk supporters who claimed to value free speech while
suppressing hers, and emphasized that neither Crinley nor his business

(01:35:50):
were involved in her political views. Public reactions included thousands
of comments calling her a monster and devil, while media
coverage amplified the debate on select First Amendment protections. As
a content creator with over six hundred thousand TikTok followers,
Farina expressed fears for others in a similar position, warning
of a terrifying precedent against dissent and calling for community

(01:36:11):
support against what she termed fascism. So she's people confronting
her about her bullshit is fascism? Okay? No resolutions have
been reported, but the incident continues to impact their lives
with ongoing threats and defamation. And if you guys haven't
seen the video, I'm gonna show it off really quick,
because I have it her original video, so it wasn't
as bad as some of the other ones out there,

(01:36:34):
to be fair, but that doesn't mean that it was
like okay, so let me just let me just share
the screen here so you guys can see it. You
probably remember this video. You probably saw it, but I'm
gonna show it in case some of you guys have
not seen it.

Speaker 2 (01:36:50):
Before you play it. Look at that duper's delight.

Speaker 1 (01:36:53):
Yeah, well, well this is all about Yeah, this is
all about that smugness. She's basically like, yop, let me
show my own audience how much of a better person
I am. That's usually what it's It's almost like this
is what women is TikTok and even social media for.

Speaker 2 (01:37:08):
It's a female. I am about to say something absolutely
shitty and mean, and I think I'll get away with
it because I think I'm on the right side of
the argument.

Speaker 1 (01:37:19):
Yeah, yeah, for sure. So here we go.

Speaker 2 (01:37:23):
Oh I can't hear it. No sound?

Speaker 1 (01:37:26):
Oh you guys don't have any sound? All right? Hold on,
hold on. Sometimes this happens and I gotta like stop
sharing it and then start sharing it again. I don't
know why that is, so hold on a second. It's
going to disappear, but I'm gonna bring it right back
here we go. All right, So let's try now.

Speaker 2 (01:37:43):
Gather around, bitches. Let's all going hands and bow our
heads in thoughts and prayers for Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 1 (01:37:51):
Thoughts and prayers for Charlieicer thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers.
Remember he died. I'm just pointing that out, okay. And
so you know, people were angry about this, and they
let me just find my posts. She does a follow
up here. I think this is This is her sort

(01:38:13):
of like follow up video.

Speaker 2 (01:38:14):
Wednesday, September tenth, when Charlie Kirk was shot, I posted
a video offering him the same thoughts and prayers that
he offered after every child was whoa hold on a minute, there,
all right, and the same is a lie. She used
to phrase the same in there. Okay. There's a huge

(01:38:35):
difference between mocking the idea of thoughts and prayers versus
expressing the fact that you your thoughts and prayers are
with someone as an expression of sympathy. When you have
the deeply held, enduring, strong belief that your prayers have

(01:38:58):
a solid impact on the lives of the people that
you pray for that there will be well. No, it
matters that you believe in prayer. Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk
was a devout Christian. He had a very strong belief
that when he prayed for someone that he was sending

(01:39:18):
God's goodwill their way, that he was drawing God's direct attention,
his more direct attention to that person's plight and putting
in a good word for that person with God. That
is what Christians believe. When we pray for something, we
are asking God for favors, we are expressing our worshipfulness,
and we are begging for a result. The matters right,

(01:39:47):
but yes, we finished with I will be done so
that we don't fuck up and and ask for something
that's wrong and get it. But the thing is, there's
a belief system that goes with us that it's very
similar to witch's belief that they are affecting the world
when they cast a spell, when which is direct magic
at somebody for good or bad, you know, whether they're

(01:40:09):
blessing or cursing. They believe there's an intent behind that.

Speaker 3 (01:40:16):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:40:16):
They believe that they are doing a thing, that they
are affecting the individual and that if they are cursing
the individual, the individual will face consequences that if they
are blessing the individual, the individual will receive some sort
of blessing. This woman was mocking shet of a belief
that her thoughts and prayers song would send some sort

(01:40:39):
of good vibes out to help the individuals that she
was talking about. The family. Charlie himself, none of that.
So the idea that she was saying the same like,
that's her trying to shield herself from accountability for what
she did, which was to mock the death of an

(01:41:01):
individual and to mock the beliefs of an individual because
he died, And she did so gleefully and publicly on
a large platform to a large segment of followers, with
intent to upset people, to make people angry at her,
to turn the knife in the hearts of people who

(01:41:24):
were mourning the death of someone who, to them was
a beloved commentator, the ambassador to the other side. By
the way y'all killed the ambassador, you'll understand what that means.
And she thinks now that she doesn't deserve people's anger
for what she did. Now, I don't agree that people

(01:41:45):
should have expressed their anger in the manner that they
expressed it when they went after her boyfriend. Even if
he had been her husband, it still would have been wrong.
He didn't make that video, she did, right, Yeah, And
I have no problem with them commenting on her video

(01:42:07):
and calling her every name in the book, disagreeing with
what she has to say, any any degree of verbal
expression of this what you did was wrong. And I
don't have a problem with you know, if she had
an employer, them contacting the employer and saying, do you
know this woman is mocking this, this assassination on on

(01:42:29):
uh this social media uh and and and advocating you
know that this this violence was meaningless, belittling this act
of violence, like it's it's not her saying I stand
for this political idealogue, you know, or I stand for
this political idea person or thought. It's her saying this

(01:42:51):
death was okay, this murder was okay. Like that's something
that you know, an employer should be we're alerted to
if they don't want to be associated with that kind
of thing. Promoting crime isn't the same as saying, oh,
I'm a feminist or oh I'm not a feminist. I
think feminism is stupid either one of those. Nobody should
be contacting your employer for that. The minute you say

