Far Left Democrat Ilhan Omar May Have Married Her Brother Says Pulitzer Winning Mainstream Newspaper
Far Left Democrat Ilhan Omar May Have Married Her Brother Says Pulitzer Winning Mainstream Newspaper. Starting a few years ago rumors circulated online that far left Democrat Ilhan Omar had married her brother for immigration benefits. The story was picked up by critics of Ilhan Omar and many conservatives. The rumors were dismissed by democrats, the media, and social justice activists as bad faith individuals trying to smear Omar.But new documents have reignited the story and a Pulitzer Award winning news outlets has present the possibility that Ilhan Omar did in fact marry her Brother, or at the very least she married a man to expedite his Visa to the US.Stories like this are rather surprising as many journalists are afraid to broach controversial topics out of a fear of appearing crazy or like conspiracy theorists, but sometimes conspiracies are real and a good journalist will challenge the narrative.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ilhan Omar is a very controversial far-left Democrat.
She's often sided with Ocasio-Cortez, Richie Detlef, Ayanna Pressley, and others in the far left.
Several years ago, a rumor was circulating that she married her brother to allow him to emigrate to the U.S.
much more easily.
She has denied this, and for the longest time it was considered just a fringe conspiracy theory.
But over the past several months, it's been bubbling up.
And now something interesting has happened.
The Star Tribune, a NewsGuard-certified mainstream and left-leaning paper, is now entertaining the possibility that Ilhan Omar actually married her own brother so that he could come to the U.S.
And the story's really interesting, because Snopes has actually covered this as well.
In the Snopes article, they bring up a bunch of interesting points, but they do say it's unproven.
Now, admittedly, it's very difficult to prove a negative.
But they could at least say it's false, or presume false, or there's no evidence necessarily.
But it's unproven.
Which means...
It actually might be real.
Interestingly, in the Snopes article, they only ask questions.
Why would she do it?
Not that she didn't.
They mention that they can't prove that she did, but they ask what would be the point anyway.
One of the things they bring up is that as the brother of a U.S.
citizen, he could absolutely use that to come to the U.S.
to emigrate here because U.S.
immigration law allows for that.
But the Star Tribune actually brings this up, pointing out that a spouse can come relatively quickly, and a brother or sister could take up to a dozen years.
Actually, it's the Star Tribune now providing a motive as to why Elon Omar may have actually married her brother.
They also present a timeline.
Within it, it appears.
Elon Omar's first husband, her second husband, who people are accusing of being her brother, may have lived together at the exact same time.
The whole story is very strange.
So here's what we're going to do.
We're going to go through this.
It's going to be long and complicated, but I think it's very important.
If a sitting congresswoman committed immigration fraud and potentially tax fraud when she filed jointly, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories.
I do believe whether she may have married her brother, it is a rumor at this point.
serious issues that people should know about.
Further, she's refused to provide her tax documents to those asking about it.
So let's do this.
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories.
I do believe whether, you know, she may have married her brother,
it is a rumor at this point.
But the reason I want to talk about this now, it's coming to a critical point where the Star Tribune,
again, a left-wing mainstream paper, is saying this might be real.
So let's just get started with the story from Star Tribune and work our way from there.
And we also have a thread from this man, David Steinberg, who says there's actually more evidence to suggest this man may be her brother or they're covering something up.
Star Tribune writes, So this is a reference to the fact that she filed jointly with a man she wasn't married to.
history. Although she has legally corrected the discrepancy, she has
declined to say anything about how or why it happened. So this is a reference
to the fact that she filed jointly with a man she wasn't married to. She paid a
fine, which is a penalty, but people don't go to jail for this kind of stuff.
The story writes, a state probe of campaign finance violations show that
Ilhan Omar filed federal taxes in 2014 and 15 with her current husband, Ahmed Hirsi, while legally married to but separated from Ahmed Nursed Elmi.
New investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to lingering questions about the marital history of Rep.
Ilhan Omar and whether she once married a man, possibly her own brother, to skirt immigration laws.
Omar has denied the allegations in the past, dismissing them as baseless rumors first raised in an online Somali politics forum and championed by conservative bloggers during her 2016 campaign for the Minnesota House.
But she has said little then or since about Ahmed Nursad Elmi, the former husband who swept into her life in 2009 before a 2011 separation.
So I want to pause here and say, These sources I'm going to be using, most of them are certified by NewsGuard, a third-party rating agency, and I happen to have many disagreements with them.
But I use them as a check on my own bias and as sort of a check on anybody who would criticize my sources.
Don't take my word for it.
I use a third party.
So this site is vetted.
Now, there is more information that is suspect, and this is brought up by David Steinberg of PJ Media.
Now, PJ Media is challenged by NewsGuard, but not for publishing false information, for being an opinion source.
So, there is some consideration here, but according to David Steinberg, he has evidence to suggest Ilhan Omar may have actually lied, I believe, under oath, we'll get to this, about her contact with Elmi, who is accused of being her brother.
It's a very, very complicated story, trust me, but let's work through this.
Star Tribune writes, the question surfaced again this month in a state proof of campaign finance violations showing that Omar filed taxes in 2014 and 15 with her current husband while she was still legally married to, uh, legally married to but separated from Elmi.
