UN Women: Standards? We’ll take double! | HBR Talk 375

UN Women’s complaints about the manosphere include typical mischaracterizations, and a familiar plan of attack. Tonight we’re going to do a bit more looking into another of the sources from their recent report, “What is the manosphere and why should we care?” We may also get to UN women’s follow-up article on “how to counter the manosphere.” Eventually. :)

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, and welcome to HBr Talk three seventy five. You
and women standards will take double and I know, I
know you all see what I did there, But I'm
your host, Hannah Wallen here with the personification of perceptivity
Mike Stevenson, and hopefully we'll get a Lauren today, but

(00:22):
if not, I think the two of us can handle it.
We have the Doze in charge, Brian Martinez working in
the background, and we're still on you and women tonight.
I don't know if that counts as sexual harassment or not,
but there we go. Before we get into that, though,
we gotta do what we gotta do. As always, Honey

(00:43):
Badger Radio dishes out Ace morgasboard of thought provoking discussions,
and as experiences both recent and long past have demonstrated,
the provoked thoughts are fighting back. They've made it clear
that for people like us, relying on third party payment
platforms like Patreon to fund our work is treading on
ten ice or building our house in the path of

(01:03):
a rapidly growing wildfire. In light of this, we strongly
encourage our supporters to switch at least their support for
us to feed the Badger dot Com the most stable
way to help us out, and if you want to
tip us directly instead of relying on any social media platforms,
tip jar. The link for that is feed the Badger
dot com slash just the tip. And as always, the

(01:24):
same risk applies to our social media platforms, which is
why you should further provoke the thought police by tracking
our thought provoking discussions on Honeybadger Brigade dot com, where
you can find your way to all of our content,
as well as a link to feed the Badger dot
com in the drop down menu at the top of
the page. And with that, I'll brief recap here. Last

(01:50):
week we looked at some of the rights that you
and women is attributing to women, that women should have
these rights and they're not being defended. Women's rights are
not being defended, and so they want these white rights
enshrined in the constitutions of all of the participating nations

(02:16):
in the continent of Africa. They're doing this in Africa,
and they are also doing this in South America, and
we are still in Africa. So there you go. But
I wanted to show you just a couple more things
here because this list they have after they've gone through

(02:43):
and enumerated these rights. Then they've started talking about what
these nation states have to do in order to protect
these rights. So they don't just want them enshrined as
you have the right to this and you have the
right to that. There's some of it. It looks like
it is essentially addressing a system in Africa that is

(03:07):
similar to coverture in the UK and the US back
in the day. But this up here at the beginning
where I had it sitting. So they want an African

(03:29):
version of VAHWA basically the Violence Against Women Act or
whatever it is in the UK that does exactly the
same thing. And what they're wanting is to prohibit all
forms of violence, but only specifically against women. They want
a prohibition of rape, but again only against women. They

(03:54):
want prohibition or they want they want legislature that is
similar to the mandatory arrest policies in the US. That's
what this one is, legislative administrative social measures to ensure
the prevention, punishment, and eradication of all forms of violence

(04:16):
against women. And then they want here it says, identify
the causes and consequences of violence against women, that is,
to fund research like they do here in the US,
and the way feminists do their research is very sneaky. So,
for instance, when they wanted to research rape in the

(04:37):
prevalence of rape in the United States, what they did
was they they defined rape to exclude male victims of
female perpetrated sexual violence. So if somebody forces either traditional
reproductive sex or oral sex on the victim of a rape,

(05:04):
the victim of a sexual assault, if they are forcing
the victim to penetrate, then it counts as a rape.
But if they are now, if they're forcing the victim
forcibly penetrating the victim, then it counts as a rape.
But if they're forcing the victim to penetrate, then it
does not count as a rape, and the victim, the

(05:28):
victim can then just sort of go fuck themselves. Essentially,
according to the research, they'll file it under other sexual assault,
but they won't treat it as seriously as they treat rape.
And in the UK, under the law, you cannot label

(05:48):
a female perpetrator who forces reproductive sex on a male victim,
regardless of his age. You can't label her as a
rapist because the law doesn't support labeling her as a rapist.
It only supports labeling her her violation as a sexual assault,

(06:12):
whereas rape can only be perpetrated using a penis, so
unless the individual is biologically male and identifies as male,
because they redefine penis to mean something else. If the
person identifies as something else, name is done out of

(06:34):
being recognized as a rape victim.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
Next time I come to the United States, I hope
I can appeal to the United States government given the
fifty one percent of the population in my country can
just rape the shit out of me and get away
with it. I mean, what counts as whatever does count

(06:59):
as as I've forgotten what even does count as what
allows you to apply for asylum? I mean usually it's
something to do with how your government is is marking

(07:25):
you as able to be persecuted. And I'm like, well,
half of the population of my country can just rape
me with immunity. So next time I come to the
United States, can you'll just be like, yeah, that's fine,
you can just come here. But they won't because that
means half of the population of the UK, and that's

(07:48):
like thirty five million people can just go there and
be like, yeah, if I stay in my country, I
can be raped with immunity. You think that would be enough,
but they'll just go no, no, UK, you need to
sort out your government first. It sounds like your government

(08:09):
is a bunch of miss Andric terrorists. And yeah, fair enough,
Yeah that is kind of true. We are being ruled
by a bunch of miss Andric terrorists. And yeah, it
would be nice, it would be really nice if we
could reform our government. And yeah, we're working on that,

(08:31):
we really are. But in the meantime, can I please
come come to your country, Come to come to a
place where I can at least get some kind of
well where if I happen to get raped, I could

(08:52):
be like, can I get the government to help me
in the event that I've been raped? But I get
the word suspicion that even the American government were like no, no, unfortunately,
Like we like, we like to pretend that we will

(09:13):
protect men who've been raped by women, but we don't either.
I mean, you guys in the your your government in
the UK will officially not help you if you've been
raped by women. And we like to pretend that our
government will help a man who's been raped by a woman,
but we don't need that.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
In Ohio, they're quite open about it in court here
in the state of Ohio has determined that the wording
of the Ohio law does not protect male victims, and
if the prosecutor prosecutes for rape and not sexual assault,

(09:58):
the case will be overturned. And that was in the
case of we did a show on it. Actually, that
was in the case of a woman who had who
had raped her own two year old son, and she
got her Her case got overturned after she was convicted
because she did she did do what she was accused of,

(10:20):
but because the attorney, the city attorney or state attorney
they had the prosecutor, had prosecuted her for rape and
not for sexual assault, her case was overturned and she
was free.

Speaker 2 (10:39):
Much like this thing we call the Duluth model. As
long asin it's been outdated that we call it the
Duluth model because it's long since been expanded to the
entire USA and indeed long since suspended to the rest
of the anglosphere, including the UK. Much like the out

(11:00):
lawing of cannabis it was it was outlawed in the
USA and then the UK, being a vassal state of
the USA ever since the War, that that law was
just expanded to the UK, and now ironically there's many
states in the in the US where they've pulled it

(11:23):
back and now they're like, oh, yeah, yeah, it's fine
if you smoke cannabis. But now in to this day
in the UK, no, no, you can't smoke cannabis. We're like,
why because America told us to outlaw it. Well, and
we're like, well, in many states in the US have
since anti outlawed it and now it's fine there, so

(11:44):
can we pull that back? No? No, no, we've we
with the USA gave us an excuse to clamp down
on you and your chemical freedoms. So books to you,
we don't we don't care if if if the USA
is finally giving their citizens freedom, we we're going to

(12:10):
follow on it on the USA's clampdowns against your freedom,
but we're not going to follow on on on the pullback.

Speaker 1 (12:22):
So what what actually happened is that it wasn't legalized.
It was decriminalized because we lock up everybody we lock
up to Our prisons are full of people, right, you
guys don't lock up any Our prisons are full of men.
Let's be h, let's play clear on that, because like
five percent of inmates are women, even though five percent

(12:44):
of more than five percent of convicts or women women
are more likely to get alternative sentences than men. Yeah,
and but over in the UK, you guys don't lock
up anybody, not even your rapists. So there you go.
You freedom rape a twelve year old girl if you
want to. But no smoking the devil's lettuce, that's makes sense.

