Sunday Uncensored: Allum Bokhari & Jon Schweppe Member Podcast: Madison Cawthorne Leaked "Sex Tape" Goes Viral, Establishment Tries To DESTROY Cawthorne
Tim & Co. join tech writer Allum Bokhari and policy director at the American Principles Project Jon Schweppe to discuss some of the spicier topics ordinarily only available to Timcast.com members.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to our special weekend show, Sunday Uncensored.
Every week we produce four uncensored episodes of the TimCast IRL podcast exclusively at TimCast.com, and we're going to bring you the most important for our weekend show.
If you want to check out more segments just like this, become a member at TimCast.com.
Now, enjoy the show.
Margaret Sanger was the, she founded Planned Parenthood, right?
She spoke in front of a Klan meeting for women and she also repeatedly said that she had what was known, we can't see this on YouTube but I'm quoting the name of it, it was called the Negro Project.
This was an actual project she had named and the idea was What the fuck?
the black population and she said that they needed to work with black leaders
in their communities to convince the people to sterilize themselves to not
Like, I didn't have that because I wasn't on it for long enough, but if a woman is on testosterone for enough years, like, her organs, her reproductive organs will start to die inside her body.
I don't think it's as much of an issue with men, but I know for women it's like you have the ovaries, you have the uterus, and they need the hormones to stay alive.
If they don't have the hormones, they start to atrophy.
I think I said it on the members only, because I don't know if YouTube would allow us to say something like this, but like, all of these parents that are sterilizing their kids are just excising their genes from the gene pool.
So I have to wonder if, you know, these organizations, like, and I'm saying I have to wonder, Media Matters, I know you're watching.
I have to say it.
Are there people who are like, stupid people will remove themselves from the gene pool?
I think that these are people who consider themselves to be sexually liberated.
And so they say, oh, well, I am acting in favor of the movement of sexual liberation by taking the next step.
Yeah, by allowing people to sterilize themselves.
What's more interesting to me is that Margaret Sanger very clearly wanted to reduce the black population.
She founded an organization called Planned Parenthood, and to this day, they disproportionately target the black community for abortions and contraceptives.
When you say reduce the population, are you implying that she wanted to slow the growth of the population, or that she wanted to kill off a bunch of them?
Margaret Sanger said she wanted to weed the human garden.
So make of that what you will.
She also preceded the Nazis.
She gave them all their ideas.
She thought that only smart people should have babies.
Which, whatever, make of that what you will.
She thought that only the best and brightest among us should be able to reproduce, and she thought that having children was a burden on women.
So, make of all of that what you will.
And I genuinely think that she was truly racist.
And when you look at the fact that PolitiFact fact-checked the fucking fact that more black babies were aborted than born in New York City in 2015 and in 2018.
There was an article written about this in the Wall Street Journal.
By Jason, I forget what his name was, Jason Reilly.
The fact is that Planned Parenthood specifically targets low-income black women.
Sanger's own words in an article titled, A Better Race Through Birth Control, within this article she wrote, Given birth control, the unfit will voluntarily eliminate their kind.
So this is why I bring this up because when I hear that Planned Parenthood without question gave you testosterone, I mean, that sounds like what they're doing.
They're trying to find people who are willing to sterilize themselves.
So instead of going, they used to do this thing back in the day with eugenics where they'd be like, we'll give you $500 to get your tubes tied.
Because if you didn't have the means to support yourself, you would take the money and then sterilize yourself or make it impossible for you to have kids.
That's what they wanted.
Now it seems like these people figured out an easier way.
I mean, so for example, the person at Planned Parenthood who gave you hormones, I don't think that they were necessarily thinking, I don't want this person to reproduce.
I think they were thinking, I am acting in favor, or I am, you know, acting in the interest of like sexually liberating this person.
And in a very twisted way, they saw themselves as someone who was advocating for you.
But it is true that the end result is that it could have rendered you infertile.
I think just like with slavery, the best slaver will have the slaves willingly become slaves and enjoy being slaves and do it of their own volition, that getting people to sterilize themselves, you want them to want to do it.
