Latest / Honey Badger Radio / September 10th Brings Out the Ghouls | HBR News 569

Transcript

September 10th Brings Out the Ghouls | HBR News 569 · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: This is HBR News number 569. Nice. September 10th brings
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: out the ghouls where we discuss the news of the
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: week and give it the badger treatment. Hello everyone and
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: welcome back to Honey Badger Radio. I hope you guys
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: are doing well this week and that you are laughing
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: at all of this insanity so that you are not
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: consumed by it. I'm your host Brian and I'm joined by,
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: as always, my lovely co-hosts Hannah Wallen and Dr. Randomercam.
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: So on this week's HBR news, we're going to be
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: talking a little bit more about the Lindsay Clancy case.
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: Obviously there are constant developments. And when I say that
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: I get really, it's not really so much the case
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: itself as it is all of the various shenanigans that
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: have been going on around it, especially from the media and, Um,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: with regards to that, I'm sure that this is a
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: lot of stuff that you guys have already heard about.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: And we're also going to be talking a little bit about, um, well,
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: basically it's a year after Charlie Kirk's assassination and people
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: are being ghoulish about it.
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: So.
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: We're going to talk a little bit about that as
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: well because I think it's important for people to know
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: that there are a not insignificant number of people that
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: want to kill you and they think it's funny and
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: they love it or they want to kill your kids
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: and get away with it. It's one or the other.
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe both. So please stick around for
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: those stories and continue the conversations both in the live
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: chat as well as the comments section. And be sure
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: to join us afterwards for the patron-only show, our little after-party.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: We're going to be looking at another medium blog this week.
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: And interesting the way that it's phrased. I thought this
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: was a little bit too delicious, a little too on
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: the nose. It's, the political divide is ruining the dating pool. Gosh,
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: I wonder what could cause that. For women to see
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: their rights as non-negotiable, both sides is a deal breaker. Oh,
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: we're going to get a different perspective from what we
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: normally would have had ourselves. From the Fiery Feminist, which
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: I'm sure is going to be a completely objective and
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: not at all biased perspective. So if you guys want
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: to join us for that, we're going to go into
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: Medium and we'll probably talk about some other things as
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: well because there's lots of other interesting topics.
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: Heads up in advance. For your refreshment, gentlemen, we will
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: not be talking about Sidney Sweeney.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: No, we're not talking about Sidney Sweeney.
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: And how local girl next door became famous by not
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: shitting on men.
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: That really is the story of Sydney Sweeney. And you
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: saw that she was like, I guess she got bullied
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: on social media by women.
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: Don't want to talk about it.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not going to talk about it. It's fine. So, yeah,
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: we're not talking about Sydney Sweeney. It's not that important.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: But anyway, yeah, we are going to be looking at
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: this Medium blog and the Patreon show. And if you
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: want to join us, you have to become a Badger
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: yourself by going to FeedTheBadger.com. forward slash subscribe you'll be
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: able to go into the discord server where you'll be
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: able to hang out with the community and you'll be
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: able to watch all of the additional content that is feedthebadger.com
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: forward slash subscribe to do that if you want to
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: send us a message at any point during the show
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: and you don't want to put it through youtube's comment
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: enhancement thresher you can go to feedthebadger.com forward slash just
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: the tip to send us a message it lets you
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: send longer messages unedited uncensored and you won't be giving
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: any money to our google overlords so feed the badger.com
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: forward slash just the tip for that. And finally, if
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: you don't want to wake up one morning to find our,
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: that we have been yeeted from the internet, then please
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: go to badger feed.com or honey badger radio.com. That is
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: where all of our content lives or subscribe to us
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: on rumble, which is H B radio, all one word
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: dot rumble.com. So please consider doing that. Cause I think rumble,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: you know, it's, it's rising, it's rising, it's, it's growing
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: all the time. And, um, We would like to avoid
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: having to dance around topics. Well, we don't really dance
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: around them on YouTube. We just don't make any money
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: off of it. So, that's why we need your support.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: But anyway, with all of that out of the way,
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: let us now get into today's stories. Alright, so, Aidan Kearney,
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: known on the internet as Turtle Boy, is a journalist,
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: for lack of a better term. Named the holdout juror
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. So you guys know that,
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: and I know that we covered it, I covered it
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: with Allison, but not necessarily on the news show. It
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: had come out, a couple things about the Lindsay Clancy trial.
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: For those of you guys who have been living under
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: a boulder for the last little while, Lindsay Clancy is
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: a woman who methodically and premeditatively murdered her three children
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: via strangulation. and sent her husband out on an errand
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: while she did the deed. And after that, she sort
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: of like, you know, staged a suicide or attempted suicide
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: is what I guess the official reports are. It looks
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: really suspicious to me. But anyway, it looks really, she's
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: really guilty. She's admitted to guilt and everything else. But
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: for whatever reason, women and women on the jury have
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: come forward and they are defending her and they're siding
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: with her and they wanted her to walk. They wanted
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: to declare her not guilty by reason of insanity. And
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: there was one juror that would not go along with it.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: He would not go along to get along. He rocked
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: the boat, as it were. He was disagreeable. And basically,
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: it ended with a mistrial as a result of this.
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: And now you have women on the jury. They're doing
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: media tours. They're getting interviewed. by various three-letter news agencies,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: I guess you could say, mainstream media outlets. And they
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: are basically trying to run a whole PR campaign in
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: support of Lindsay Clancy and to condemn the juror. And
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: then it came out that the juror was one of
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: three men that were part of the jury and the
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: only black person on the entire jury. The only one,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: according to an interview that was done with one of
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: the jurors. And of course, this throws a giant monkey
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: wrench into the whole conversation because in the minds of many, well,
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: all progressives and most women, because they still are sort
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: of like inclined towards this mindset, this is like a
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: troubling spot to be in because they want to criticize him,
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: but they don't want to look like racists, so they
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: are a little bit wary of it. But on top
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: of that, then you had... the media doing a bunch
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: of digging into this one juror's personal life, and they
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: tried to slander him in the news. They basically said, oh,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: he has these allegations of domestic violence, he supposedly beat
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: up his nephew, and all these things that they're throwing
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: out there to essentially try to destroy his reputation. It's
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: a very feminine way of dealing with the issue of,
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: I don't know, following justice, right? And That also did,
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: you know, it's also like a thing that this guy
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: is dealing with. His reputation is being attacked publicly. And
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: so you have this one journalist named Turtle Boy who
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: has doxed him basically by naming him. And this is
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: the thing too, like they basically like revealed this guy's
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: whole personal life. After an 11 to 1 deadlock produced
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: a mistrial, other jurors went on television and described the
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: lone holdout, a black man and the only non-white member
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: of the panel. They described him as arrogant and unwilling
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: to apply the judge's instructions, according to them, on reasonable doubt.
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: NBC10 Boston then aired a report on his court records,
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: including a dismissed 2021 domestic assault charge, a restraining order,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: and an eviction notice or an eviction case over unpaid rent. Yes,
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: everything that will work, they're going to throw at this guy.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: An anonymous account matched these details to a public mass
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: court's docket. Kearney posted the name, and I'm not going
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: to read it, along with a photograph and the name,
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: the same background information. Judge William Sullivan responded by indefinitely
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: sealing the jury list. Massachusetts law makes it a crime
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: to harass or retaliate against a juror for his service.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: Kearney himself faces separate witness intimidation charges from the Karen
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: Reed case. So this same guy, turtleneck, turtle boy, it's
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: a turtleneck, turtle boy, is also dealing with his own faces,
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: facing his own charges of witness intimidation. for another case
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: he reported on, a fundraising campaign for this juror raised
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: tens of thousands of dollars within hours of the identification.
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: Prosecutors have not yet said whether they will retry Clancy,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: who remains at Tewksbury State Hospital after admitting she strangled
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: her three children in 2023. And before I hand it off,
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: there was another thing about this that I want to
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: point out, because when the news, there was a Boston,
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: NBC News Boston, reported on this, and they basically revealed
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: that this guy had domestic violence charges, and he didn't
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: pay his rent, and all these other things. It also
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: turned out, and I thought this really interesting detail that
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: I needed to put a focus on in my video
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: about it, was that the woman, or the female in
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: the relationship that supposedly accused him of domestic violence did
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: not want to file a police report or file a
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: report or claim on this. So it became an allegation
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: but did not go to any sort of criminal trial
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: or anything like that. And her reasoning was that she
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: didn't want to lose custody. of her daughter of their
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: daughter which i think is really interesting because it suggests
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: to me that if a woman was in a domestic
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: situation with a man and it was one-sided then she
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: would have no reason to fear losing custody of her
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: daughter But because she does fear that, I think that
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: the domestic is probably not what the allegations are claiming
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: and it doesn't paint the picture that people would expect.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: Let's just put it that way. And we all know
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: how we deal with domestic cases anyway, which is sort
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: of a separate issue. But if you're aware of the
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: Duluth model and all of that, then you know that
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: in most cases women will get custody unless there's like
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: a 50-50 presumed shared custody in the state. And even then,
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: it's not a guarantee. And yet, her reason was, I
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: don't want to lose access to my kids. So it
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: sounds like she might have a strong chance of losing
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: that access, which is probably why she didn't file a
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: police report or anything like that, but made these allegations.
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: And again, the allegations, the rent, none of that's relevant
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: to the case. It's just a smear campaign against this
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: juror And against anyone else that is going to be
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: a part of a new jury as like sort of
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: like a chilling effect of like, you know, if you
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: if you end up on the jury, you better like
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: fall in line and acquit Miss Clancy. Otherwise, we're going
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: to come after you. So that's what I want to
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: say about that. I will cede the floor to whoever
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: wants to speak on this.