Speaker 2 (13:08):
And no speaking out against the foreign rapists or anything. Yeah,
it's it's it's so annoying how many British people like
to blame America for everything, but they never blame America
for the anti cannabis laws, and they and and and
they never blame America for any of the things that

(13:32):
might that might help us blame foreigners for anything. And
it's what it's the problem with the British government is they,
even though they hate Americans and they hate the American government,

(13:54):
in the event that they ever put America first, they
will absorb and American law that clamps down on the
British people. But they won't absorb any American law that
heightens the rights of the British people.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
That is the nature of government in general, actually elected
monarchy or whatever any law that allows them more control
over you, but the less responsibility for your welfare. They'll
adopt it.

Speaker 2 (14:33):
There's so much more leeway in the USA, Like if
you get a Trump, then that Trump will put America first,
and much to the chagrin of the Democrats and the
anti America First people, you can at least push it
forward and backwards, like you'll get a Trump and then

(14:55):
you'll get a Biden, and then you'll get a Trump,
and it will go forwards and backwards. But in Britain
it doesn't fucking matter, Like there are our government like
we will adopt any anti British policy and and then
they'll push back on any pro British policy, and then

(15:16):
they'll adopt any anti British policy. And it's largely because
we're European. And that's just because we're leading the way.
As much as you think the the archophobic policies are
leading the way in America. Now we we we the

(15:37):
it always led the way in in in Europe. Yeah,
and this this is what I mean with with with
the with the feminist policies and the anti drug policies
and any other policies like the UK government will will

(15:57):
clamp down on any policy the fos over the British
people and any policy that heightens the rights of any
non British people. And yeah, this is me asking America,

(16:18):
can you can you please lead the way in in
any policy that that that that can influence British politicians
to maybe stop dare I say, oppressing the British people
because the idea of putting Britain first is it is

(16:43):
not a policy that is even in the periphery of
any British political party. And yeah, I know our media
likes to present the idea that reform is the is
the British equivalent of the Trump, but no, we don't

(17:05):
have anything like the British equivalent of Trump. And I
just want to push it forward that one day we
could have the British equivalent. No it's not Nigel Farage. No,
it's not reform, it's not even anything approaching that. And
it's because our media won't allow it to happen, because

(17:25):
our media is died in the wool leftist bullshit. And
I just yeah, I just I would like it if
we could have our Trump any day now. And it's
not going to happen for another ten years or so.
And it's not not even though it's not even as

(17:48):
though Trump is legalizing weed, ironically, it's it's the Democrats
who are legalizing weed. So yeah, we.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
Well that's them cleaning up their own mess because it
was the Demo crats that outlawed it in the first place.
So indeed, yeah, I mean, well it's this is a
problem with government everywhere, and it's governments are like homeowners associations, right,
if you if you have good people running it, then

(18:21):
they do what they're supposed to do. They don't overregulate,
and they do like keep the the upkeep done that
they're supposed to be upkeeping. But if you have people
like Nancy Pelosi and her ilk that are just using
the government as a as a means of making money

(18:43):
through investment and insider trading, then you you end up,
you know, with this mess that we've got Trump cleaning
up now. And if you have people who are just
controlling assholes with with boards up there by, So you
get the UK government, you know, you get the Canadian government,

(19:05):
you get most of the nations in Europe have the
the type of government that is like that ho a
board that wants to regulate everything from uh you know
what shade of brown or tan your house has to
be painted, to which which make and model of car
you're allowed to own and have parked in your in

(19:28):
your garage, whether or not you can smoke in your
own home, and things like that in a non condo
setting where the smoke isn't going into your neighbor's unit.
But and that's that's essentially what Europe has become is
a bunch of their governments are like a bunch of
old Karen's old ladies, just bitching about everything because they

(19:53):
don't really have They used to be every nation in
Europe was at war with each other, and so so
they had of my nation first attitude because their nation
would be eliminated if they didn't. And you know now
they don't have that going on in there. They're doing

(20:14):
essentially what what hoas do when they don't have anything
better to do, and they have an inflated sense of
self importance. And so that's that's basically my assessment of
the world government. But in the meantime, we do have

(20:34):
a couple of uh, super chats, super chows. I will
read these off. Meredith g gave us five dollars and said
HBr Talk three seventy five. Honey for the Badgers, thanks
for the thought provoking discussion and great endorse, said, gave
us five dollars and said this week it came across
this blog spot, gave us a link, and it made

(20:55):
me wonder if hann I ever heard of TV newsman
Chet Huntley in the New Year's resolutions he made to
himself regarding journalists and journalistic integrity back in nineteen fifty
five because he was getting worried about the state of
his profession back in those days. Yeah, I have heard
of that. It was something that was talked about in

(21:16):
my newspaper class when I was in high school actually,
and we went over a bunch of different things and
how how journalism changed over the years. We looked at
things like were Woodward and Bernstein really great investigative journalists

(21:41):
or did they just hate the administration at the time
and were they just salivating over a story that was
a scandal for that administration. And I kind of in
the long term, I kind of developed a theory on that.
I think that my teacher was onto something there that

(22:01):
they actually did just hate the administration, and I think
that was a there was a thing in journalism already
in the fifties. So by the time that you know,
you had the sixties and the seventies and all that,
all the scandals that came out after it was journalists

(22:21):
had had bone to pick with whichever administration was in charge.
There were either right wing or left wing journalists, not
journalists that just wanted to tell you what was going on.
And so every administration after after Watergate had its set
of scandals, like I don't think we've had a single

(22:45):
one where journalists weren't looking for some way to scandalize
the public. And Watergate was the thing that Woodward and
Bernstein really screwed up was they focused on the part
of the scandal that was that would get people's attention,

(23:07):
and they didn't dig deep enough. And had they dug
deep enough, they would have found a much bigger scandal
that was was really worth looking for. And so they
missed that because you know, they got the public all
titillated over what they did report. And that's it's one

(23:28):
of the drawbacks of I guess yellow journalism, and in
particular yellow journalism that targets people specifically Russia Gate.

Speaker 2 (23:40):
Russia Gate was far worse than Watergate. I I don't
know how much of our audience is even aware of
what Russia Gate really entailed, but most of you should
bear away what agate, which is the gate that named

(24:02):
all the other gates, that put the suffix gate over everything.
And it was presented that Richard Nixon was paranoid about
the possibility of anyone usurping his presidency through democratic means
or whatnot. But but then, but then the possibility that

(24:30):
Trump would usurp. I forget who the Democratic nominee after
Obama was, What the fuck was it? Who the fuck
was it? Can anyone remember who who Trump was? I
was Hillary?

Speaker 1 (24:48):
Sorry, after Obama? That was Hillary?

Speaker 2 (24:51):
Yeah it was it was Hilary and and yeah it
was between Obama's paranoia and Hillary, Hillary's parent And yeah,
this whole Russia Gate scenario that this, this whole fucking

(25:12):
it wasn't just paranoia. It was this well what do
you even call it? Is this? It was the conspiracy theory.
I mean, if you're going to call anything a conspiracy theory,
it was this idea that that if Trump he gets elected,
it's because of Russia and Putin and it doesn't matter

(25:34):
what peutin or Russia says, it doesn't matter what anyone says. No, Look, look,
we've we've we've employed some people. We've that is to say,
we've paid some people to lie about Trump's campaign. And
this this was all leagues and I mean nautical leagues,

(25:54):
worse than anything that Richard Nixon did. But people are
just talking about anything else but that. And this was
the thing that that made all conspiracies called gates ever
since then because it was apparently so significant. But yeah,

(26:15):
this is fucking Russiagate. Thing was multiple times worse than
any of that. And yeah, we're just we're just we're
just leaving aside. Meanwhile, Obama is still like turning up
and giving interviews going like, oh, it's so bad that

(26:36):
Trump is calling in the military into Chicago and Washington, DC.
He can't be doing that sort of thing. That's that's
just simply unbearable. And it's and it's an attack against democracy, motherfucker.
You've do you fill the sentence in by yourself, like

(27:00):
this guy was the worst attack on democracy in the
entire history of American democracy. And it's yeah, the whole
thing is fucked. Like Obama should be in prison. Hillary
should be in prison, Biden should be in prison, and

(27:20):
fucking Bill Clinton, all of these people should be in prison,
and get they're still out here, free as a bird,
telling everyone that Trump should be in prison, even though
they fucking tried their college best to put him in
prison for the worst thing they could even find. And
the worst thing they can even find is mortgage fraud,

(27:44):
which they, you know, they couldn't even figure out because
he didn't really commit it, whereas Letitia James did, And
that's another whole story. Fuck me, It's like we're dealing
with a bunch of criminals trying to accuse their innocent
opponents of being a bunch of criminals. And I don't

(28:05):
even there's so much, Like I don't even know how
to get through the spaghetti because there's so much spaghetti.
It's a ball of spaghetti the size of the sun.
We're dealing with that in the meantime, is trying to
accuse their opponents of one single strand of Singapore noodles.