Well, part of what's so horrific is that this kind of anti-human rhetoric is not only acceptable,
it's lauded.
I believe that a person who says something like, there should be fewer people, or we need to slow the growth of our population, or we need to reduce the population by 15%, should be treated just as bad, if not worse, than someone who makes that exact same statement, but targeting Not population, population growth.
would say that's I would still argue that's genocidal rhetoric
I think if you were to say that about a specific minority group, that you wanted to slow their population growth by 15%, it would be called genocidal rhetoric.
And I don't want to draw a distinction here and say, because you've applied that to everyone, it's now acceptable.
Look, if you went on record saying something like this, you just don't get to be the vaccine guy after that.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry if you didn't mean it that way.
People are taking it out of context.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a free show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%.
He literally is saying that 9 billion number can be lowered by 10 or 15.
He didn't say You can you can give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's talking about growth or you can be like, you know He's just saying the population should be less I think he's talking about growth, for sure.
It seems like it's a self-correcting problem, though.
Even if it's just a wild theory that they're eugenicists, the end result will be parents of trans kids will excise their genetics from the gene pool and they will cease to exist.
Their argument is, again, assuming they're legitimately genocists, The people who are resilient to these brainwashing techniques are going to have kids.
Again, I still really maintain that this is just them continuing their pattern of exploiting women and seeing them as, you know, for-profit basically things, objects.
I think my point is, regardless of what their stated intention is, regardless of what the intention of any specific person working at Planned Parenthood is, this is an organization which was founded for the purpose of eugenics, which is sterilizing people.
The left will constantly point to institutions that they argue had some origin in racist thought.
And even if the institution operates in a completely racially neutral way today, they will argue that said organization is in fact racist because its foundations were.
So, if Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist eugenicist who wanted to engage in ethnic hygiene and cleansing and have, you know, quote-unquote undesirable populations eliminate themselves, and to this day, one of the genetic groups she saw as inferior is being targeted by her organization for abortions and contraceptives, what are we led to conclude?
So an organization that was founded by a racist eugenicist to reduce certain populations and encourage only good breeding to this day is still carrying out the exact same work, but they've kind of removed the ideological component.
It's like if somebody starts a fire, And the fire is spreading, and then that person dies, and the fire is still there, and people are like, well, you know, the fire's always been doing its thing, and the fire's not bad.
It's like, that fire was started for these reasons, and it is burning through the very thing this person was trying to destroy.
Why would you now all of a sudden ignore what the purpose of the fire is?
You know what I mean?
If the purpose of Planned Parenthood is eugenics, it is still carrying out the exact same mission from when it was started, and they predominantly put these things in minority neighborhoods, why would you assume they're doing anything different than their stated mission?
You see this viral video where a dad goes to a school, and he goes to the teacher, and it's an old black man, and he's like, which one do you put my grandson in a dress?
And the woman's like, you can't talk to me about this.
The guy's like, no, I'm talking to you right now.
He goes, take it up with them.
And he's like, no, I'm talking to you.
If you put my kid in a dress again, we're going to have problems.
So if your argument is they take a bunch of ubermensch and have a hundred babies, it doesn't matter how many babies they're having.
They take the semen from one fit man... The issue is, Margaret Sanger is preventing certain babies from existing to prevent them from staying in the gene pool.
They justified it because what they would do is like, I think they would tell women about other facilities that they could potentially go to to get mammograms, but that's like saying that the Yellow Pages provides pizza.
I'm not going to take credit for that analogy, but it's the same thing.
Telling someone where they can go get something is not the same as providing it.
And so we did a video about this a while ago for Freedom Tunes.
It was actually one of my first videos that really gained traction, but basically Planned Parenthood claims that abortion is only 3% of its services, but it's totally nonsensical.
I agree with that to an extent, but I also think that there's a responsibility on the part of medical providers where it's like, you know, if you're a surgeon, what is your responsibility to your patient?
Like if someone comes in, they're clearly mentally ill.