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: Well, shit. A lot can change in a week. Last Tuesday,
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: I was back here saying, I think it's illegal for
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: jurors to talk about the case or be identified in
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: any way. Well, shit. That might be the wrongest I've
• 11:56
  Speaker 2: ever been about anything, because while I was saying that,
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: the videos of the jurors were coming to light. Yeah,
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: it turns out apparently you can just sit around on
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: a fucking patio with the mainstream media filming you, and
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: you can just go, hi, I'm juror number three. Here's
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: my name and my face. I was dead certain on
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: acquitting this child murderer before I even glanced in the
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: direction of the evidence. I was so excited at the
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: prospect of excusing a woman for child murder because, I mean,
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: it would change the world. For the better, definitely for
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: the better. But there was this man. I won't say
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: what kind of man. But it was this man. And
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: he simply, he wouldn't even countenance the notion that we
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: should let her off just because she's a woman. He
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: kept on insisting that this is about her actions. Something
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: to do with viciously murdering three children. I mean, I
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: can't even, I can't even order. Anyway, hot skip and
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: a jump. Here's his name and his face and a
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: list of grievances we have against him. Look at this.
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: Have you seen this? He put his hand around a
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: woman's throat. Okay, did he strangle her to death? No.
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: Did he even strangle her? No, he just pushed her
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: away by the throat, as it were. I see. Now,
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: in my notes here, I've written... long pause but in
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: this industry we try to discourage any amount of dead
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: air so consider this the director's commentary over what would
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: have been a very long pause okay you say he
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: shoved a woman by the throat what if I told
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: you he didn't actually shove a woman by her throat
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: it was his wife who set it all up and
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: framed him is that Have I convinced you?
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: Evidence?
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: None. Yeah, no, none, I'm afraid. All I've got is.
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: Well, let's keep the meme alive. I don't think you have, mate.
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: He has unpaid rent? OMG, the horror. Even so, I
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: don't think he has, mate. A woman killed three children?
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: Very probably, deliberately. And you're like, I don't think she did, mate. Well,
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: two can play at that game. How many points does
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: it cost me to blindly theorize that this man is innocent?
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: How many points does it cost you to blindly theorize
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: that this woman is innocent? I'm just saying, if this
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: is a game where we score points, I fail to
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: see how you scored higher than me. But it's not
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: a game. Obviously, it's the fucking justice system and it's
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: really weird that it's been turned into a furore of
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: feminist activists doxing everything they could dox as thoroughly as
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: they can let's ruin this person's reputation double quick this
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: is how women operate every generation has known this since
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: going to school or something like stereotypically speaking Men resolve
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: conflicts by fighting, or at least competing in some way.
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: Whereas women resolve conflicts by ostracization through character assassination. They
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: don't physically beat each other one-to-one. They propagandize against each
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: other over the fucking grapevine and whatnot. So if our
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: justice system were to be corrupted by a stereotypical patriarchy...
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: You'd get things like jurors just fighting each other. Let's
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: resolve this over fisticuffs or whatever. And everyone would be like,
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: all right, fine. This is just how the law works now.
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: Let's just do fisticuffs. Boys will be boys. But you'll
• 16:23
  Speaker 2: notice that's not what's happening. What's happening is the jurors
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: are gossiping in public, propagandizing about and against the wrong thinker,
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: full-on reputational ruin against someone who by law is supposed
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: to remain as anonymous as possible. But fuck it. All right, fine.
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: This is just how the law works now. Apparently girls
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: will indeed be girls. And the law can go fuck itself.
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: Dark times, ladies and gentlemen. The justice system has been
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: hijacked by what can only be described as a stereotypical matriarchy.
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: I have to wonder if Lindsay Clancy knows what's going
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: on out here. Lindsay Clancy herself. Is she allowed to
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: watch TV? Is she allowed to use the internet? If
• 17:20
  Speaker 2: she is, is she seeing this phenomenon erupting around her?
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: I can only imagine she's staring at that screen. probably
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: smirking ever so slightly. I have no evidence for this,
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: but at this point, her face, you know, that expression
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: in the courtroom, has been burned into my memory. And
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: I just have to wonder, she might very well be
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: an evil genius who is getting exactly what she wanted.
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: Like she's the Joker in the movie Joker, the Joaquin
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: Phoenix one. she thinks a mob is going to break
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: her out of there any minute and parade her through
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: the burning streets. And honestly, it might happen. It would
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: surprise me, but it wouldn't surprise me very much at
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: this point. All right, go on.
• 18:24
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it honestly wouldn't surprise me at all. But I
• 18:29
  Speaker 3: want to point out that Part of the reason, actually,
• 18:33
  Speaker 3: why it wouldn't surprise me at all. You know, there's bloggers.
• 18:41
  Speaker 3: And then there's establishment bloggers. And we know the difference
• 18:46
  Speaker 3: because we spent years being targeted by one who couldn't
• 18:53
  Speaker 3: come up with a good name for his blog to
• 18:57
  Speaker 3: save his life. But he did. entertain a lot of
• 19:01
  Speaker 3: crazy feminists. This guy is not a journalist. Turtle Boy
• 19:08
  Speaker 3: Kearney is not a journalist. The American Press Institute defines
• 19:15
  Speaker 3: journalism as the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting
• 19:20
  Speaker 3: news and information, but it goes on within that definition
• 19:27
  Speaker 3: to cite the value of the information. Value which comes
• 19:32
  Speaker 3: from a purpose of providing people with verified information they
• 19:36
  Speaker 3: can use to make better decisions. As the factor which
• 19:41
  Speaker 3: differentiates journalism from other forms of communication. Now, if you
• 19:48
  Speaker 3: expose a corrupt person. government official for being corrupt, people
• 19:55
  Speaker 3: can use that to make better voting decisions. If you
• 20:00
  Speaker 3: expose a corrupt CEO of a company for being corrupt,
• 20:05
  Speaker 3: people can use that to decide whether they want to
• 20:08
  Speaker 3: do business with with that company while that person is
• 20:12
  Speaker 3: running it. They can make better decisions or they can
• 20:15
  Speaker 3: better make decisions. There is not a decision people can
• 20:21
  Speaker 3: make with regard to this juror that can be improved
• 20:25
  Speaker 3: by knowing his identity. But there are several decisions that
• 20:29
  Speaker 3: people can make with regard to this private citizen who
• 20:34
  Speaker 3: did not choose to be a public figure If they
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: know who he is and where to find him. They
• 20:44
  Speaker 3: can get themselves into trouble with the law. They can
• 20:48
  Speaker 3: get themselves into a situation where the man or his
• 20:52
  Speaker 3: family feel justified in defending themselves or that they have
• 20:57
  Speaker 3: no other choice but to defend themselves. They can get
• 21:01
  Speaker 3: themselves sued. But they can't really do anything good with
• 21:09
  Speaker 3: that information. The most, the closest they can get to
• 21:15
  Speaker 3: doing something good is a type of inaction. They can
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: ignore it. They can choose not to care who the
• 21:22
  Speaker 3: juror is. They can choose not to care about the
• 21:24
  Speaker 3: information being circulated around about him. They can choose to
• 21:31
  Speaker 3: not repeat it. And they can even choose to not
• 21:36
  Speaker 3: engage with people not remain close to people if they
• 21:46
  Speaker 3: decide to advocate for harassing a private citizen who did
• 21:53
  Speaker 3: not choose to be a public figure and who did
• 21:57
  Speaker 3: nothing wrong. That's the first thing I want to let
• 22:03
  Speaker 3: you know. But the rest of this that tells me
• 22:05
  Speaker 3: that this is not just a series of random events
• 22:09
  Speaker 3: that exposed women is that CNN jumped on the story
• 22:15
  Speaker 3: and amplified it, right? CNN is not an independent news organization.
• 22:24
  Speaker 3: CNN is an establishment news organization that has government contracts, uh, that, uh,
• 22:35
  Speaker 3: has in the past demonstrated its association with the left
• 22:42
  Speaker 3: wing of the American establishment that has proven itself, in fact,
• 22:49
  Speaker 3: to be a major mover and shaker within the left
• 22:54
  Speaker 3: wing establishment in the United States. And they did not
• 22:59
  Speaker 3: just publish that the juror had been doxxed. They did
• 23:04
  Speaker 3: not just Leave it at that and say there is
• 23:08
  Speaker 3: a juror being harassed by this blogger who is publishing
• 23:11
  Speaker 3: information and slanderous statements, defamation maybe. No, they published the
• 23:25
  Speaker 3: defamatory information. They pushed the narrative. This guy, whatever he thinks,
• 23:34
  Speaker 3: can't be legitimate because blah blah blah. Now, it doesn't
• 23:39
  Speaker 3: even matter that the accusations are false. Even if this
• 23:47
  Speaker 3: guy was a lying, thieving, wife-beating piece of shit. Or
• 23:59
  Speaker 3: if it was a woman. That was a lying, thieving,
• 24:01
  Speaker 3: husband beating piece of shit. It still doesn't change the fact.
• 24:07
  Speaker 3: It's illegal to do what has been done to this individual.
• 24:12
  Speaker 3: It is not legal to dox and harass someone for
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: a decision they made as part of a jury. It's not.
• 24:23
  Speaker 3: Even if you think that it's relevant information. Even if
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: you think the public would be interested. Even if you
• 24:33
  Speaker 3: think they did something wrong. Even if you don't like
• 24:37
  Speaker 3: the way that they concluded and the way they voted
• 24:41
  Speaker 3: on the jury. It does not matter. It doesn't matter
• 24:49
  Speaker 3: if the guy is, insert thing that you think is
• 24:53
  Speaker 3: disgusting and hateful here. It doesn't matter if the guy
• 24:56
  Speaker 3: is insert thing that you think should disqualify someone from
• 25:00
  Speaker 3: being a juror here. Because those things would have been
• 25:06
  Speaker 3: either legal or allowed by the two lawyers as they
• 25:16
  Speaker 3: sorted out who they were going to accept and who
• 25:18
  Speaker 3: they were going to reject on the jury. If there
• 25:21
  Speaker 3: was paperwork... He filled out the same paperwork everybody else did.
• 25:26
  Speaker 3: If there was any kind of verbal line of questioning,
• 25:31
  Speaker 3: he had to answer those questions. If he lied about something,
• 25:37
  Speaker 3: the person to tell that to would be the prosecuting attorney.
• 25:43
  Speaker 3: Because it would be the prosecuting attorney who would file charges.