(28:31):
Singapore noodles are the really skinny, bright yellow ones that
can't even you know what I'm saying, It's yeah, it's
fucking career criminals. Trying to rule the country while they
try to accuse their opponents of being criminals despite having

(28:53):
committed the thinnest thread of a crime, and they can't
even do that. They tried their best to to convict
Trump of a crime, and the best they could do
was something that the sister James, I'm an order of

(29:18):
magnitude more guilty of doing. And God forbid they ever
commit they ever tried to convict Trump of doing what
Obama did, or indeed what either of the Clintons did.
I mean, it's just how do we find ourselves in

(29:38):
this timeline where career criminals who went into the presidency
with five million in the bank and left the presidency
with two hundred and fifty million in the bank. I'm
specifically talking about Bill Clinton there, But for fox sake,

(30:00):
how I mean, by what metric do we measure opportunistic
career criminals other than what Democrat presidents have done versus
what not even Republican presidents, but what Trump has done.

(30:22):
Bill Clinton went into office with fifteen million in the bank,
and he left office with two hundred and fifty million
in the bank. God only knows what would have happened
if Hillary Clinton entered the office with two hundred and
fifty million in the bank. She would have left with
a billion in the bank. And you know, he fuck
knows what it was with Obama, But it's the same

(30:45):
with almost every president in living memory. Trump is the
only president that went into office with billions in the
bank and then left with I mean close to a
billion left. Yeah, it's shorter in the bank, largely because
of having not accepted a wage like its what this

(31:15):
is largely the problem with with not just American democracy,
but with democracy in general, that what you really want
is for someone to go in in into ruling, ruling
the country with a certain amount in the bank, and
then leaving with less in the bank because they pay
more than they take out of the system. Because if

(31:37):
you have a system that incentivizes people two to make
money as a result of of of being an office,
then you're only incentivizing people two. It's this analogy that
that Dankular used once. It's this, It's like being on

(31:59):
a game show where you where you go into this
this perspects uh tank where where where where a bunch
of banknotes get thrown around you in this wind chamber
and you have to grab as many banknotes as you
can in in in the in the four minutes you
have and and and that's that's a democracy in a nutshell.

(32:26):
Any any politician that gets elected it gets given four
years to grab as much money as they can, uh
and and then walk away with it. And that's and
that's why it never works. And that's why I know

(32:47):
this is going to piss off a lot of Americans.
This is why monarchy is better than than than democracy,
because monarchs aren't interested in going into a person back
chamber where they can grab as much money as they
can because they already have money.

Speaker 1 (33:05):
Your leaders, well that's not entirely true either, because monarchy
sort of has to stem from someplace. It's kind of
like saying, ship with corn and it is better than
ship with nuts in it.

Speaker 2 (33:19):
It's still ship indeed. But it helps if your leader
is already rich and they cannot be corrupted by the
prospect of becoming more rich. This is this is what
this is what gave you the Clintons. This is.

Speaker 1 (33:36):
The only way for humans to have a system of
government and have it not end up like this. Is
exactly the same thing that has to be done with h. O. A. S.
And that is it can't be a one way street.
It can't be the people sit back and are governed
and don't participate in the process. Where they're anticipation would

(34:01):
include vigilance toward the government, holding the government the individuals
involved in the government accountable, and being prepared to step
up and take over as as needed if the government
officials are not doing what they're supposed to be doing.
In in HOA systems, where and usually you have if

(34:26):
you have a homeowners association, the people that are involved
in it usually live in the neighborhood. Once in a
while you have a homeowners association, that is, none of
them live in the in the neighborhood. They own property there,
but they're not residents, and uh, they're they're awful usually.

(34:46):
But if you have an association where the people are
residents of the neighborhood, the people that that that are
part of the association, then the the other people in
the neighborhood see who is making the rules and who
is enforcing the rules, and how they're behaving and everything.
And it is vital for these neighborhoods that if somebody

(35:14):
is in that position they're on the board or they're
president of the board or whatever. That if somebody is
being an absolute shit, that you just you run against them,
and you campaign based on what an absolute shit they've
been and how you're going to do a better job

(35:36):
than they're doing. And usually your neighbors will be so
fed up with this absolute shit who has been enforcing
rules that don't exist, or enforcing rules in strange ways
and things like that that you know, the rule doesn't
say what they're saying or whatever. That the people are

(35:58):
fed up with, they'll vote that person out of office
and in comes somebody who will actually do the job.
But if you have people that expect to sit back
and not participate and uh not be vigilant, not keep
track of what their officials that they're voting for are doing,

(36:20):
and not hold them accountable, not actually you know, be
prepared to run for office if they have to, or
to support a neighbor who's running for office against somebody
who's doing a bad job. Not not have any inclination
towards seeing people prosecuted if they break the law, and

(36:43):
so on. In office, you get you know, what what
we've had in the United States, what Canada has had,
what the UK has had what every nation has when
they get a corrupt government and people just sit back
and sit back and let things happen until it starts
to affect them enough to get upset about it, and

(37:05):
by the time they bellow about it, it's too late.
They haven't they've expected this one way street to you know,
lead only good things to their doorstep for so long,
and now it's it's too late for them to change
the way that it works, at least not without pain,

(37:28):
which is what we're doing now where we're dealing with
the pain of changing the way things work. But back
to the journalistic element of that, and what we've got
in every nation pretty much is it's not just our
governing bodies that are the problem. At this point. Part

(37:48):
of citizen vigilance and part of citizen involvement in the
process is the journalistic aspect. What the what the sp
chow brought up chat Chut Huntley and his New Year's
resolutions to himself the reason it's vital and important that

(38:12):
journalism actually be journalism and not just say, a mouthpiece
for a set of beliefs or you know, a way
to clickbait everybody for money and things like that. That
it actually covers things that are of interest to people,
that that gives them information that they can use to

(38:33):
make decisions. It's because not everybody can see what's going
on firsthand, and in DC, you know, not everybody can
see what's going on firsthand if you're in Ohio and
California is doing something shady, you know. And and because
we are in a large nation and not everybody can attend,

(38:54):
you know, every government activity. You've got your city council meetings,
You've got your county commission meetings, You've got your Civil
service meetings, You've got your state legislature meetings and and
so on. You've got school board meetings at the city

(39:15):
and state level. Like all of that is stuff that
you know, we've let it get so big and so blobby,
like the blob from the movie The Blob, that we
we can't keep track of it by ourselves anymore, and
without actual journalism where somebody is reporting on who, what, where,

(39:42):
when and how, what did they do? Who did it
and how did they do it, When did it happen,
where did they meet? Who's affected? You know, who's what,
what's the outcome of this? What's the upshot? So you
know what they're doing. If you don't have that, then

(40:03):
then you don't have the ability for the entire nation
to participate in a national government or the entire state
to participate in a state government. And uh where Woodward
and Bernstein come in in regard to that, I don't
I don't know how many people realize this, but the

(40:25):
Watergate burglary, everybody always is told the Watergate burglary was
about getting getting materials, getting dirt on the Democrats, or
you know, finding out what they're going to do, so
the Republicans decide, can decide what they're going to do
and so on. It wasn't that simple before Nixon was

(40:48):
who was president. When he was still running, he interfered
in peace talks around Vietnam, interfered in the peace talks
with North Vietnam during Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency, so that
it would look like only he could in the war.