They're clearly, you know, have a lot of issues.
Is it ethical for that surgeon to just cut their balls off?
I mean, do you think people... I think... Well, I mean, I don't know about illegal, because it's like, well, I mean, if you're already... What are they going to do?
But I don't think we should support suicide just because someone wants to do it, you know?
Yeah, I mean, obviously, so we sort of talked about this.
I do believe it should be illegal.
I think civil authorities have a reason to step in.
And I also agree with you completely when you're saying that civil authorities have some interest and responsibility in ensuring that unnecessary medical procedures that could potentially destroy people's lives aren't performed on them.
Especially when it's like, there's no evidence that this helps people.
Like there's this, there's this, oops, sorry.
There's this narrative that it's like, oh, there's detransitioners.
It didn't work for them, but for real trans people it works.
There's just no evidence of that.
The only long-term evidence that we have into this is it followed adult transsexuals for 30 years, and it's still found that after all the surgeries were complete, they still had 20 times the suicide rate, completed suicide rate, of the general population.
For anyone who argues that Tim's point about someone cutting their arm off as hyperbolic, or their hand off as hyperbolic, or an unfair comparison, just ask yourself this question.
As an adult right now, if you had to have one unfortunate incident happen in your past as a child, and you're a man, would you rather a doctor had cut one of your hands off because you said you didn't want that hand, or would you rather they put you on hormones that prevented you from developing sexually?
And so you never, you literally never ended up developing normal, healthy adult genitalia.
There's a website for body integrity dysphoria where people can go and get support to have their legs and limbs removed and it encourages them and... Something's going on with humanity.
How are you going to be a runner if you don't have any hormones, like, coursing through your body that are building your muscles and your bones and everything?
And so the end result of this is a eugenicist's wet dream.
Some people are susceptible to the things that sterilize them or destroy their bodies and some people aren't and the end result is a stronger population.
Well, Ian, you made a really good point earlier about the fact that there are a lot of young people who are confused because of how confusing the world is today.
And so they become very depressed.
They feel that something's missing.
And then these people basically step in and say, oh, what's missing is you're actually in the wrong body and you're dysphoric.
And it says, quote, I remember the Ron Paul era and I didn't agree with a lot of his moral positions, but I did agree with him saying he wants to leave me alone.
I'll take the guy who's going to leave me alone because we can disagree on everything, but then he agrees to leave me alone.
I think that's great.
I do think that's great.
And I think it's relevant to a lot of what we're talking about, you know.
To some extent, though, I mean, as you and I agree, there is some role for the state to step in.
I would absolutely make it illegal for doctors to remove people's genitals just as it's illegal for them to remove someone's arm or leg if they feel that that shouldn't be attached to their body.
Like, what if you go to the doctor and the doctor's like, you have prostate cancer so I'm going to remove your prostate and you'll be impotent for the rest of your life.
and then you do it and then the doctor was right but then you say you know what i'm suing you
anyway and i'm gonna file charges saying you cut you you suffered my prostate like is the state
gonna have to investigate whether it was a legitimate procedure and how do you prove it
was legitimate unless they like give them the prostate do things like that happen i'm just
I'm just saying like let's say someone goes to the hospital the doctor is like you have skin cancer
saying like let's say someone goes to the hospital the doctor's like you have skin cancer we got to
We got to cut off the skin in your hand then they do and then you're like, oh, I didn't have skin cancer
cut off the skin in your hand then they do and then you're like oh i didn't have skin cancer
He lied and cut my skin off. He attacked me like what happens
he lied and cut my skin off he attacked me like what happens i mean i think if it were the case
This osteopathic medicine, this is kind of invented like a hundred years ago.
And it's the idea that if you have a sick organ, you cut it out, get rid of it, as opposed to figure out why it's not working right and try and treat the underlying cause.
Do you think that, uh, do you think some of that is cracked on though?
Because I have heard stories from people who have said that like on the South side, back in the seventies and eighties, people did bribe cops pretty often.