(01:43:13):
it's okay to kill someone and it's funny when it happens.
That's a totally different story, the totally different behavior than
just believing in a political idea. But that guy did nothing.
He did not cause this problem. He wasn't responsible for
her coverture ended. Feminists protested against it. They took to

(01:43:37):
the streets, They got voting rights, they got laws changed
in every state. They got federal laws changed, they got
municipal laws changed, They got the banks to change their policies.
They created a system wherein men are no longer allowed
to be the shield between the woman and the public

(01:43:59):
or the woman and state. Anybody that went after him
is a moron. Nobody should have done that. I don't
care what side you're on. But this woman, this woman
is responsible for that just as much as the people
who did it. Because we all know that there is

(01:44:19):
a tendency in the world for people to go after
a guy for what the woman that he's associated did,
or for a guy to get involved, get himself involved
in a conflict that the woman that he loves is facing.
Either way. So if a woman creates controversy around herself

(01:44:42):
or causes a huge backlash toward herself like this that
leads to violence, she is subjecting him to this. Even
though I say everybody that engaged in it was a moron,
the biggest moron was her. If she gave a ratsass
about him for creating this situation in the first place,
and this idea of oh, it's the same, it's the same,

(01:45:03):
faced this level of backlash and she's seen this level
of consequence and she still can't take responsibility for what
she did. If ever, gentlemen, there was a sign that
women should not be in positions of leadership as a whole,
No pun intended. Women should not be in positions of leadership, political, business,

(01:45:29):
or otherwise. It is the fact that women react like this.
So you guys are mean I was doing the same
thing you do. No, bitch, you were mocking. That is
not the same. There is no mockery in offering thoughts
and prayers for people who suffered a tragedy. And you know,

(01:45:51):
I have no sympathy for her. I have a lot
of sympathy for her boyfriend, have no sympathy for her
experience in this no matter what I think of the
people that that took it too far, and I don't
have sympathy for any other woman that experiences this for
the same kind of behavior. And I actually hope that
every example of this is understood by men to be

(01:46:15):
another you know, straw on the side of the scale
between can we trust women in positions of leadership or
can we not? I don't know a handful. I mean,
like maybe three women in my whole life that that
I I thought really belonged in positions of leadership, leadership,

(01:46:39):
executive type leadership, and one of them is Allison, and
one of them was related to me, So you know
that to only one woman I'm not directly associated with.
But it's it's sad but true. She's not abnormal.

Speaker 1 (01:46:56):
Yeah, I have a My suspicion is that she doesn't
have a job, and so they went after her boyfriend
thought it was her husband, and I do feel bad
for him, but he better like reevaluate his relationship though,
because she also said she just said this, maybe I'll
share this. This is like another TikTok, so she basically
says it like targets, it was really low for some reason,

(01:47:17):
should kick out all straight white men. So yeah, I
mean long as I'm sorry, but like, the boyfriend is
a straight white dude, so I think he needs to
like stop thinking with the wrong head and look at
the really, like, seriously, do you want to be with
someone who hates you for what you are? You're not special,
I mean unless you're a self hating like white dude yourself,

(01:47:41):
in which case you need to see some help. But
I don't know that that's but anyway, but she do
she good?

Speaker 2 (01:47:51):
Stop society, I should say from telling men that it's
misogynistic to judge women for their character, to vet women, yeah,
her character before dating them, because this guy took that
to heart. This this woman has no character and he's
dating her anyway.

Speaker 1 (01:48:07):
Yep, agree, all right, But anyway, that's all the stories.
This was a long sausage added a half hour. But
I'm gonna go into the Patron show now. So we're
gonna be looking at this website. And this is a
website called wobblydev dot com where they make antifa slash

(01:48:29):
communist video games. I'm not gonna play any but I
thought we talked about them, and there's also some other
games on there as well. And speaking of games, we
might watch the I don't know if you guys have
seen this, but the Department of Homeland Security put out
a Pokemon video that is pretty has been making the rounds.
It is pretty funny, so we'll we'll probably look at

(01:48:50):
that as well. Got to catch them all, that's right.
I want to be the very best. But anyway, we're
gonna head into the Patron Show now, So what what's up.

Speaker 2 (01:49:01):
You mentioned at the beginning of this show that I'm
making a game. I have a prediction. Well, my game
might not be the most original thing on a planet,
and I don't know if it'll be good or not.
I mean, i'll find out if people like it when
we start play testing. It may never get past that stage, right,
but I'll bet it'll be better than Antifa games.

Speaker 1 (01:49:17):
Oh yeah, for sure, because you'll work.

Speaker 2 (01:49:20):
But it's not political, so yeah, yeah there.

Speaker 1 (01:49:26):
Well, actually, by not being political, it's political. It's just
the wrong kind of politics, which is the not political core.

Speaker 2 (01:49:32):
So I suppose people will find a way to make
it political.

Speaker 1 (01:49:35):
Yeah, I'm sure they will. All right. Well, anyway, with
that said, we're gonna go into the Patron Show now,
So thanks guys, for coming on. Thank you to Hannah
and Mike for joining me. If you guys like this video,
please hit like, subscribe to not already subscribed, hit the
bell for notifications, 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 us carry. Thank you guys so much for coming

(01:49:56):
on this extra long sausage of HBr news, and we
will talk you guys in the next one. See you
next Tuesday.

Speaker 5 (01:50:02):
Men's right activists are machines, dude. Okay, they are literal machines.
They are talking point machines. They are impossible to deal with,
especially if you have like especially if you have like
a couple of dudes who have good memory. On top
of that, too, holy shit, you're fucked