(41:11):
And what he was looking for was what what the
burglars were looking for. There was a letter that had
some evidence of that interference, and that's what he was
looking for. Uh In in the in the burglary, to
see if if Johnson had that letter or if the

(41:35):
Democrat Party had that letter and try to try to
get rid of it so that it couldn't be used
against him. So it wasn't just campaign materials, it was
this scandal could could destroy his his chances of being elected,
and that you know, and if I remember right from

(42:01):
the like, there were several articles that I read about this.
But if I remember, what he was afraid of was
actual prosecution because he did that before his election, and
so of course that would be in violation. I can't
think of this stupid act. It's they accused Trump of

(42:23):
violating this act where his once once the election was
over and he was president, and uh, you know, Obama's
administration was on the way out. His administration started making contact.
We are going to be here's how you're going to
get a hold of us, here's you know what we're

(42:44):
going to want to work on once we get into office.
But with Nixon, this was prior to all of that.
It was prior to being elected, prior to having the
authority to do that. So it actually was a violation,
whereas Trump's administration did not actually violate that law. The

(43:05):
law that prevents them from interfering essentially in the dealings
of the previous administration. So definitely, yeah, the Logan Act,
That's what it was, Thanks Meredith g. So essentially Woodward
and Bernstein got the big story, but they missed the

(43:26):
bigger story. And it was because they were all excited
that they got the big story. And if they had
gotten the bigger story, things might have been significantly different.
Nixon probably would have been prosecuted by the time the

(43:48):
bigger story came out. It would have been kind. It's
not that it was a moot point. It's that it
was no longer no longer and enough of an issue
to care about. But they still could have prosecuted him.
But in any case, all that aside, once again we

(44:15):
are looking at an organization is trying to create an
even bigger governing body that's harder to keep track of
and pulling the same shit. And as I said, this,
this idea of creating creating a funding for research that

(44:39):
is manufactured essentially, like we were talking about at the beginning,
how feminists use things like defining rape to exclude male victims,
so that when they get statistics on rape and they
see that you know, in the past twelve months, the
same number just about the same number of men women

(45:00):
have reported being raped, and you know they don't They
don't have to admit that more than more than a
few rapists or women. They like to say that ninety
five to ninety nine percent of rapists are men. But
if you exclude rape to or if you just define

(45:21):
rape to exclude female perpetration, then of course most rapists
are going to be men. When you acknowledge female perpetration,
it is much closer to about fifty to fifty in
terms of perpetration. And of course, the other aspect of
that is you're looking at what percentage of a population,

(45:45):
a demographic that is like less than one tenth of
one percent of the general population are each sex, and
feminists will make claims about what men are like based on, well,
you know, nine of this tiny percentage of the population

(46:07):
are men, and they'll ignore the fact that ninety nine
point nine percent of the male population doesn't fall into
the category of violent criminal.

Speaker 2 (46:20):
So in any case, ye, for as bad as monarchy
is and for as bad as republicanism is, and we
can argue about that, none of it's as bad as
what the fuck you and women is doing.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
Yeah, you and women isn't even in a like nobody
voted for them, right nobody. They just sort of got
together and made themselves relevant to the United Nations. They're
not even really a UN organization, but the UN listens
to them. So be like if we got together and

(46:56):
decided to call ourselves you and badgers, and then the
UN had to listen to us for some reason. But
they're they're going through UH and and in addition, so
what I'm establishing here is that this is them trying
to enact throughout all of Africa, every country that they

(47:21):
have a connection to, they want to they want to
establish in those nations legislation modeled after the Violence Against
Women Act, So the Violence Against Women Act has those
mandatory arrest policies, mandatory prosecution, mandatory sentencing. That's that's in

(47:42):
the one thing I read UH. They they have the
funding for research to establish essentially that that the patriarchy
theory of domestic violence, which everybody calls a deluthe model
UH is UH is act even though it's not, and

(48:03):
that all elements of the law will examine and act
through that filter. And they want to they want to
create a curriculum in the local school systems and the
education systems that exist in these countries that will promote

(48:24):
that idea. And that's here They're actually wanting to eradicate
elements in traditional and cultural beliefs in these nations that
they content can consider to be stereotypes that legitimize or
exacerbate violence, tolerance of violence against women. So, for instance,

(48:48):
if men are allowed to hit back right now in
any nation of Africa, if the response to a woman
hitting her partner is that he can defend himself, they
want that changed. But they don't want to change like

(49:09):
if men are obligated to finance the lifestyle choices of
the women in their lives, they don't. They don't want
that changed, and they want perpetrator programs like the ones
in the United States, the UK, Canada. They want to

(49:30):
extend this to trafficking of women. My understanding is that
most Africans who are trafficked as kidnapped, victims of human
trafficking are male, not female, although I guess Africa does

(49:51):
have a sex trafficking problem, and that's both sexist, but
I think most of the labor trafficking is male. But
they want to address trafficking of women. They want to
prohibit all medical and scientific experiments on women without their conformed,
informed consent. So I look at I look at that
one and go back to the Sub Saharan African studies

(50:15):
on circumcision. Uh, those men were given a sales pitch.
They didn't get the other side of the story. They
were told what to do, and then they were paid
to participate in the study. They didn't have like they

(50:37):
The people who did the study would probably call it
informed consent, but I don't think that that's very informed.
They want to ensure that this is funded, so adequate

(50:58):
budgetary and other resources. So they're funding for this, and
notice all of this is specific to women. They don't
have in this. We want to end intimate partner and
family violence because intimate partner and family violence happens to
both sexes. It doesn't just happen to the intimate partner.

(51:20):
Family violence can include elder abuse, child abuse, abuse between
siblings living in the same home, abuse between other members
of extended family living in the same home. And if
they start in on that, then you discover that a
lot of women abuse elderly in laws, a lot of

(51:43):
women abuse their children, and a lot of abuse is
perpetrated by female family members. Right. And finally they mentioned
men ensure that women and men in your joy equal
rights in terms of access to refugee status and determination procedures,

(52:06):
and that women refugees are accorded the full protection and
benefits but not men guaranteed under international refugee law, including
their own identity and other documents. So they mentioned when
men like once briefly, but all of this rolled together
is essentially they want VAWA Violence Against Women Act copy

(52:29):
pasted into every nation in Africa. What VAWA has done
in the United States is significantly increase the rate of
divorce here, and it has significantly increased the rate of
the use of vexatious litigation as a tool in divorce

(52:52):
as a weapon in divorce. So you get your wife
files for divorce. You have kids, you have you own
a home, and maybe you have money in the bank,
and she wants the property, and she wants custody of
the kids, and she wants child support from you, and
she wants some of that money in the bank. She

(53:14):
accuses you of abuse so that you know she can
use the the provisions in the Violence Against Women Act
and whatever state law exists in your state on top
of that, to ensure that she is protected from her
alleged abuser kicks you out of the house, and then

(53:36):
you are stuck fighting a court battle that could go
on for years if you want to try to get
any of that back and not have to make payments
to her for the next several years to decades, depending
on what laws are being enforced. And you know, she

(54:01):
chooses to never marry again, you could be paying. You'd
be paying for the rest of your life in that situation.
So a lot of men do try to fight it,
but a lot of them end up in a situation
where they cannot finance that fight or where the law
doesn't allow them to defend themselves effectively, and they lose everything.

(54:27):
And it's not just half. In that instance, she becomes
the homeowner, but if there's a mortgage, he still has
to pay it. She gets custody of the children, but
he still has to support them, and she doesn't necessarily
have to let him see them. And if she's really

(54:48):
rabid about this fight, you know, she may end up
putting a criminal record on him for things that he
didn't do.

Speaker 2 (54:57):
Andy the this, by the way, is why so many
of these quote unquote refugees, and I and I draw
the biggest hand quote unquote refugees the reason that so
many of them are quote unquote fighting age men, because
it's long since been decided that any women from these

(55:21):
third world countries are allowed to come to these first
world countries, because I mean, it's science to reason that
women must be victims. So if any woman wants to
come from these African or Middle Eastern countries, they should
be allowed to come here. But in general, they don't
want to because women are not being persecuted in these

(55:45):
third world African or Middle Eastern countries. It's it's very
much the men who face assassination by by one group
or another. It's very much the men who are who
are being persecuted by these countries and their governments. And
that's why it's and that's why it largely because in

(56:09):
Muslim countries, men of a certain financial advantage can have
four wives right or more. They have as many wives
as they want, and that necessarily leaves a great deal
of men who have no option because they can't find wives.