Not, you know, I hear what you're saying on the level of these other countries, but no, but I'm saying like nowadays, I agree with you that nowadays, like people don't think unless they're at an insanely high level to go like, I'm going to slip this cop a, you know, a 20 and he won't give me a parking ticket or something.
Whereas I think back in the seventies, that might be more of a common thing.
Like if you're a rich guy, you don't say to a cop, let me slip you a hundred dollar bill.
You say, how would you like a job working in the private sector?
Unrelated to whatever is going on.
And then all of a sudden you're going to get a guy at 50 bucks an hour is going to be like,
I'll take it.
But regardless, my point is, it doesn't matter what the law says.
So I'm looking at all these precedents on, like... The Civil Rights Act is really fascinating because it does ban the men's room and the women's room outright.
You cannot discriminate on the basis of sex.
So how can you maintain a gender-segregated bathroom facility?
Anybody should be allowed to use them.
You can't tell them no.
Well, culturally, we are like, oh, but we don't mean that!
So when they were like, hey, you can't have a white and black bathroom, everyone like, oh, okay, yeah, you should be able to discriminate on the basis of race with bathrooms and national origin and sex and all that stuff.
And they went, got it.
And they got rid of the race bathrooms and kept the sex bathrooms.
So if you went into a woman's bathroom and you're like, my civil rights, and they're like, get the fuck out of there, and you're like, civil rights, they'd be like, okay, we're arresting you for disgruntled behaving in the public or something, but not for... You'd lose.
Even though we don't all agree on quite a lot, when we talk about these cases, I can't think of an instance where there have been like a few here and there, but for the most part, we generally agree on the facts of what happened.
But I also feel like with you and I, if I tell you a fact or you tell me a fact, even if I don't agree with your view on it, I'll be like, yeah, that's true.
Whereas I think you make a good point about how on the other side of the aisle there are people that will literally just be like, No, no, actually, um, the, uh, Michael Brown cases, you know, it was a travesty and he did have his hands up and then he said, don't shoot.
I think that becomes more of an issue, but my question is, so would you be okay with someone amputating their arm or leg because they felt that they shouldn't have it?
You know, if a person wants to dye their skin green or whatever, I'm like... And if someone cuts off their arms and then they make a YouTube video and they're like, I cut off my arms.
I feel I'm good.
And they have a thousand subscribers that are like 14 year olds.
They're basically teaching 14 year olds to cut off their arms.
And especially if what YouTube does is they come in and say anyone who says they regret losing their arms has their channel banned and will delete their videos and don't promote that message.
Yeah, it's, you know, you raise a point about body modification and I believe it's on a spectrum here, right?
So...
I don't think it's good for a person to split their tongue, but that is not going to place you at the same level of culpability for participating in that as like cutting off someone's arm or cutting off someone's genitals.
And then the question is, at what point can there be legal consequences under the current paradigm?
Obviously, that's something which we unfortunately allow, but I wonder if it could be the case that years from now people will say, look, I had a mental illness.
And you performed a surgery on me that I only said I wanted because I was sick and you were the doctor.
It was your responsibility to help me and instead you sliced my genitalia up into being completely unable to ever function again.
So, if you're declared mentally incompetent, contracts are void.
I wonder if depression could qualify, but I wonder if you could make it voidable.
It has long been established that a contract is voidable by a person who, due to mental illness or defect, lacked the capacity to contract at the time of entering into the agreement.
I'd argue that you were severely depressed, and that they exploited you to take money from you and give you a treatment without proper medical care, and the liability waiver is void because Yeah.
I told them I was suicidal.
It says it right in my medical records.
It's actually sad when you go back and read it.
anyway. I told them I was suicidal. Oh that right there. So suicidal I think is
Well, it wouldn't, I mean, right, it's political, so they'd want to do everything, for a lot of people it would be like, this is a vector to dealing with abortion.
Yeah.
I think what ultimately might end up happening is you just end up with $10 million cash from
Planned Parenthood who settles with you, you know what I mean?
You'd have to like reject a settlement and take it to the Supreme Court to get them to