• 25:50
  Speaker 3: Aside from that, the public... Neither has a right nor
• 25:55
  Speaker 3: a need to know this man's name and know how
• 26:00
  Speaker 3: to find him. The only reason why a news agency
• 26:07
  Speaker 3: like CNN would stick their neck out like that is
• 26:12
  Speaker 3: if there was an establishment goal with regard to this case.
• 26:19
  Speaker 3: And I think there was. From the fact that the
• 26:23
  Speaker 3: jury was pretty obviously not very well picked by the
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney's case could have been better.
• 26:33
  Speaker 3: The news media was already promoting a narrative prior to
• 26:41
  Speaker 3: the ruling. And it came out after the fact that
• 26:46
  Speaker 3: all of the female jurors went in except for one.
• 26:51
  Speaker 3: who talked about being persuaded by other jurors, they went
• 26:55
  Speaker 3: in with the idea that they were going to give
• 26:57
  Speaker 3: this woman non-guilty by reason of insanity because it would
• 27:01
  Speaker 3: help women. Where did they get that idea? What made
• 27:05
  Speaker 3: them think that way? Because I don't think that it's
• 27:09
  Speaker 3: natural for women to have that opinion on their own.
• 27:14
  Speaker 3: And I know a lot of people would differ with
• 27:21
  Speaker 3: me on that because the abortion narrative and everything but
• 27:25
  Speaker 3: there is a limit they had to sit and listen
• 27:30
  Speaker 3: to descriptions of the suffering what the forensic evidence indicated
• 27:38
  Speaker 3: happened to her children so there is no way that
• 27:44
  Speaker 3: these women would have maintained that narrative Without a unified agenda.
• 27:54
  Speaker 3: Not a naturally occurring. Oh well the evidence has convinced me.
• 27:59
  Speaker 3: But a damn the evidence. Full speed in the direction of.
• 28:05
  Speaker 3: Giving women the right to kill their children. And then
• 28:09
  Speaker 3: plead temporarily crazy. Go to an institution for a while.
• 28:14
  Speaker 3: And maybe get out. Because look. This was temporary. And uh.
• 28:20
  Speaker 3: Now she's not postpartum anymore, so she should be able
• 28:24
  Speaker 3: to go home, right? And it's not... There have been
• 28:31
  Speaker 3: people that have been saying this is about creating division
• 28:36
  Speaker 3: between men and women. It's not. That exists already. It's
• 28:40
  Speaker 3: existed for 300 years. It's not about broadening the gender war.
• 28:47
  Speaker 3: It's not about fueling the gender war. Because there was
• 28:50
  Speaker 3: no need to do that. We already had dozens of
• 28:56
  Speaker 3: issues to argue about. It's about establishing women as the
• 29:05
  Speaker 3: givers of life and death. And establishing that men can't
• 29:11
  Speaker 3: criticize them. And there is really not any kind of
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: beneficial reason to want to do that. I can think
• 29:19
  Speaker 3: of some potentially not beneficial reasons why. For example, in
• 29:27
  Speaker 3: Nazi Germany during the Holocaust, all of the camps, all
• 29:33
  Speaker 3: of the firing squads, all of the whose house to
• 29:37
  Speaker 3: go to to kidnap all of the people that live there,
• 29:39
  Speaker 3: and put them on a train to nowhere. All of
• 29:44
  Speaker 3: that was handled by a bureaucracy of essentially the human
• 29:54
  Speaker 3: resources department of the Nazi party. Women who did all
• 29:59
  Speaker 3: the paperwork, sorted out, these people are Jewish, these people
• 30:04
  Speaker 3: are gypsies, these people are, insert group here that got
• 30:09
  Speaker 3: sent to the camps. These guys are too old. Let's
• 30:13
  Speaker 3: send somebody to their house to see if they might
• 30:15
  Speaker 3: get a little confused if they fire a bunch of
• 30:18
  Speaker 3: questions at them rapidly. They might need to go too, right? That,
• 30:23
  Speaker 3: all those decisions, women did that. That bureaucracy was the
• 30:31
  Speaker 3: backbone of the killing machine. Men get blamed. Particularly one man.
• 30:42
  Speaker 3: But if it had just been that one guy, if
• 30:45
  Speaker 3: he had just had his attitude all by himself with
• 30:49
  Speaker 3: no other people involved, if nobody had agreed with him,
• 30:54
  Speaker 3: much less obeyed him, He would have just been a
• 30:57
  Speaker 3: madman ranting in the street. He would have sounded like
• 31:04
  Speaker 3: a feminist. And there would have been no history there, right? Well,
• 31:12
  Speaker 3: that's what we're looking at here. Except instead of a
• 31:20
  Speaker 3: human resources department, it's feminists. And unfortunately, their numbers had
• 31:30
  Speaker 3: been shrinking, but because they took over the universities, they
• 31:34
  Speaker 3: are now growing. Not among men, but among women. Women
• 31:41
  Speaker 3: under the age of 30 are more likely to be
• 31:44
  Speaker 3: feminists than not now. And the younger they are, the
• 31:50
  Speaker 3: more likely they are to be feminists. So it's one
• 31:56
  Speaker 3: of these things. I hate to sound paranoid, but I'm gonna.
• 32:02
  Speaker 3: And you can all hand me tinfoil hats, but the
• 32:07
  Speaker 3: reality is I honestly think that this is a way
• 32:13
  Speaker 3: to unify feminists. This is intended to unify feminists under
• 32:19
  Speaker 3: the guise of making women the arbiters of life and death.
• 32:26
  Speaker 3: turning the place in the Western culture into a matriarchy.
• 32:39
  Speaker 3: There may be something that I've missed. There may be
• 32:43
  Speaker 3: some other agenda, some other push. But you tell me.
• 32:51
  Speaker 3: Why would CNN A mainstream establishment news organization whose administrators know,
• 33:01
  Speaker 3: because of a previous case, maybe two previous cases, that
• 33:06
  Speaker 3: they can be sued for millions of dollars if they
• 33:11
  Speaker 3: destroy somebody's life. Why would they stick their neck out
• 33:15
  Speaker 3: to step on this guy without some sort of specific
• 33:20
  Speaker 3: left-wing pro-matriarchy agenda? what other reason do they have? I'll
• 33:30
  Speaker 3: leave it at that.
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: All right. Um, all right. Let me look at some
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: super chows and then we will move on to the
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: next one, which is, uh, related. It's another, it's Lindsay
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: Clancy story as well.
• 33:45
  Speaker 2: So, uh, all right.
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: We got a super child from juror foretold for Floyd. Wait,
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: From Juror Forfoyd, Plausible Deniability, who gives us five and says,
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: I also partially blame the juror foreman or Forfoyd for
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: doxing because she told the judge that there was a
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: holdout juror. Are juror foreman supposed to tell the judge
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: anything about their deliberations? I do not think this doxing
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: story would be as big as it is if nobody
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: knew there was a holdout juror during deliberations. I suspect
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: the female foreman knew what she was doing when she
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: informed the judge. Yeah, entirely possible. I think the women
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: were really frustrated because they couldn't get that person to
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: bend the knee, the man. And I think they wanted
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: to come after him, and they couldn't. And so what
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: they did instead, they're just trying to destroy his reputation
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: as a warning to anyone else, I think. Yeah, it's wild,
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: but I don't know. I think in Massachusetts, there's different
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: laws in different states about that. It would seem to
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: me that Nothing, no laws were broken, according to Nate,
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: the lawyer who did a video on this. I don't
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: know if he's right or wrong. I know that there's precedent,
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: I guess, that he brings up. But this is still
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: really unethical, and it's really shitty.
• 35:09
  Speaker 3: I can tell you a law that was broken.
• 35:11
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 35:12
  Speaker 3: All right. Let me ask you two questions. If you
• 35:18
  Speaker 3: were that man, and people started coming to your house...
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: And making threats. And making calls. And essentially harassing you.
• 35:31
  Speaker 3: And you didn't have a way to prevent that. There
• 35:35
  Speaker 3: was no... You couldn't block it from happening. There's no
• 35:39
  Speaker 3: way to keep them off your street. There's no way
• 35:42
  Speaker 3: to keep them off the sidewalk. Out from in front
• 35:45
  Speaker 3: of your house and stuff like that. Do you think
• 35:48
  Speaker 3: that that would cause you substantial emotional distress?
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe. I mean, sure.
• 36:00
  Speaker 3: Do you think it would be reasonable to expect that
• 36:04
  Speaker 3: it could cause you to be in fear for your
• 36:08
  Speaker 3: safety or the safety of any of your loved ones?
• 36:12
  Speaker 3: All right, that's two. So, yes, it could cause you
• 36:17
  Speaker 3: substantial emotional distress, and it could cause you to be
• 36:22
  Speaker 3: in reasonable fear for your safety. He violated the Violence
• 36:30
  Speaker 3: Against Women Act. Whoever... What's his name?
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: Kearney.
• 36:35
  Speaker 3: By doxing this juror and creating a situation in which
• 36:43
  Speaker 3: this juror now is in a situation to be reasonably
• 36:50
  Speaker 3: expected to experience substantial emotional distress.
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: Or.
• 36:57
  Speaker 3: to fear for his safety or the safety of any
• 36:59
  Speaker 3: of his family members, the stalking section. Kearney violated the
• 37:06
  Speaker 3: stalking section of the Violence Against Women Act. Now, we've
• 37:12
  Speaker 3: talked about the fact that the Violence Against Women Act
• 37:15
  Speaker 3: is not gender neutral. It specifies women repeatedly in the law,
• 37:24
  Speaker 3: but there is a clause And because there is a clause,
• 37:28
  Speaker 3: and the clause says that no individual may be discriminated
• 37:33
  Speaker 3: against as a victim of any of the crimes laid
• 37:38
  Speaker 3: out in the Violence Against Women Act, no individual can
• 37:42
  Speaker 3: be discriminated against on the basis of their sex. So,
• 37:47
  Speaker 3: in other words, you can't decide that someone's not a
• 37:50
  Speaker 3: victim of one of these crimes because they're not female.