(56:34):
Because so many men can have four wives each, and
that leaves seventy five percent of the men who can't
find any wives or whatsoever, and they are being persecuted
by their government, and so they come over here largely
because as as it's just illustrated by what has just
outlined by by the way women ship the term that

(56:56):
men should be offered the same refugee status as as women,
even though women should have never been off at it
in the first place. But if men are given this status,
then yeah, seventy five percent of the men of this
country should should be should be given the same the
same opportunities. And so they go, well, hell, yes, you're

(57:18):
saying I can go to Britain and be given free
ship forever. Well, hell yes, I'm going to And that's
and and that's how we got ourselves in this in
this situation. And meanwhile, the people in Britain and across
the rest of Europe are going, well, well, well, look,
these foreigners are all men, and so we should hate

(57:38):
them because they're all men. And I'm like, bro, bro,
you're completely missing the fucking point. Yep, it's it's it's
it's miss inry that sent these people to our country,
and now you are greeting them with missonry.

Speaker 1 (57:58):
Meanwhile, the guy with the four wives is learning why
King Solomon, who had five hundred wives, famously wrote over
and over again in the Book of Proverbs about how
awful it is to live under the same roof as
a quarrelsome woman, because you know, once you get this

(58:23):
is I never really realized how bad that would be
until there was There's a movie I watched on a flight,
I want to say, clear back in like nineteen ninety four,

(58:43):
about four wives in a home in China, and in
that particular way of marriage, the first one has authority
over the underling wives, and like each wife after the

(59:04):
first one has authority over the next wives after her,
and so on. So there's a built in pecking order.
And as a result, these women are simultaneously like on
their face, you know, they're they're nice to each other,

(59:24):
like they they're a team of wives that are taking
care of this husband, right, but on under the surface,
they're just absolutely evil to each other, just horrible, and uh,
there's a there's a whole set of like they learn
to respect each other, but at the same time, they

(59:46):
learn to respect each other in the way that attack
dogs learn to respect each other. And I cannot, for
the life of me remember the name of the movie,
but it was. I mean, we're talking a long time
ago there, right in nineteen ninety four is a while ago.
But it really struck me that if I was a man,

(01:00:09):
I would not want to be married to more than
one women woman. If women were going to behave like
that that they can't engage in teamwork and family love,
then then they don't need to be under the same
roof really, you know, so if a guy maybe kept

(01:00:31):
four wives in four different homes, in four different locations
where they didn't have to interact with each other, maybe
that might not be so bad. But I don't know.
I just I can't imagine what it must have been
actually like for King Solomon.

Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
What's the name The Only fans Bonny Blue was found
to say, yeah, my situation is the final product of feminism,
and and a lot of the traditionalists the woe.

Speaker 1 (01:01:08):
That had sex with like a thousand guys or something.

Speaker 2 (01:01:10):
Yeah, a lot of the people on our side are saying, yeah, no,
she's She's right, These only fanshores are the final product
of feminism, and I'm like, no, bro, Islam is the
final product of feminism. I realized it's going to have

(01:01:33):
a lot of people going, what what are you talking about? No,
this is this is some grade eight but ship but yeah, no,
this is this is This is where it goes because
feminism and Islam are both extreme measures of how we
protect women. Eventually it comes down to, no, the rich

(01:01:55):
and powerful men should should control as many of the
women as possible so that they can protect them. I mean,
why do you think they they dress them in fucking
black bags so they can protect them. And yes, I know,
I know that this seems like an extreme measure that
that inflicts on their human rights, but they're doing it

(01:02:17):
to protect them. It's it's it's just it's it's different
measures between the West and the East of ways of
protecting women. And yeah, to us, it seems like like
like Muslims are going too far to protect them so
much that that they're oppressing them. But the Muslims are

(01:02:40):
looking at us and how how we allow women to
dress themselves as whores and they're like, no, you're going
so so far to protect them that that you oppress them.
And and on both cases they have a point like
you you go so mental in trying to protect women

(01:03:03):
that they're actually leaving them open to destruction, and yes,
yes that is the case. Are you you can be
so preoccupied with protecting women that that that you actually
dare I say, oppress them? And I don't like using

(01:03:25):
that word because it's so often hideously misused, and I
don't I don't necessarily think it's applicable in either case,
because when two nations are at war, they tend to
oppress each other. But the oppression never manifests as protecting

(01:03:47):
them too much. And you know, what you can say
about Islam is they protect their women too much. And
what they say about us is we protect our women
too much much. And yeah, that's in both cases. There's
a point going on. You can protect women so much

(01:04:08):
that it looks like you're oppressing them, but it's not oppression.
Oppression is what happens when two nations are at war.
You know what I mean. They put them in camps
and they fucking gas them and kill them. That's oppression.
What men do to women is not oppression, not in Islam,

(01:04:29):
not in the West. What we do to women is
protect them too much. I know it looks like oppression,
but it's not. It's protecting them too much. It's a
very different thing. It's not oppression, it's the opposite, you
know what I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:04:47):
Sort of like calling, like calling Munchausen's by proxy being
overprotective in a way. At the top, if you go
to my x dot com page from my account, you'll
see that most people you know usually have some sort
of picture up there. I just have a black screen

(01:05:09):
with the white text on it that says, stop paying
women to make stupid choices. And that's that's the protection
that women have today in the West, is that men
take all the consequences when when women make stupid choices,
so or or their children take the consequences. So woman

(01:05:33):
decides that she's going to ignore, ignore the fact that
criminals exist, and she doesn't do what men have to
do to protect themselves from from being the subject of
criminal violence. And somebody comes running up behind her and
slams into her and steals her purse and goes running

(01:05:55):
off with it. Suddenly we're looking at violence against women.
And even though this is just somebody that was trying
to get some money, and they didn't target her because
she was female. They targeted her because her money was
in a container that was easy for them to steal
and so you know, now we have to hear about

(01:06:19):
how violent men are, even though the percent of the
percentage of the population who engages in that type of
crime is actually incredibly tiny, and we have to hear
about the bear. We have to hear the bear narrative
is about claiming that women have just absolutely no way
to tell the difference between men who are criminally violent

(01:06:42):
and normal men who don't engage in any kind of
violence whatsoever through their whole adult life, unless they're confronted
with violence that they can't get away from and have
to defend themselves from, and you know, they'll demonize every
man in the area, and i thing, you know, their
community passes a misogyny law and anti misogyny law, or

(01:07:06):
there's a new curfew and everybody has to be inside
earlier unless they have, you know, some sort of thing
saying that they're on their way to work or on
their way home from work, and you know, suddenly you
have restrictions on men that don't really make the woman safe,
but they appeal to her ego and they make her

(01:07:30):
feel better. And that's happened over and over again during
the last century as a result of women doing stupid things.
You have women creating an epidemic of unwed parenthood, which
we all know about the statistics that show that children

(01:07:53):
raised without an involved father have much worse outcomes statistically
then children who are raised with an involved father. And
yet over forty percent of children born in the United
States right now are born to single moms, and many
of them are single moms by choice, meaning they had

(01:08:16):
no intention of having an involved father when they got pregnant,
like they got pregnant on purpose and had no intention
of the father being involved, but they might want his
wallet to be involved. Those that don't care if his
wallet's involved or not get artificial insemination through sperm donors

(01:08:37):
and sperm clinics, and that's been on the rise. Women
going to these clinics and getting sperm donation when they
don't have a partner to raise the child with and
so there's no involved father, not even involved stepfather. And
when they're in that situation and they don't make enough

(01:09:02):
money to support the child, they end up going on welfare.
And you support the child through your tax dollars, every
single one of you, every tax dollar you pay, some
of that money gets taken out for the welfare system,
and that's where it goes. So women are more likely
to give up and declare themselves disabled if they have

(01:09:25):
a physical disability or a mental disability that makes it
difficult for them to find a job that they can do.
They're more likely to just say, all right, well I
can't work now and go for disability. And so you
are also paying for that right, And you're paying for
a whole system to protect women against intimate partner and

(01:09:48):
sexual violence that, as we have seen in our last
two shows, has spent the last thirty years in an
international covenant with actions being taken in every nation in
the world as part of this covenant. And they have
achieved absolutely nothing, according to their own reports. And you're

(01:10:12):
paying for that through your tax dollars. So women, you know,
we women are not just overprotected. Women are surrounded in
bubble wrap paid for by men that is unfortunately designed
to prevent women from learning from the consequences of their

(01:10:35):
choices by mitigating those consequences to the degree that women
can't even consider them as consequences. I have created a family.
Now I cannot afford to get my hair and nails
done all the time and live life like a party girl.
Oh no, yes you can, because we're going to pay

(01:10:56):
for your groceries. We're going to pay for your house,
We're going to pay for your electricity, your your heating bill,
your water bill, your sewer and trash. We're just going
to make men pay those through through taxation. Right, they're
not oppressed. Uh Mangatka ninety two has a great way
of putting it. They're not oppressed, they're sheltered. Hm mm hmm. Right.

(01:11:20):
And this is this is women looking through the bubble
at Africa where feminists don't have as much control and
deciding that women in Africa must be horribly oppressed by
their own culture and now they have to have they
got to start interfering in African marriages. So that's again,

(01:11:45):
that's where we are right now. This is what they're
trying to do. Another one that that really struck me,
and we're gonna skip the the first one here because
it's similar to previous ones. Prohibition through legislative may, backed
by sanctions of all forms of female genital mutilation, scarification,

(01:12:06):
medicalization and paramedicalization a female genital mutilation, and all other
practices in order to eradicate them.

Speaker 2 (01:12:14):
Do they at any point mention male genitally.

Speaker 1 (01:12:17):
Nope, not at all.

Speaker 2 (01:12:21):
That's not what they call it. They call it something else,
So it is something else, just like they call men
and women something else, should they decide to call themselves
something else? This is what This is why I go
on about fucking linguistics so much. This is why all

(01:12:41):
Well went on about linguistics so much, because they're all
all stems from what we call things. This is why
Confucius warned us that the beginning of wisdom is calling
things what they are. We calling female genital mutually what
it is, gentle mutilation. Meanwhile, we're not calling male genital

(01:13:06):
mutilation what it is. We're calling it this all manner
of euphemisms. And you know, I've I've made it my
life's work to fucking fight back against euphemisms because I
I fancy, I fancy myself as an amateur linguist. I

(01:13:28):
was something of a linguist myself, to do the to
do the the Spider Man me, the William Dafoe meme. Yes,
I'm I'm something of a linguist myself. And yeah, if
we were to really call things, then it would throw
all of our societies in in in into into this,

(01:13:53):
into this chaos, because I know a lot of you
are going to accuse me of anti Semitism, and if
you got past that barrier, you would accuse me of
Islamophone because it's not. It's not. It's not just Jews

(01:14:17):
who mutilate the genitals of young boys. It's I mean,
it's something like seventy percent of Americans. It's something like
ninety of North Africans. And and if you were, if you,
if you were to map this across the world, it

(01:14:42):
it it disappears to vanishing point across East Asia. God
bless East Asia, not for a number of things, but
for this. But yeah, a great deal of people, particularly Monotheists,
not just Jews, but especially Muslims. And indeed, the seventy

(01:15:06):
percent of Americans who do this to their sons, most
of whom are Christians or atheists. So it's nothing to
do with religious affiliation. This is something, you know. I
wish I could die so I could meet Christopher Hitchens

(01:15:26):
in the heavens. I mean this unlikely I would meet
him in the heavens. If Christopher Hitchins exists anyway, it's
probably not in the heavens because he was like, yeah,
I don't. I am not all this idea the heavens,
but I want, you know, I just I just want

(01:15:49):
to talk to him about this, this idea he had
that the genital the genital mutilation community is almost entirely
Religiou just it's not, it's not at all. The The
the general American population is a testament to this. There

(01:16:10):
are more circumcised males in North America than there are
non gentle generally mutilated boys in North America. There's nothing
to do with the religion, there's.

Speaker 1 (01:16:25):
Nothing that is being abandoned, but.

Speaker 2 (01:16:29):
Slowly there's nothing in in the Christian mythos that that
tells people to circumcise their children. And yet there are
more circumcised males than uncircumcised males in America. Uh and
and and this can't be accounted to by by by
the Jewish faith faith or the most in faith. It's

(01:16:55):
it's so it's like like mister hit it's used to
say the general mutilating community is and is almost entirely religious. No,
the the American population it's, as I say, a testament
against this. So we have to look to other explanations.

(01:17:24):
And it's not just a market. Even in my own country,
twenty percent of of of males are I want to
say circumcised, but let's not euphemize this. Twenty percent of
males are generally mutilated. And it goes across the European
continent and amongst these things. It's and it's nothing to

(01:17:48):
do with with with religious justifications. It's because women like it.
Let's let's get down to brass tacks. It's because women,
a lot of women, an uncomfortable amount of women for

(01:18:10):
circumcised penises for whatever reason. I don't know why. I
guess it's because it's more comfortable for them.

Speaker 1 (01:18:23):
No, No, I don't know why.

Speaker 2 (01:18:27):
Maybe it's just they used.

Speaker 1 (01:18:28):
To Women are bandwagon jumpers like that, you know. And
that's it's that women don't like it because there's anything
good about it. Women like it because they are told
that they should like it. Yeah, and it's gross if
it's not done, and that that's enough for a lot

(01:18:50):
of women to decide that they The circumcision pattern in
the United States was driven by a market for foreskins,
and that's been a thing for a very long time.
It was initially driven by this philosophy that masturbation makes

(01:19:14):
men weak, and cutting off the foreskin would discourage masturbation,
and therefore you have to do that. That was Harvey Kellott.

Speaker 2 (01:19:21):
Well it's my monody. Let's us not forget my monody
is for a Jews listening to me.

Speaker 1 (01:19:28):
As soon as it started becoming feasible to use a
neonatal foreskin fibroblasts for medical purposes and in makeup and stuff,
it got pushed really hard, and all of a sudden,
research was done in Sub Saharan Africa to try to

(01:19:48):
prove that circumcision is very important and that you'll get
AIDS if you don't get circumcised, which is all bullshit
and and so on, when in reality, you know, if
you really want to avoid sexually transmitted infections, don't sleep around.

(01:20:10):
And if you're gonna sleep around anyway, you know, note
that you're taking the risk and use condoms to mitigate
it somewhat. But aside from that, like, there's there's no basis.
A lot of people think that it's because of Christianity.
A lot of people think that Christianity has this mandate

(01:20:34):
to circumcision because of the Old Testament mandate for Jews
to be circumcised, but in fact, there are actual verses
in the Bible that that state that circumcision isn't important anymore,
that doesn't have to be done. And you know, if

(01:20:57):
I remember right, one of them is Incalations and basically
says it doesn't matter whether you're circumcised or not. It
matters that you exhibit your faith by working through love.
And there was one in Corinthians again that said keeping

(01:21:17):
God's commandments matters, not whether or not you're circumcised, and
the commandments being the Ten Commandments, so it's not it
was decided by the early Church that these verses indicated
that circumcision is not important to Christians and there's no

(01:21:38):
mandate to be circumcised. And so in other countries that
are primarily Christian, you will find that there's not a
high pattern is circumcision because of that only in the
United States. And you know, it's because in the United
States it really was heavily promoted to the public and

(01:22:00):
women just bought into it.

Speaker 2 (01:22:03):
Women just just didn't just buy into it. They bought
into it because they prefer being fucked by an uncircumcised penis.
And we really have to push this onto them, like
this is your son, Like, now, do you want to
be fucked by your son?

Speaker 1 (01:22:22):
Is that?

Speaker 2 (01:22:23):
Is that why you're doing this? Right? I know, I
know that's uh that that's going through a few barriers
to get there. But you're You're not the one who's
going to fuck your son. Your son is going to
be fucked by someone else. So you're removing a part
of your son's anatomy in the hope that whoever eventually

(01:22:47):
develops a sexual relationship with them is going to prefer
a circum he gently mutilated penis. Like you really need
to push back on that.