• 37:55
  Speaker 3: We're told... by women, by feminists, and by law enforcement
• 38:01
  Speaker 3: and politicians, that this is a gender-neutral law. It just
• 38:05
  Speaker 3: says women in it a whole bunch of times. But
• 38:09
  Speaker 3: if one of these things happens to a man, the
• 38:12
  Speaker 3: perpetrator could still be prosecuted. And certainly, it could be
• 38:16
  Speaker 3: grounds for a lawsuit against the perpetrator as well. So,
• 38:22
  Speaker 3: there's the law that's been violated. And the juror would
• 38:26
  Speaker 3: be well within his rights to file a criminal complaint
• 38:31
  Speaker 3: against Kearney for stalking and also to sue Kearney into oblivion.
• 38:39
  Speaker 3: And any major news outlet that published what Kearney wrote. Because, again,
• 38:47
  Speaker 3: like I said, it's not news if people cannot use
• 38:51
  Speaker 3: the information correctly. to make better decisions. They can't improve
• 38:58
  Speaker 3: their decision-making process with the information that was published about him.
• 39:02
  Speaker 3: There is nothing good that they can do, nothing useful
• 39:06
  Speaker 3: to themselves. They can only do themselves and other people
• 39:09
  Speaker 3: harm with that information. So it's not journalism. He does
• 39:13
  Speaker 3: not have the protection of freedom of the press for
• 39:17
  Speaker 3: stalking and harassing this individual. And it doesn't even matter
• 39:24
  Speaker 3: that he's a juror. If he did it to anybody,
• 39:29
  Speaker 3: it would be the same thing.
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah i don't disagree i i don't know if he's
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: gonna pursue anything i i think that he might i
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: mean he's getting a lot of money um but i
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: know i would uh yeah but but uh either way
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: um I don't disagree with what the original Super Chow said.
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: I don't know that there's going to be consequences for
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: the women. There should be, but I don't know if
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: there's going to be. I don't know what, you know,
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: if he's going to pursue it and if they're going
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: to even follow through on that. But yeah, I mean,
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: thank you for the Super Chow regardless. Meredith G gave
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: us five and said, HBR News 569, Honey for the Badgers.
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: So it seems that the murder of Crones don't understand
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: how reasonable down works in the Clancy case. You mean
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: reasonable doubt? Because the judge allowed the insanity defense evidence
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: into the case, the reasonable doubt is whether or not
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: she was insane. This is a case, was an affirmative
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: defense where Lindsay did not deny killing her children. So
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: if a juror has reasonable doubt that they have to
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: vote guilty, yes. It is not illegal for jurors to
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: expose themselves by doing interviews, but it is illegal in
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: the state of Massachusetts to retaliate against a juror for
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: how they voted in the case. It could carry... Well,
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: that depends on how you define retaliate, but yes. It
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: could carry a sentence of up to 20 years because
• 40:58
  Speaker 1: this trial involving a potential life sentence. We have a
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: word for people who lose their spouses and words for
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: people who lose their parents because as painful as that
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: loss is, it is in the natural order. We don't
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: have a word for people who outlive their children because
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: it is unnatural. And when a parent kills their child,
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: it is evil.
• 41:19
  Speaker 2: Uh, yes.
• 41:20
  Speaker 1: So that was, I was saying that when I was
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: talking to Alison about the case where the women were like,
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: he said he had a reasonable doubt. And I was like, well, yeah,
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: he doubted her sanity. Like that, like they got that backwards.
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: I feel like they didn't quite understand what he was saying.
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: That's why he was like, why don't we get the
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: judge to define it for us again? And they were
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: so dead set on, uh, making like basically framing her
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: as innocent that They didn't even want to hear from him.
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: You know, you saw also the interview clip that went
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: out where one of the jurors and I don't know
• 41:52
  Speaker 1: if she was like the main one or what said
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: that it was political. Like they were like, this is
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: for women. And that was what they were doing. So
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: they did say that plainly. And again, I wasn't surprised
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: by it. But I want to add one more thing
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: to this before we move on to the next story,
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: which is still about the Lindsay Clancy thing, so we
• 42:12
  Speaker 1: could keep talking about it after that in that context.
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: A lot of people that I saw reacting to this
• 42:19
  Speaker 1: stuff that were appalled by the support that Lindsay Clancy
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: was getting from women online, actually almost everyone that I
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: saw reacting to it, it's interesting because they immediately assumed
• 42:33
  Speaker 1: that the people that were supporting her were feminists when
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: none of them said they were feminists. And I was
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: talking to the guests I had on the fireside chat yesterday.
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: I said, do you notice that everyone's like, Oh, look
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: at these crazy feminists. Oh, look at these crazy leftist women. Oh,
• 42:49
  Speaker 1: look at these crazy feminist women. And I'm like, but
• 42:51
  Speaker 1: none of them said they were feminists. Like they were
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: just women.
• 42:56
  Speaker 2: And I think it's because everyone knows that feminism means
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: women can get away with everything.
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 43:03
  Speaker 2: It's nothing to do with left or right.
• 43:05
  Speaker 3: In fact, One of the Lindsay Clancy supporters that I
• 43:10
  Speaker 3: argued with who gave me the most vehement, angry, long-worded,
• 43:17
  Speaker 3: verbose arguments and eventually blocked me was Elizabeth Yeld, who
• 43:23
  Speaker 3: is a due process advocate. She is actually anti-false allegations.
• 43:32
  Speaker 3: She was part of the group arranging for national falsely
• 43:38
  Speaker 3: accused day. And she kept accusing me of not knowing
• 43:43
  Speaker 3: the evidence, not watching the case and, uh, just being
• 43:48
  Speaker 3: against Clancy because she's female.
• 43:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 43:53
  Speaker 3: Like this is, that's what I was driving towards.
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: Is that it's not, people are, they, I think that
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: what's what I'm, what I've seen is people that don't
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: want to face the fact that it's really just women
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: and not necessarily, at least not like card-carrying feminist women
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: or feminist activists that are doing this. And it's like
• 44:20
  Speaker 1: they're trying to rationalize female evil by basically tying it
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: to an ideology and say, oh no, this is because
• 44:27
  Speaker 1: of feminist women.
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: It's like, no, no, no.
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: No, this is just women. And now look, I... I'm
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: also of the belief that feminism is simply women's nature
• 44:37
  Speaker 1: politicized selfishly, selfish women's nature politicized. So yeah, you could
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: make that attribution, but what you are doing that I
• 44:47
  Speaker 1: think where the mistake is at is that you're assuming
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: these women's, they must believe all these other things because
• 44:54
  Speaker 1: they believe this thing. And because to face the fact
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: that they are in support of a woman killing their
• 45:02
  Speaker 1: children under what I guess they would assume to be
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: the correct circumstances, basically because those children cause discomfort, that
• 45:11
  Speaker 1: that is somehow feminism. Now, yes, feminists will support that,
• 45:15
  Speaker 1: of course, but it's not only that in the ideological frame.
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: It is actually just the social state. It's the state
• 45:24
  Speaker 1: of women. That's what it is. It's just the state
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: of women. I wouldn't say it's... I think Carl Sargon
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: said it was a biological... as a political position based
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: in biology in a way. Yeah. But he's still not
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: seeing that there is, you know, what's the saying like
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: good and evil runs through the heart of every man. And.
• 45:48
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 45:49
  Speaker 3: Let's, let's, let's, uh, struggle just a little bit. One
• 45:52
  Speaker 3: thing it's both.
• 45:53
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 45:55
  Speaker 3: There is an accountability gap. I've talked about it before
• 45:59
  Speaker 3: the accountability gap. I would say is probably overwhelming majority,
• 46:04
  Speaker 3: you know, social, but there's an element of it that
• 46:10
  Speaker 3: is biological. And, and it is, I'm seeing it as
• 46:14
  Speaker 3: biological based on two things. One, women have a biological
• 46:22
  Speaker 3: incentive to be slightly more toward the narcissistic end of,
• 46:27
  Speaker 3: if you put a scale from, from narcissism, To being
• 46:34
  Speaker 3: completely altruistic toward other people. And too humble, basically. They're
• 46:43
  Speaker 3: more toward the narcissistic end than men are. And then
• 46:48
  Speaker 3: at the same time, if you put a scale between
• 46:54
  Speaker 3: way too risk-averse and way too okay with taking risks...
• 47:01
  Speaker 3: women run more toward the risk-averse end of the scale
• 47:07
  Speaker 3: than men do. And in both instances, you would have
• 47:10
  Speaker 3: a spectrum, not a point on the scale. Women's spectrum
• 47:16
  Speaker 3: starts and ends closer to narcissism and closer to risk-averse.
• 47:21
  Speaker 3: Men's spectrum starts and ends closer to normal, basically to healthy.
• 47:34
  Speaker 3: Of course, there are men who are narcissistic and there
• 47:37
  Speaker 3: are women who are too altruistic or normally altruistic and
• 47:42
  Speaker 3: same with risk. But if you look at those, they're
• 47:47
  Speaker 3: close to the other end. Well, accountability requires you to
• 47:51
  Speaker 3: take a level of risk. You have to risk being
• 47:54
  Speaker 3: the person who did something wrong that has to make
• 47:59
  Speaker 3: up for it. You have to risk taking responsibility for
• 48:04
  Speaker 3: your promises and your choices so if you say I
• 48:08
  Speaker 3: will do this and then doing this turns out to
• 48:10
  Speaker 3: be harder than you intended you still have responsibility for
• 48:15
  Speaker 3: it you take the risk of having to hold up
• 48:18
  Speaker 3: your end of the deal and you risk reputational damage
• 48:23
  Speaker 3: and because women are more risk averse and they are
• 48:27
  Speaker 3: more narcissistic they don't want to risk being wrong They
• 48:32
  Speaker 3: won't take accountability for being wrong. And they will essentially
• 48:38
  Speaker 3: ignore the information when they're wrong. And so that is
• 48:43
  Speaker 3: why it is partly biological. But the rest of the
• 48:50
  Speaker 3: element of that is our society has coddled this for
• 48:53
  Speaker 3: so long that where women might have a slight tendency
• 48:58
  Speaker 3: to be less accountable than men.