Speaker 1 (01:23:02):
Like, yeah, I don't think it has as much to
do with that as you think. I think women women
have a tendency to listen to people that they shouldn't
listen to in general, and if somebody has a title
that makes them seem authoritative, women will listen to that

(01:23:23):
and they'll just they'll just take it for granted that
this person knows more than they do, and they'll accept it.
But the other element of that is that a lot
of circumcisions in the United States was pushed by fathers.
You know, I want my son to look like me. Yeah, Like,
that's my favorite argument. I want my son to look

(01:23:43):
like his father. Well, doesn't his face suffice? Are they
walking around with their dicks out saying oh look, we
look just alike. I can see the resemblance. Yeah, well
you think of it this way, all right. If if
you were caught in a house fire and you have
burned scars, are you going to scarificate? You get to

(01:24:05):
do a scarification ritual on your son to make matching
burn burn scars.

Speaker 2 (01:24:09):
If you.

Speaker 1 (01:24:11):
If you were raised by an abuser that beats you
with a belt and you have scars on your back
from that, are you going to beat your child with
a belt to to create similar scars? You know, this
is a this is a ritual that that creates a
scar and it involves an amputation of of skin. It's
not you know, it's not the same as dressing alike.

(01:24:35):
And so it's definitely not the same uh to to
UH say I want my son to look like me,
I'm gonna I'm gonna have this done. It's not the
same to to uh to suggest that that's normal as
it as it would be to suggest that you know,
what what nutritional things your ancestors did or right, or

(01:24:59):
what you know what clothing choices you wear together or right,
or things like that. I wanted to go into my
profession because my profession made good money for me. You know,
this is this is a totally different thing. This is
more like like I said, wanting to to scar your
child for you know, to to match your scars so

(01:25:21):
that the child looks like he went through the same
pain and suffering that you did. And I will admit,
you know, when I when I was pregnant, and there
was a lot of pressure from from different elements in
my family, and you know, there was a lot of
pressure to to just conform to what people were doing

(01:25:45):
and what the medical profession was saying was necessary and
all that. And you know, I'm I'm the kind of
person that the first thought in my head was, you know,
I took a anatomy. I took a few different courses
that would be precursors to going into nursing. And one

(01:26:11):
of the things that I learned was that the biggest
organ in your immune system is your skin. It's your
first line of defense against outside infections that if they
just were to land on say open muscle tissue or
something would would affect you, they would be able to
get into your bloodstream. They would be able to create
all kinds of problems. So you you need every time

(01:26:35):
you get a cut, every time you get a scrape,
every time you get a burn, you know, anytime you
have surgery, anything like that. It's creating an opportunity for
opportunistic infections. And so the first thing I thought was,
they're they're they're advising me to have skin removed from

(01:26:59):
my son's genitalia at a time period where he hasn't
learned yet to to to control his bowels and his bladder,
so he's incontinent. Because all infants, all newborns, are incontinent. Therefore,
that area is going to be exposed to urine and feces,
which are germ laden, because that's your body's waste disposal.

(01:27:22):
It seems like the dumbest thing in the world. I'm
looking into this before before I make this decision. What
the hell? Why are we doing this to children? You know,
it'd be different if you were older, you were an adult.
You're you've developed control over all of that stuff. You
know that it's you can keep it clean, you can

(01:27:44):
keep it bandage. You're still going to expose it to
your and there's no way to not but you could
at least keep it clean easily, right and avoid infection.
Not not as an infant, you know, but as an infant,
you're you're in a situation where you're completely helpless, you
have no control over it, and you're you're reliant on

(01:28:08):
parents to change you as soon as you you know,
you go to the bathroom. So then as soon as
I started looking into more and more information on the subject,
it just did not make sense to me, and started
talking to my husband about it, and he's like, if
you don't want to do it, we shouldn't do it.
And that's the way, you know. We decided to leave

(01:28:30):
it up to when he gets older, got older, what
his his decision would be, and and that's that was it,
you know. But I would say a year later after
he was born, maybe two years, the first reports about

(01:28:50):
those subsheren studies started coming out, and I spent about
six months going back and forth self doubt, you know,
should we have done that? Did I just you know,
make my son more susceptible to HIV? And then I
started looking at the studies themselves and realizing that the

(01:29:11):
study was bullshit. They were essentially attributing to circumcision the
benefits of condom use. Like entirely the whole study was
based on attributing to circumcision the benefits of condom use.
And as soon as I realized that, I was like,

(01:29:32):
all right, nope, prect decision. This isn't my body. It's
not beneficial to do this in infancy. It's actually dangerous
to do it in infancy. And I'm glad I realized
that because as I started looking more and more like
I kept up on this information for a long time

(01:29:53):
because of that period of self doubt, and I realized
how many boys die every year is as a result
of this procedure where they bleed to death because it
wasn't known that they had a blood clotting issue, or
they get an infection and they die from the infection.

(01:30:17):
If it's done. There's a particular procedure that is done
within just the Jewish community that involves this is it's
really gross. The rabbi stops the bleeding with his lips.
I'm not exactly sure where that came from or why

(01:30:42):
that there have been infants. I don't it doesn't make sense,
but the infants that are subjected to this, some of
them get like that herpies that causes lip sores in
their bloodstream. Well during infancy, germs have an easier time

(01:31:04):
crossing the blood brain barrier than they do any other time,
and as a result, they end up dying because of that.
They get that infection and they die. I cannot imagine
what that must be. Like, this is this is what,
this is what?

Speaker 2 (01:31:23):
Oh yeah, this is what took many so many of
us from the the anti religious community of like just
ten years ago, but fifteen years ago, when we were
all where we had this atheist community and we were
all speaking out against religions and stuff. But then it,

(01:31:47):
you know, it finally occurred to it. That's what causes circumcision,
is I mean, male generous little mutilation is not just religion.
It's it's mysingry. There's no other way to put it.
Because because it spans across all religions and even across

(01:32:11):
non religions, even atheists can find secular ways to excuse
the genital mutilation of boys. And we were all like, well,
this is this goes far deeper than religion. There is

(01:32:31):
something else that is causing this barbarism. It's not just Jews.
It's not just Muslims, and it's certainly not just Christians,
even though you think it would be. Now, the reasons

(01:32:51):
so many people think it's perfectly fine to genitally torture
young boys is mysingry. And this is why we've been
talking about this ship for a dozen years or so,
because there's something that runs deeper than any religion. We

(01:33:12):
call it mysonry. We call it a bunch of things.
We a bunch of things that are not in the
in general, in the general parlance of the average person.
Because mysionry is not in the general parlance of the
average person. This is why it feels perfectly normal to

(01:33:34):
generitally torture eight day old baby boys. It's called it's
it's called mysonry. It's there's a bunch of things that
could be called, but we don't call it what it is.
And what it is is mysonry, which there's there's just
this many people that just don't give a ship if

(01:33:59):
if you generally torture boys because they're just boys, because
they're just males, and that's that's that's what it is.
That's why so many people from from the old atheist
community of of fifteen years ago. I don't know how
many of you remember that that craze, uh where where

(01:34:20):
where it? It required us to push back against religious convenents,
uh because that was all we could do to push
back against, uh, the the general little torture of boys.
But that was what it took. And and and since that,
that's what caused the the schism between between misunterest atheists

(01:34:50):
and non misunterest atheists. And and and ever since then,
we've we've we've pushed back against ourselves at in order
to even try and isolate the notion of miss Andrew,
the notion that there's it doesn't matter what religion you are,

(01:35:14):
it's not okay to generously torture boys. And and this
is a far greater, a far more urgent issue than
anything religious, Like it doesn't it doesn't fucking matter what
religion you are. It's not okay to generously torture babies,

(01:35:39):
like it doesn't matter what's in the back of your head, Like,
it's not okay, yeah, to do that two baby boys.

Speaker 1 (01:35:54):
And it's the it's it's it's the building side of
every coin that the other face of the coin that
has the actual face face on it. Is guyinocentrism. You
can't have gynocentrism without missonry. This is why I don't

(01:36:14):
believe guyinocentrism is natural. I believe storge is natural. The
family love that values the entire family and places a
value on each person's role in the family and organizes
how the family is handled, how you know, who does

(01:36:40):
what job, and how various parts of the family are
exposed to government or protected from government, exposed to the
community or protected from the community. Who handles the social end,
who handles the economic end, who handles the the hunting,
and who handles the gathering and all that. But it's

(01:37:02):
all revolving around recognizing skills within the families and recognizing
capabilities within the family, and loving each family member as
part of the family, not you know, if mama ain't happy,
ain't nobody happy. Right. It's building happiness through the actions

(01:37:27):
of each member of the family. And it's one of
the reasons why people used to organize into small communities
of extended families too, because nobody was going to be
as invested in the welfare of your children as your
extended family would be. Because your children were the generation

(01:37:50):
that's going to take care of the extended family as
they become the aging generation and the wise and valued
old ancestors. Right, This idea that we just take boys
and discard them, discard their welfare for the benefit of women,

(01:38:17):
just you can't have that and have a family and
a society that continues to function properly. It doesn't work.
That's why we've ended up in this terrible situation. And
I think from just from having worked with people who
have temporarily come here, Like there was a nursing student

(01:38:42):
that I worked with not too long ago. She moved
here to study nursing, and when she got her degree,
she was going to go back home with her degree
in practice at home, but she wanted to study medicine here,
and so she was going to a local university in

(01:39:04):
the Dayton metro area, and she worked with the company
that I worked for as a direct support professional. In
the way that she described her experience of family and
community in her country in Africa was very much like
pre twentieth century family and community in the United States,

(01:39:30):
where when your parents got old, they moved into your
home and you took care of them, and they saw
their grandkids every day, and their grandkids helped take care
of them, and you know, they would help take care
of the younger grandchildren, and the whole family was contributing

(01:39:55):
to the household as best they could, and the whole
family got the benefit of each other's love and each
other's wisdom and each other's companionship. And you know, it
made a lot more sense than what we do today,
where elderly people, even if they have kids, get shuffled

(01:40:17):
off into nursing homes and forgotten about. In a lot
of instances, when I was a nurse's aid, there were
so many people who had family members that could come
to see them that didn't, and it was heartbreaking. And
my grandparents moved in with my parents when I was

(01:40:40):
in college. I had I think we were planning it
when I was in high school, but I don't think
we actually achieved it until I was away at school.
But we were doing We did construction on the house.
We built an in law apartment. I say we, but
my my parents and my grandparents funded the creation of

(01:41:03):
that in law and apartment and they lived there until
the end of their lives, both of them, and it
was it was good for them because they had a
safe place, they had advocates. You know, somebody said, well,
you know your father needs heart surgery. Grandpa was wet

(01:41:26):
ready to go get that heart surgery downe a balloon surgery.
Mom took him to another doctor for a second opinion,
and the other doctor ran a bunch of tests and said,
you don't need to have balloon surgery. Your heart is fine.
And he'd never did have heart problems like his whole life,
he never had heart problems. But in any case, you know,

(01:41:51):
those kind of things. If you're in a nursing home
and you don't get your nursing homes don't do second opinions.
You have one doctor that sees all the patients, or
maybe the patients the regular doctor can come in and
see them. But if somebody recommends a surgery, the surgery
gets done. If somebody recommends a procedure, the procedure gets done,

(01:42:12):
and they just build the insurance. And if somebody gets
an infection, they they die. And you know, so they
benefited from that. But at the same time, you know,
my brother and I benefited immensely from getting to see
our grandparents every day and having them there. You know,

(01:42:35):
we ate dinner every day with not just our parents,
but our grandparents, that was wonderful, and we wouldn't have
had that if they'd have been in a home somewhere,
even if it was the best nursing home in the
area and they got the best possible care they could
could get from anybody, and you know, it was a

(01:42:56):
luxury nursing home of the few that exist. I think
at both ends of that we would have rather have
had that contact. And you know, that structure is under
attack and has been under attack by feminists for one

(01:43:18):
hundred years, and the destruction of that structure. You know,
if I had been an elementary school kid or a teenager,
especially like junior high age, during the time when school
teachers were convincing students that if you know, you were

(01:43:40):
a little bit tomboyish as a girl, that you're actually
a trans man. If you're a little bit fastidious what
they would have called metrosexual in the nineties as a boy,
you're actually a trans woman. But we'd had my grandparents
at home, they both would have called bullshit on that
real quick if I had if it had happened and

(01:44:01):
my grandparents weren't there, you know, I had my parents,
and they would have pushed back against it. But having
both my parents and my grandparents would have protected me.
But if I'd have been in a situation where I
didn't have that kind of protection, I probably could have
been talked into thinking I was trains because I was.
I spent half my childhood up in a tree. I

(01:44:22):
played football with the boys, I picked up bugs, I
played with gooey, gross stuff just like all the I
took things apart to see how they worked. This got
me into an immense amount of trouble sometimes and so on.

(01:44:42):
So I would have had I would have had teachers going,
you know, that's boy stuff, you must be a boy.
And you know, clearly I'm not. Clearly I don't identify
as male, no matter what Twitter says, but it would
it would be awful, you know, to be in that circumstance,

(01:45:03):
a lot of pressure from school and so on, without
having some sort of protection at home. And I think
a lot of kids today would benefit from having their
grandparents in their home. They are a major grounding factor.
Not grounding as in you're grounded, you're being punished, but
as then you got both feet on the ground, and
it's a lot harder for somebody to push you in

(01:45:25):
one direction or another, including the wrong direction. The direction
is wrong for you. But yeah, so this thing, this
attack on family, and this prohibition of female genital mutilation

(01:45:48):
on the continent where all the experiments were done on
men and boys. And if you think the circumcision that
we do in the United States is bad, don't listen
to this if you have a strong stomach. But if
you have a strong stomach, look up thub incision. It

(01:46:09):
is an absolute horror show, just unbelievable stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:46:16):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:46:16):
And it is a tradition. Then I'm hoping that it's
mostly been eliminated because it's it's horrifyingly tortuous and unhealthy.
On top of being excruciating, it creates health problems. But
this is what you know. They don't They don't have

(01:46:38):
anything in this about protecting boys at all from these
types of practices. Only girls. And like I said, the
face side, the side that we see, the side that
we think of as human of the coin is gynocentrism.
But on the other side of that same coin, the

(01:46:59):
instantutional side, the side that has that little building on it, right,
whatever building they decide to feature, that's that's uh, Miss Indry,
Miss indry is pervasive, institutionalized, it's uh imposed everywhere. So

(01:47:28):
and of course what what does what does you and
women want to do? But rescue women from it, not
men the people who need rescued from it. So uh yeah,
protectors women who aret risk of being subjected to harmful practices,

(01:47:51):
but not protection of men who are being subjected to
harmful practices. So I'm going to stop it there, Richard BarreR, Yes,
I was trying to not subject the rest of the
listeners to a description because there are some people who
cannot handle gore. But essentially, yeah, if you can handle gore,

(01:48:18):
read about sub incision. If you cannot handle gore, do
not read about sub incision because it is gore. There
is no other way to to to look at that.

Speaker 2 (01:48:29):
That is gore.

Speaker 1 (01:48:31):
So it's something that I'm hoping, hoping is being eliminated,
hoping hoping that tradition is moving away from it, and
I'm hoping that eventually we'll get tradition to move away
all all move away from all types of genital underage,

(01:48:55):
genital cutting. It shouldn't be done at all. But with that,
I'm going to call the show because I don't want
to get onto the next subject. And I'm not going
to go over the changes they want to make to
marriage other than to say they're essentially doing anti coviture

(01:49:17):
in in Africa. I didn't know that there were nations
in Africa that the the traditions in local culture was
was still coverture oriented. That's kind of interesting. But the
thing that happened in the US was they got rid

(01:49:37):
of the female consequences of coverture, but not the male obligations.
And look where we are now. So I hope the
African people don't fall for that shit. But in the meantime,
we are. We don't have any more super chows, we
don't have any super chats or rumble rants. So I'm

(01:49:58):
going to say thanks everyone for listening, Thanks to my
two co hosts for going over this with me, and
thanks to Brian for making sure we are able to
have the vertical chat in addition to the regular chat.
Good I there you go.

Speaker 2 (01:50:15):
See next Tuesday.

Speaker 1 (01:50:17):
Next well, yeah, we'll see you Tuesday. Remember there is
a HBr news on Thursday, though no one