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 49:01
  Speaker 3: They have a cultural tendency that is very broad. Pun intended.
• 49:08
  Speaker 3: A deep tendency to be less accountable than men. It's inflated.
• 49:17
  Speaker 3: Just like their ego.
• 49:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah and i well my yeah so anyway my point
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: is is that uh i think people are i think
• 49:26
  Speaker 1: it's kind of a cope actually for you know instead
• 49:29
  Speaker 1: of facing the reality of women's nature and how and
• 49:32
  Speaker 1: how evil it can get They're just trying to find
• 49:35
  Speaker 1: a way to pass the buck and saying, oh, it's ideological. No, no,
• 49:39
  Speaker 1: I think there's something happening here that you're not willing
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: to face. But okay, let's see.
• 49:45
  Speaker 2: Agreed, and we must proceed.
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we must proceed. Okay, I got another super child
• 49:50
  Speaker 1: from Albatross who gives us five and says, I heard
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: in a few comment sections saying that Lindsay is slash
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: was a lot of woman's warship. This case was Moby Dick.
• 50:01
  Speaker 1: And this win would have secured so much for feminists,
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: but it was snatched away by the lone juror. Well, yeah,
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: I mean, again, I don't know that it's feminism. I
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: think it's just, like, it is in a large part,
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: but it's not only that.
• 50:13
  Speaker 2: I think there's... Proto-feminism.
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like women wanting to know that they have...
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: They're angry... Okay, they're generally more angry at men these
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: days than ever, but it's not ideological, right? They're just
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: really angry at men, and everything that looks like it
• 50:31
  Speaker 1: could be a strike against men, they will go along with,
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: no matter what the age. I mean, yes, the young
• 50:38
  Speaker 1: women are even worse, but it's not. I mean, most
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: of the women on the jury were older, and they
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: were still 100% behind her. Most of the women that
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: were standing outside supporting her from the courtroom were older.
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: I don't think all of them were feminists. I think
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: that some of them, sure, but I think that most
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: of them were just normie women that were just like, I,
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: you know, I stand with her because I need to stand.
• 50:59
  Speaker 1: It's the latest moral panic. I got to stand with
• 51:01
  Speaker 1: the underdog. She's the underdog. I'm going to stand with her.
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: It's not even like about like what is just or
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: right or moral at all. It's just about team sports.
• 51:11
  Speaker 3: You know that feminism had a different definition before it
• 51:16
  Speaker 3: became political.
• 51:19
  Speaker 2: It was related to the verb to feminize.
• 51:23
  Speaker 3: No, it was synonymous with femininity. Feminism and femininity meant
• 51:31
  Speaker 3: the same thing. Do with that what you will. I
• 51:37
  Speaker 3: just wanted to point it out.
• 51:39
  Speaker 2: To masculinize is to make something more masculine. To feminize
• 51:44
  Speaker 2: is to make something more feminine.
• 51:46
  Speaker 3: Right, but feminism.
• 51:49
  Speaker 3: And femininity meant the same thing.
• 51:52
  Speaker 2: Sure.
• 51:53
  Speaker 1: I get it, but we got to move on.
• 51:54
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 51:55
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: So let's get into the next story. Let me know
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: what you guys think about this one in the comments.
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: All right. So Patrick Clancy, who has been the subject
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: of maybe just as much, if not more, let's say
• 52:10
  Speaker 1: of the ire of these people than the lone juror,
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: because I think that it was, it's pretty even split.
• 52:15
  Speaker 1: I mean, they're both men. So, right. I mean, Patrick Clancy,
• 52:18
  Speaker 1: the former husband of Lindsay Clancy, announced through his lawyer
• 52:21
  Speaker 1: Howard Cooper on September 8th that he intends to pursue
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: legal action against the online influencers and conspiracy theorists. The
• 52:29
  Speaker 1: statement described a, quote, Which, by the way, if you're
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: a husband that just lost three kids and a wife
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: in one go, that is, like, how do you even
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: cope with people, like, trying to blame you for that
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: after that? That's insane. Cooper said the claims threatened Patrick's reputation,
• 52:53
  Speaker 1: his livelihood, and his life, and that law enforcement has
• 52:56
  Speaker 1: been notified. Patrick was ruled out as a suspect in
• 53:00
  Speaker 1: the 2023 deaths of Cora Dawson and Kalen. He has
• 53:04
  Speaker 1: since remarried and left Massachusetts. Remember, this happened three years ago, so...
• 53:09
  Speaker 1: The accusations intensified after the mistrial and after Patrick testified
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: at trial. Lindsay Clancy's own attorney, Kevin Reddington, publicly rejected
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: the theories and said Patrick, quote, has been through hell
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: and back, end quote. Which is, you know, decent from
• 53:23
  Speaker 1: the defense, like, attorney. But he kind of had to
• 53:27
  Speaker 1: because it was true. Cooper warned that those spreading what
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: he called baseless falsehoods for social media profit will face consequences,
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: including lawsuits. Prosecutors have not yet decided whether to retry
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy, who remains hospitalized. Both former spouses have pending
• 53:45
  Speaker 1: civil suits against her former mental health providers. All right,
• 53:49
  Speaker 1: go ahead, whoever wants to.
• 53:51
  Speaker 2: Speak to this. It's perhaps a cruel fate that this
• 53:54
  Speaker 2: trial has overlapped with the advent of Internationally Falsely Accused
• 54:00
  Speaker 2: Day on September 9th, I think it was. And despite
• 54:06
  Speaker 2: not having been officially falsely accused by or in a
• 54:12
  Speaker 2: court of law, Patrick Clunty has nevertheless become the poster
• 54:16
  Speaker 2: boy for the falsely accused. Men don't like to think
• 54:22
  Speaker 2: of themselves as victims. We know this. We encounter this
• 54:27
  Speaker 2: everywhere all the time. I mean, mentally, healthy people. generally
• 54:32
  Speaker 2: don't like to think of themselves as victims but in
• 54:37
  Speaker 2: a world of mentally unhealthy women who insist on being
• 54:41
  Speaker 2: worshipped on the pedestal of victimhood to the exclusion of
• 54:45
  Speaker 2: all men you get generations of men who cannot see
• 54:53
  Speaker 2: themselves as victims no matter what happens A lot of
• 55:00
  Speaker 2: fathers out there have publicly stated that they cannot bring
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: themselves to read the transcript of Patrick Clancy's 911 call.
• 55:10
  Speaker 2: Never mind listen to the call itself. I haven't listened
• 55:14
  Speaker 2: to it, but I have read it. And a lot
• 55:19
  Speaker 2: of it is just parentheses screaming closed parentheses. Because it's
• 55:26
  Speaker 2: at the discretion of the transcriber, but It weirdly is
• 55:32
  Speaker 2: actually quite harrowing. Even when it's just written in a
• 55:39
  Speaker 2: stage notation. Like Patrick blood-curdling scream from stage left. A
• 55:49
  Speaker 2: father's worst nightmare is not even dying. Not even dying
• 55:57
  Speaker 2: in the worst possible way. A father's worst nightmare is.
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: That.
• 56:04
  Speaker 2: Exactly what played out in that 911 call. He comes
• 56:08
  Speaker 2: home one day and all his children are dead. He
• 56:12
  Speaker 2: didn't even get to defend them with his life. They're
• 56:18
  Speaker 2: just dead. Men can barely imagine what kind of scream
• 56:24
  Speaker 2: they would scream if that happened to them. But I
• 56:28
  Speaker 2: mean to them. I need to highlight this. This happened
• 56:33
  Speaker 2: to Patrick Currency. We could argue all day about what
• 56:38
  Speaker 2: a victim is and how maybe it's not even healthy
• 56:41
  Speaker 2: to treat anyone as a victim, but for fuck's sake,
• 56:46
  Speaker 2: if we cannot extend it to a man who experienced
• 56:52
  Speaker 2: the worst thing a man can experience, his children getting murdered.
• 56:59
  Speaker 2: And then he got falsely accused of being the murderer.
• 57:05
  Speaker 2: Then where the fuck are we? What does it take
• 57:11
  Speaker 2: for us to say, yes, okay, fine, that man is
• 57:15
  Speaker 2: a victim. I have to call that man a victim.
• 57:20
  Speaker 2: I don't mean it in a mean way. I don't
• 57:22
  Speaker 2: mean it in a diminishing way. But if this was
• 57:26
  Speaker 2: just a thought experiment... like to tackle what it means
• 57:31
  Speaker 2: for a man to be a victim, if you were
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: to invent a thought experiment as to what would leave
• 57:38
  Speaker 2: a man victimized, it would be what happened to Patrick Clancy.
• 57:48
  Speaker 2: I think that's what's at the heart of this. Modern women,
• 57:53
  Speaker 2: never mind feminist women, never mind any other, whether you
• 57:56
  Speaker 2: identify with it or not, Modern women, most of them,
• 58:01
  Speaker 2: cannot conceive of a man being that much of a victim.
• 58:05
  Speaker 2: Because that's like ninth layer of hell, victim. That sort
• 58:11
  Speaker 2: of thing is reserved exclusively for women and how oppressed
• 58:16
  Speaker 2: these women are by the male gaze and by fucking
• 58:21
  Speaker 2: air conditioning or whatever. The idea of a man being
• 58:26
  Speaker 2: as victimized as Patrick Clancy was and is, is just,
• 58:33
  Speaker 2: it short circuits their brains. They can't handle that line
• 58:39
  Speaker 2: of code. How can a man possibly be that victimized? No,
• 58:47
  Speaker 2: it's not possible. And so they just reset to basics
• 58:51
  Speaker 2: and go, oh, well, the woman must be the victim.
• 58:55
  Speaker 2: If there's a tragedy of this magnitude, it simply must
• 58:58
  Speaker 2: be men's fault. The evidence of my eyes and ears
• 59:03
  Speaker 2: have proved insufficient in my understanding of the world, and
• 59:07
  Speaker 2: so may I refer you to ignorance. omega. Quote unquote,
• 59:16
  Speaker 2: women are always the victims. That is where we begin.
• 59:20
  Speaker 2: It is where we end everything else's window dressing. Women
• 59:25
  Speaker 2: are always the victims. in their interactions with white men.
• 59:31
  Speaker 1: Specifically. Are you a practicing, are you a non-practicing white
• 59:37
  Speaker 1: or a practicing white? Practicing whiteness? How do you.
• 59:43
  Speaker 3: Be a non-practicing of your skin?
• 59:47
  Speaker 1: You haven't seen that?
• 59:49
  Speaker 2: There's a certain TikTok video where someone called themselves a
• 59:53
  Speaker 2: non-practicing white.
• 59:55
  Speaker 3: I've got to know. How exactly are they doing that?
• 59:58
  Speaker 1: It's practicing whiteness, but.
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 3: Non-practicing. But how are they achieving, specifically? How are they
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 3: making themselves a non-practicing white? What things are they claiming
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 3: they're doing that make them no longer white?
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 2: They destroy the white race.
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 3: Oh, good grief.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: But you know what, Mike? I know you for a while,
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: and I know for sure you're not a practicing white,
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 1: because you've perfected it.
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 2: You can never... You can never practice it.
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 3: Do they pronounce it who-white?
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 2: But, yeah, no.
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 1: Um....
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 2: This notion is presented that women are always the victims
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 2: in their interactions with white men. And then someone asks,
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 2: what about their interactions with black men? And they're like,
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 2: I'm afraid we're still short-circuiting about that. We need to
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 2: sit with that for a minute. But rest assured, If
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 2: we do all this doxing and smearing and pitchfork mobbing
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 2: and we end up inadvertently lynching a black man, we
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 2: just want you to know that it wasn't us who
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 2: did that lynching. We didn't do that. White supremacist patriarchy
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 2: did that. Okay? Are we still getting away with this?
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 2: Believe it or not, yes, you are. Dr. Randy McCamber,
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 2: the news on the British Radio. Oh, boy.
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 3: Okay, well, everything I said in the previous segment goes
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 3: for this, too. In Patrick Clancy's situation, it's pretty obvious
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 3: that this could be reasonably expected to cause him substantial
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 3: emotional distress. And if you don't believe me, let me
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 3: just tell you that when someone kills someone that you
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 3: consider to be under your protection, it doesn't matter if
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 3: you could have done something or not. You will still
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 3: spend the rest of your life beating yourself up, thinking,
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 3: what if I'd done this? What if I'd done that?
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 3: What if I changed this? What if I changed that?
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 3: What I went through had no comparison. Too much stuff,
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 3: too much unknown, you know, going on during the COVID crisis.
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 3: But I'll never stop thinking, what if I had just
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 3: told my mom to wait? And what if I had
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 3: caught the meta three days earlier? And that was not brutal.
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 3: Not brutal in the way of strangling someone. What she
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 3: went through was brutal. I can't imagine three little kids
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 3: that are completely helpless and coming home and finding out
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 3: that the person that normally children love and trust the
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 3: most is a parent, right? One of the two. Who
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 3: hold that title. Did that to them. While you were
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 3: not there. To protect them. And then people start. Lying
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 3: about you. And saying that you killed them. To have that.
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 3: On top. Piled on top. Of everything that he had
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 3: to have experienced. And he'll never. Stop. Beating himself up.
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 3: Why didn't I figure this out before it happened? Why
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 3: didn't I? Why didn't I? And it'll be there when
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 3: he wakes up in the morning. It'll be there every
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 3: time he sees somebody else's kids. It'll be there every
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 3: time he takes care of his children. Because he has
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 3: had another kid, if I remember right, with his second wife.
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 3: It'll be there Every time he goes to the grocery store.
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 3: Every time something happens. Or he does something. Somebody else
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 3: does something. The lighting is just right. It doesn't have
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 3: to be anything remarkable. Something will remind him every day.
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 3: And he'll never get away from it. It'll never be
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 3: something that... Goes all the way into the background. So
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 3: he's going to be sitting on one of his shoulders.
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 3: You could have done better. You could have done this.
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 3: You could have done that. And it doesn't have to say.
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 3: It's your fault. All it has to do is say.
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 3: It's not entirely not your fault. To eat away at him.
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 3: For the rest of his life. And they've piled on
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 3: top of that. There has to be an example. There
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 3: has to be people who face consequences harsh enough for
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 3: doing that to him that the next time somebody thinks
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 3: of pulling that kind of shit they'll be afraid to
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 3: because those consequences might befall them as well. And it
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 3: has to be it has to be big enough and
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 3: terrible enough That people aren't going to rebel against it.
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 3: It's not just. Defamation. It's stalking. It's harassment. It's criminal.
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: And.
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 3: Men in these situations really do. Need to start. Using
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 3: the same laws. Against women. That women have used against men.
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 3: For decades. To fight back. against this bullshit. It needs
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 3: to happen every single time women falsely accuse a man.
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 3: And it needs to happen every single time. Any group
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 3: of people within our culture use false allegations to throw
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 3: a man under the bus because he is a man.
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 3: And that is what is happening to Mr. Clancy He
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 3: is being thrown under the bus because he is a man.
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 3: And false allegations are being used as the mechanism to
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 3: launch him underneath that bus because he is a man.
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 3: So men have to start fighting back against this. And
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 3: they have to start using the very same laws that
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 3: women exploit against men. To do them harm in the
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 3: first place. It needs to happen swiftly. It needs to happen.
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 3: In mass. And it needs to happen. As much. As
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 3: humanly possible. In the meantime. When you see someone. Making allegations.
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 3: Against this guy. Especially like. If you see it on X.
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 3: Ask for a community note. Because people hate. getting community noted.
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 3: And you don't have to report them. It's even better
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 3: if they don't get suspended. And there's this big old
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 3: community note on their post that says their post is
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 3: a lie. That puts them out there as liars. And
• 1:08:42
  Speaker 3: it's a hundred times better. It very much, very much
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 3: goes right to the heart of the female ego. And
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 3: the liar's ego. Liars want to feel bigger than you.
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 3: And they want to feel special and important. And if you.
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 3: point out the flaw in what they said, it'll destroy it.
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 3: But anywhere else, just report it because I don't think
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 3: they community note or do anything like community noting on
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 3: other social media. So just report it as harassment and
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 3: leave it at that. so they can only say it
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 3: where they can get called out on it, which would
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 3: be quite poetic. Because if men don't stick together, and
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 3: they don't defend the innocence of an innocent man, then
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 3: men are fucked. Because women stick together even when a
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 3: woman is guilty. And they definitely.
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 1: All right. Well, thank you for that. Let me see
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 1: if you guys have any super chats, super chows, rumble rants.
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: And I see one from Zarex for five. Thank you, Zarex.
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: He says, Do you think he might develop a malady
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: of some kind if he reads comments about him marrying
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 1: a woman that looks just like Lindsay? He's probably seriously
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 1: avoiding the internet right now, and I don't blame him
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 1: at all. I'm going to say.
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 2: I think he might become Batman. Not the hero we need,
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 2: but the hero we deserve.
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 3: I'm going to say that's women attacking another woman, but
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 3: the other aspect of that... I mean, they're clearly attacking him,
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 3: but they're also attacking her. The thing is, Lindsay Clancy,
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 3: just like me, right?
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 3: Is one of the most. Ordinary looking. Plain Jane. Unremarkable faces.
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 3: I have ever seen. Like there's nothing special. About the
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 3: way she looks. And when there is nothing special. About
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 3: the way you look. You look like everybody else. My
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 3: mom used to tell me. I'd look like this actress
• 1:11:09
  Speaker 3: or that actress. It's because I'm unremarkable. I don't have any.
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 3: facial features that are unique or unusual or special. And
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 3: so I look like if I wanted to be an actress,
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 3: my range of characters that I could play based on
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 3: my looks would be incredibly broad. And the idea of, oh,
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 3: she looks just, she doesn't look like Lindsay Clancy when
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 3: you actually compare like the structure of the eyes and
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 3: the structure of the nose, the structure of the mouth.
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 3: She just happens to be a brunette with eyes and
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 3: nose and a mouth. Who doesn't look any more remarkable
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 3: than Lindsay Clancy does. But she probably has a hell
• 1:11:57
  Speaker 3: of a lot better personality.
• 1:11:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm sick of these physiognomy checks. Women who look
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 2: like the girl next door are perfectly capable of being
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 2: just as insane as Lindsay Clancy. I know you look
• 1:12:14
  Speaker 2: at her face knowing that she's a murderer and going,
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 2: oh yeah, look, yeah, that's exactly the face of a murderer.
• 1:12:20
  Speaker 2: But you wouldn't know. There's not much connection between these
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 2: kinds of horrific acts and the way someone's face looks.
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 2: And why you would even go there when there's almost
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 2: irrefutable evidence that We're dealing with a child murderer. And...
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 2: If she looked like Sidney Sweeney, we would be like... Well,
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 2: I don't know anymore.
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 3: Everybody looks like the girl next door. Everybody lives next
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 3: door to somebody. Unless you live out in a boonies.
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 3: Every girl... Is the girl next door to somebody.
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 2: Depends how diverse your neighborhood is. Well. Literally.
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 3: Unless there's like. A bunch of empty homes in your neighborhood.
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 3: Every girl in your neighborhood. Is the girl next door.
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 3: To somebody.
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 1: Alright well. Thank you for the super chats and stuff.
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 1: Let us move on to the next story. Let us
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 1: know what you guys think about this one in the comments.
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 1: So I'm going to try and fold these other two
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 1: together since we're like getting really close to going over Sausage.
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 1: So I'm going to read them both. But basically, because
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 1: they're related. So if you guys don't know or remember,
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 1: one year ago on September 10th, last year, Charlie Kirk
• 1:14:05
  Speaker 1: was assassinated. And there was celebrating online, um, his death
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 1: in the same way. And from the same people that
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 1: were really upset that Trump did not get killed in
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 1: 2024 when, uh, he was shot, um, while giving a
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 1: speech in Pennsylvania. So this year there is an anniversary
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 1: going on of the death of Charlie Kirk called the Kirkiversary. Yes.
• 1:14:32
  Speaker 1: It's a social media trend. Calling the first anniversary of
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk's assassination the Kirkiversary, or Kirkiversary spread across TikTok, X, Instagram,
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 1: and Reddit, so all over the internet, in the days
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 1: before September 10th. Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 1: shot in the neck while speaking to students at Utah
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 1: Valley University on September 10th, 2025. Users posted jokes about outfits, playlists,
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 1: gift baskets, and twerk for Kirk videos. Some streamers said
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 1: anyone who had not celebrated on the day of the
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: shooting was unwelcome at this year's holiday. Supporters called the
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: post a celebration of political murder. Yeah, this is supporters,
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 1: by the way. This is like an example of the
• 1:15:16
  Speaker 1: posting question that I was talking about. If you're not
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 1: celebrating the day Charlie Kirk died, then you can't celebrate
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 1: on the Kirkiversary. Utah Governor Spencer Cox declared the date
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk Day... Turning Point USA held a memorial at
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 1: the same campus and Republicans marked the anniversary at a convention.
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson, 23, has been charged with aggravated murder and
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 1: has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
• 1:15:40
  Speaker 1: The mockery sat alongside a year of face swap memes
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 1: and recycled audio of the gunshot. Critics said the trend
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 1: showed how cheaply some treat political violence when the victim
• 1:15:51
  Speaker 1: is a conservative Christian. And also in related to this,
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 1: There was a Charlie Kirk statue that was vandalized at
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 1: Turning Point USA headquarters based in Phoenix, Arizona. A newly
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 1: released statue of Charlie Kirk has been defaced. The eight-foot-tall
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 1: brown statue was erected just five days ago to mark
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 1: the one-year anniversary of Charlie Kirk's assassination. In less than
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 1: a week, it has already been vandalized with red spray paint.
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 1: A spokesman for Turning Point USA stated, quote, we will
• 1:16:21
  Speaker 1: restore the statue and replace the signs. but we are
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: also reviewing the footage of the incident and working with
• 1:16:26
  Speaker 1: law enforcement to identify who did this and hold them accountable. Now,
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 1: this is more of a little follow-up to, I mean,
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 1: I don't know if it's a follow-up. I mean, the
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 1: guy died, and we talked about that when it happened
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: last year. But I think it's important to show that
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 1: these people are remorseless. For whatever reason, none of this
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 1: has penetrated their consciousness. Maybe it's because they're desensitized to violence.
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 1: Maybe it's because they're really far away from the person
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 1: or they bought into everything the media has been saying
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 1: about him. I think that the media has a tremendous
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 1: amount of power over people's hearts and minds. But yeah,
• 1:17:04
  Speaker 1: this is ghoulish and evil behavior and it's sick and
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 1: I don't think it's excusable. So I'll let you guys say.
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 2: Whatever you want to say about this. It almost pains
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 2: me that we have to document this for the sake
• 1:17:19
  Speaker 2: of history. We're out here like the Whovians going, we
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 2: are here, we are here. This really happened. But at
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 2: the same time, part of me wants to just bury
• 1:17:30
  Speaker 2: these memories under the floorboards and never talk about it again.
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 2: When you ask yourself, what will future historians make of
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 2: all this? You can't help but clue that they'll go,
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 2: what the fuck is wrong with human beings? Like, why
• 1:17:47
  Speaker 2: would they ever do this? Fuck it, guys. Let's just
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 2: let Skynet win. Let's just turn and walk into the light.
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 2: And if anyone gets turned into a pillar of salt,
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 2: fuck them. This is it. Let's do it. Like I've
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 2: often said, future historians aren't going to believe what happened
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 2: in the early 21st century. The reality is so cartoonishly
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 2: degenerate that it will be assumed a satire. Yeah, people
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 2: were celebrating murder, political murder, child murder, mass murder, you
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 2: name it. No, they weren't. Don't be silly. Civilized societies
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 2: don't do that. No, yeah. Yeah, no, yeah, they do.
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 2: We are yet to build a civilization that has grown
• 1:18:41
  Speaker 2: out of that kind of superstition and that kind of
• 1:18:45
  Speaker 2: superstitious barbarity And yes, it is every bit as superstitious.
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 2: as the Aztecs cutting people's hearts out on the top
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 2: of pyramids. Every bit. It's just, these lives don't matter.
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 2: What matters is the journey, the message, the eschaton. It's
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 2: the end of the world. Folks, that's what eschaton means.
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 2: When the ends justify the means, we are only using
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 2: the means to catapult us into the ends. And the
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 2: ends will be the end. We will sit around in
• 1:19:27
  Speaker 2: a post-apocalyptic hellscape going, what the hell just happened? And
• 1:19:32
  Speaker 2: some crazy old guy will be chanting, the women did it.
• 1:19:37
  Speaker 2: Women went crazy and destroyed society and everyone will go, okay, grandpa,
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 2: let's get you a hot cup of mud. And then
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 2: they'd kill him for his heresy. I'm just, I don't know, man.
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 2: You call them black pills, but in my day, we
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 2: called it science fiction. But yeah, that's the problem. It's
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 2: not fiction anymore. The robots are actually happening The AI
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 2: and the self-driving cars are actually happening. And the demolition man,
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 2: hyper-pussy-ass bureaucratic future is happening, where we feminize the world
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 2: into one gigantic kindergarten. This isn't even a black pill anymore, folks.
• 1:20:27
  Speaker 2: It's a pill of a color that only a mantis
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 2: shrimp can see. It's ultra-red slash infagreen Pilled. There you go. Now,
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 2: regarding the statue or the various statues or whatever it is. Now,
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 2: I haven't looked this up. I didn't have time. I'm
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 2: terribly sorry. But did Charlie Kirk own slaves? I mean,
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 2: I suppose.
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 1: You may have to get a fact check on that.
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure. I could just do it right. I
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 2: could just write that. Did Charlie Kirk own slaves? No,
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 2: he did not. you get what I'm driving at. Not
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 2: only must one destroy the statues of the Confederacy, one
• 1:21:16
  Speaker 2: must destroy the statues of everyone who came before it
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 2: as well. Jefferson, yes. Washington, yes. If they owned slaves,
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 2: they must be erased from history. Also, a guy who
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 2: was born centuries after slavery, who was born into the
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 2: enchanted fairy ring of diversity that was the 90s, his
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 2: statue gets desecrated as well. Do I have that right? Yeah,
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 2: it's got nothing to do with slavery, and it never has.
• 1:21:48
  Speaker 2: It's about in-group preference slash out-group preference. George Washington said
• 1:21:56
  Speaker 2: words to the effect of, we are a group now.
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 2: A group of our own. And we get to prefer
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 2: our own kind. And Charlie Kirk didn't even go that far.
• 1:22:10
  Speaker 2: He was just like, let's not give governmental preference to
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 2: the out group. Let's not give all these privileges to
• 1:22:18
  Speaker 2: any group that can make a case for being an
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 2: out group. Doesn't matter if it's by race or gender
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 2: or transgender. If you want to be different for the
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 2: sake of being different, fine, but we shouldn't have to
• 1:22:32
  Speaker 2: pay for it. Charlie Kirk wasn't out there saying white
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 2: people are better than everyone and we deserve whatever spoils
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 2: we can muster from the low IQ shitskins. And believe me,
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 2: there are plenty of quote-unquote influencers out there who have
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 2: no qualms at all about saying exactly that. People are
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 2: getting really sick of this shit now and they're just going,
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 2: fuck it, if you get pride, we get pride. You'll
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 2: want to see what happens when you awaken the sleeping
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 2: giant of white male pride. If we wanted to genocide you,
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 2: we could. That's in quotes, by the way. That's not
• 1:23:16
  Speaker 2: me saying that. That's me reminding you that others are
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 2: saying this. It is a sentiment that is at the
• 1:23:23
  Speaker 2: visible horizon, like the Langoliers, if you catch my drift.
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 2: But Charlie Kirk wasn't about that. He wasn't going around
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 2: saying white people are the best, white people are your
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 2: superiors and we'll wipe you out or anything like that.
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 2: He was just saying maybe it's not a good idea
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 2: to give people jobs and scholarships just because they're not white.
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 2: And they fucking shot him. And then they threw a
• 1:23:55
  Speaker 2: bunch of shit at his memorial statue. Demons, man. I
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 2: said it last year and I'll say it again. Fucking demons.
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 2: This must be a simulation. Humans aren't this demonic. Surely
• 1:24:16
  Speaker 2: on this scale, surely we couldn't have got this far
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 2: if humans were ever capable of this kind of demonic behavior.
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 2: This is a simulation. And someone opened the menu in
• 1:24:30
  Speaker 2: this game and pulled up the tab that controls the
• 1:24:33
  Speaker 2: morality levels of the NPCs, right? They're just cranking up
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 2: the evil stats. They're like, what would happen if the
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 2: evil went up to 11? That's where we are. We're
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 2: at evil 11. That's a great band name. And I'm
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 2: calling it. You can't have it. I hereby scurry back
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 2: into my goblin cave with my riches.
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 1: Thanks.
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 3: Okay, guys. Everything I'm going to say right now, I've
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 3: said before, after the first sentence, which is that these
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 3: people think they're better than you. They think they're better
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 3: than you and either entitled or obligated by their virtue
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 3: to reign over you, rule over you, or run over you.
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 3: And if they don't get to do the first, they
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 3: will do the last. Yes, this is demonic. And it
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 3: is also entirely human. The most terrible atrocities in human
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 3: history all began with the elitist idea that one person
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 3: or group of people is better than everyone else. entitled
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 3: and obligated by the fact of their virtue to reign
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 3: over their inferiors. They deem themselves the moral arbiters of
• 1:26:12
  Speaker 3: their societies. They use variations on that pompous notion of
• 1:26:16
  Speaker 3: superiority as their excuse to divide, punish, manipulate, even exploit
• 1:26:24
  Speaker 3: and exterminate entire population segments. All, they assure their targets
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 3: and their loyal subjects alike, in the name of doing good.
• 1:26:33
  Speaker 3: It's for the greater good. This pattern is terrible when
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 3: it involves segments of the population committing injustices against other
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 3: segments of the population. And it has many times in
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 3: history led to warlike conditions within politically or culturally divided nations.
• 1:26:53
  Speaker 3: Its most horrifying manifestation, however, is in state violence. I'm
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 3: going to pause what I was talking about here. We
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 3: have seen all of the precursors to that state violence.
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 3: Everything that happens prior. The only thing that hasn't is
• 1:27:19
  Speaker 3: that the people who would intend to be violent haven't
• 1:27:24
  Speaker 3: taken over the state. And they tried. They were very,
• 1:27:29
  Speaker 3: very close. And they were preparing. So, University of Hawaii professor,
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 3: Rudolph Rummel, who now no longer is with us. He
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 3: passed away in 2014. But that's where he did his work,
• 1:27:54
  Speaker 3: his research and everything. Studied this phenomenon extensively. He's written
• 1:28:00
  Speaker 3: many influential works on the subject, including books, papers, you
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 3: name it, describes four distinct types of this type of violence,
• 1:28:08
  Speaker 3: depending on, um, who's involved and who's targeted. The full set, um, is,
• 1:28:19
  Speaker 3: is referred to, he coined the term democide to describe the, uh,
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 3: the murder of any person or people by a government,
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 3: including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. So that's the first type.
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 3: The second, obviously, is genocide, politicide, being third in massacres.
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 3: murder being fourth. And the difference between them. Democide I
• 1:28:44
  Speaker 3: just defined. Genocide is when. The target group. Is of
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 3: the same. Genetic makeup. They're the same race. The same. Ethnicity.
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 3: Or they can have the same religion or language. Politicide
• 1:29:05
  Speaker 3: is based on their politics or for political purposes. And
• 1:29:10
  Speaker 3: mass murder is just indiscriminate. Most war starts that way.
• 1:29:18
  Speaker 3: But politicide is the one I'm going to focus on.
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 3: You just listened to the beginning of HBR Talk 170's opener. So,
• 1:29:32
  Speaker 3: everybody knows about the Holocaust. Not everybody thinks about the...
• 1:29:38
  Speaker 3: I think it's pronounced Holomador.
• 1:29:41
  Speaker 1: Holodomor, yeah. Holodomor.
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 3: I always do that because the first time I read it,
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 3: I put the letters backwards in my head. But, yeah.
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 3: The history of it, though, that this was a political killing.
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 3: You basically had.
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 3: The communist government in Russia deciding that farmers made too
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 3: much profit, that they were too independent, and that they
• 1:30:12
  Speaker 3: were not being communist enough. And so they basically ordered
• 1:30:18
  Speaker 3: them to give up their rights, their land, provide their labor,
• 1:30:25
  Speaker 3: but not sell their food. The state was to do this. Instead.
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 3: And they would be. They would just. Do what they
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 3: were told. And when they rebelled. The ones in Ukraine rebelled.
• 1:30:42
  Speaker 3: Everything of theirs was taken. Including all of their food.
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 3: And they were starved to death. The entire area. Food
• 1:30:52
  Speaker 3: was removed. And it resulted. Not only in mass death.
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 3: But instances where. People resorted to cannibalism. murder and cannibalism.
• 1:31:04
  Speaker 3: It resulted in disease and it was horrific. This professor
• 1:31:15
  Speaker 3: estimated before he passed, he estimated 212 million people have
• 1:31:21
  Speaker 3: been killed by governments just in the 20th century. 148
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 3: million were attributed specifically to communist And cultural Marxism, which
• 1:31:36
  Speaker 3: we've talked about before, which is sort of like the
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 3: Islam of Marxism in that it grabbed a bunch of
• 1:31:49
  Speaker 3: this idea and that idea from this group of people
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 3: and that group of people and then made up a
• 1:31:54
  Speaker 3: bunch of stuff and threw it all in together. And
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 3: that was the religion. It's the same thing with cultural Marxism.
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 3: It took from Marxism, along with several other theories that
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 3: were similar but not necessarily quite the same, that rose
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 3: up from the same ways of thinking and mish-mashed them
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 3: all together. This is how you get intersectionality, how you
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 3: get critical race theory, and all the various victim groups
• 1:32:35
  Speaker 3: and victim hierarchies that come out of that. So what
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 3: we're seeing today with the celebration of Charlie Kirk's death,
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 3: what we're witnessing in terms of the way people behave
• 1:32:52
  Speaker 3: surrounding these issues and the delight and almost orgasmic, um,
• 1:33:02
  Speaker 3: the celebration of not his death, but your pain, your loss,
• 1:33:11
  Speaker 3: your horror at what was done to him. That is
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 3: part of the lead up. The thing that, uh, brings
• 1:33:22
  Speaker 3: us from zero to we should kill a whole bunch
• 1:33:26
  Speaker 3: of people in, in a group that is, uh, primarily
• 1:33:32
  Speaker 3: communist and primarily aggressive. It's something that doesn't happen overnight.
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 3: I've been paying attention to this. I started talking about
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 3: this in these terms pretty close to 10 years ago.
• 1:33:51
  Speaker 3: Around the time that we were actually pretty close to
• 1:33:56
  Speaker 3: when we started having me do HBR talk. back when
• 1:34:02
  Speaker 3: it was called a pussycat cast. I mentioned this more
• 1:34:05
  Speaker 3: than once. I think I even may have mentioned it
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 3: on blog talk, because this is something that I've been
• 1:34:11
  Speaker 3: noticing since I was a kid, that there's a push,
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 3: there's a unified push on one side of the political fence,
• 1:34:22
  Speaker 3: on the left, on the pro-communist side of the political fence,
• 1:34:28
  Speaker 3: on the pro-socialist side of the political fence, to label
• 1:34:31
  Speaker 3: the people that are not on their side of the
• 1:34:34
  Speaker 3: political fence as not just wrong about politics, but malicious
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 3: and stupid, criminally so, and deserving of punishment for it.
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 3: That goes all the way back to when I was
• 1:34:56
  Speaker 3: in junior high and I was going to pro-life protests
• 1:35:00
  Speaker 3: And I had an adult woman, when I was like
• 1:35:03
  Speaker 3: 14 years old, throw pig shit in my face. And
• 1:35:09
  Speaker 3: then tell my grandparents that if they didn't want me
• 1:35:13
  Speaker 3: to experience stuff like that, they shouldn't take me to
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 3: a pro-life protest. This is the way they think. They
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 3: want you punished. They think they're better than you. They
• 1:35:27
  Speaker 3: think they have a right, a God-given right, to rule
• 1:35:32
  Speaker 3: over you. And if you rebel, if you refuse, if
• 1:35:39
  Speaker 3: you're oppositional to that rule, they want you punished. And
• 1:35:45
  Speaker 3: they'll do it by hurting the people that you care about.
• 1:35:50
  Speaker 3: Because that will make you suffer more than if they
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 3: just hurt you. So people ask How can such a
• 1:35:58
  Speaker 3: thing happen in civilized society? It has happened in civilized
• 1:36:05
  Speaker 3: society over and over and over and over again. As
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 3: long as there is tolerance for the idea that some
• 1:36:16
  Speaker 3: people have a right to rule and other people were
• 1:36:20
  Speaker 3: born to be ruled by those people. That some people
• 1:36:24
  Speaker 3: are better than everybody else. Not because... they have earned merit,
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 3: that they have demonstrated, I can do things that you can't,
• 1:36:35
  Speaker 3: and you need to let me help you, but because
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 3: they think their ideas are better, or they're born to
• 1:36:41
  Speaker 3: a particular race, or they have a particular religious outlook,
• 1:36:46
  Speaker 3: or they have a particular political outlook, as long as
• 1:36:50
  Speaker 3: that's tolerated, this will happen over and over and over again.
• 1:36:58
  Speaker 3: And if you don't fight back against it now, we're
• 1:37:02
  Speaker 3: going to see it happen here.
• 1:37:11
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:37:12
  Speaker 1: Well, thank you for that, for your thoughts on that.
• 1:37:15
  Speaker 1: And yeah, I'm never going to forget. I'm never going
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 1: to forget what happened to Charlie Kirk because basically that's
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 1: the same as us, you know, I mean, it's that
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 1: Hannah and Mike are right about that so we are
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 1: going to on that note go into the patron show
• 1:37:36
  Speaker 1: and we're going to look at this medium article and
• 1:37:39
  Speaker 1: if you guys want to join us for that you
• 1:37:41
  Speaker 1: have to become a badger go to feedthebadger.com and subscribe
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 1: to the channel if you haven't already and you'll be
• 1:37:48
  Speaker 1: able to watch all the additional content like the patron
• 1:37:51
  Speaker 1: shows and the discussions and all the stuff that goes
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 1: on with our community we have all kinds of fun
• 1:37:56
  Speaker 1: things going on. It's very supportive. Um, and, uh, I
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 1: think it's good to build community. I think community community
• 1:38:03
  Speaker 1: is important in these times. So please consider doing that. And, um, yeah,
• 1:38:09
  Speaker 1: I appreciate everybody for coming out to the show. I
• 1:38:11
  Speaker 1: appreciate Mike and Hannah for joining me and giving me
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 1: their thoughts and Mike J for helping me with the write-ups.
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 2: We appreciate you too, Brian.
• 1:38:19
  Speaker 1: Oh, well, thank you. And I appreciate you guys in
• 1:38:23
  Speaker 1: the audience, uh, of course, because without you, we'd be
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 1: yelling into the void. Thanks so much for coming on
• 1:38:29
  Speaker 1: the show today. If you guys like this video please
• 1:38:30
  Speaker 1: hit like subscribe if you're not already subscribed hit the
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 1: bell for notifications leave us a comment let us know
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 1: what you guys think about what we talked about on
• 1:38:36
  Speaker 1: the show today and share the video because sharing is
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 1: caring once again thank you so much for coming on
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 1: this episode of HBR news and we will see you
• 1:38:43
  Speaker 1: next Tuesday