Although she has legally corrected the discrepancy, she has declined to say anything about how or why it happened.
The new documents also detail the Omar campaign's efforts to keep the story of her marriage to Elmi out of the press, arguing that detailed coverage would legitimize the accusations and invade her privacy.
Since the recent findings of the campaign finance board that discovered Omar had improperly used campaign money, to pay a lawyer to fix her tax filings. The Star Tribune
searched public records, including available databases, the marriage and divorce
filing, business licenses, university records, and other documents, and could find
little publicly available information about Elmi. The search of records could neither conclusively
confirm nor rebut the allegation that he is Omar's sibling. But there are questions that
need to be answered. I'm adding that part.
Send a list of questions about a request to talk to her siblings and father.
Omar declined to do so.
Hersey did not reply to multiple calls, texts, and emails.
Social media posts indicate Elmi is in Africa.
He did not respond to multiple emails.
Now, there is a point of contention here as David Steinberg of PJ Media says he can prove Elmi is actually in Nairobi and is very likely working with Omar's sister, which is also suspect, considering she said she didn't have contact with them.
Now, that doesn't necessarily prove she did, but it does show that they're still very closely tied, and also...
Public records apparently show that Elmi used Omar's address at a time after they had already been separated, and she claimed she hadn't spoken with him.
So let's read on, then.
Let's get the details.
Omar's reticence is consistent with near total silence she has maintained for three years amid questions raised through public records picked over by conservative opinion journalists intent on proving that she committed immigration fraud.
Those attacks, she once tweeted, are the provenance of fake journalists on bigoted blogs.
You can't say the same thing about the Star Tribune, and that's why the story is starting to get critical, I would say.
It's now being recognized by not just opinion bloggers, but conservative mainstream press has brought it up, and now left-leaning mainstream press is highlighting the issue.
There's a very real possibility she did this.
Omar spokesman Jeremy Slevin issued a statement Friday asserting that the questions about her personal life are illegitimate.
In his statement, I'm not going to read it because he goes on to try and pushes it towards Trump and Trump's base instead of actually answering the question, so I'm going to ignore that because I find it to be manipulative and silly.
I will add the party says that she has shared more than most public officials about the details of her personal life, even when it is personally painful.
He then goes on to accuse anybody who questions this as a right-wing bigoted anti-Muslim whatever, which is unfair and manipulative so I'll ignore.
Star Tribune writes the questions have nevertheless persisted as a political threat over the years while the former war refugee from Somalia made history being elected to the Minnesota House and then winning a seat in Congress.
Well, let's move on.
Actually, you know what I'll do here?
The Star Tribune makes its point, but it's actually a rather long article.
The critics have highlighted key points that they have questions about that they want answered.
I'm gonna move now to a very quick point.
Star Tribune is certified across the board by NewsGuard.
This is very important in terms of whether or not you want to question why I'm doing the story, question the Star Tribune source, take it up with NewsGuard, okay?
They've given a green checkmark to every category when they rate a news agency.
That is the best it can possibly get.
Now, David Steinberg contests the story, claiming they've omitted key details.
He says, must read.
Elon Omar thread.
The Star Tribune ran a dishonest, cowardly piece of journalism tonight.
For three years, the paper ignored the work of reporters Preya Sansundar, Scott Johnson, and myself on Elon Omar's disturbing past, ignored our emails offering new evidence.
Now, Elon Omar is a national disgrace globally.
Anti-Semites are emboldened.
We warned them.
None of this would have happened if Star Tribune, afraid of a PC mob, had not withheld the facts from local voters.
Covering their tracks tonight, Star Tribune published.
A piece depicting work we already did, our leads, our research.
Do they credit us?
No.
We are just unnamed conservative activists.
We are not activists.
We are reporters.
They are frauds.
They owe us, Minnesota voters and the global Jewish community, an apology.
I will add, though, I do not believe the piece of journalism Star Tribune done is cowardly.
I believe it's a net positive for the story.
While David may be upset he's not getting credit and they're leaving out certain key points of evidence he thinks should be included, the fact that Star Tribune has now jumped on the story means we are seeing more mainstream credibility to questioning whether or not Ilhan Omar actually married her brother so he could move to the US much more quickly.
He says, Additionally, their article failed to confirm or even mention far more of our work despite us being able to confirm all that we published.
Please read our work, not theirs.
He says, The Star Tribune also inexplicably failed to put two facts together on a bombshell development mentioned in their article.
Star Tribune appears to have been deliberately vague.
I can only surmise that the paper is still covering for Omar.
They write, Social media posts indicate Ahmed Nursed Elmi is in Africa.
They also write that Elon's sister Sahra Noor currently runs her own healthcare consultancy in Kenya.
But Elmi's posts and Noor's company are clear about a specific location.
Elmi's posts show that he has lived in Nairobi, Kenya since between 12-21-18 and 1-14-19, and Noor's company is clearly located in Nairobi, not just somewhere in Kenya.
Further, it's provable Elmi has been working for Noor, apparently helping out with her company website.
I can confirm that this is not confirmed.
Now, David says it is provable.
That's actually not true, and I'll tell you why.
But there is something interesting here, nonetheless.
He says, look for yourself.
Visit GritPartnersConsulting.com, then view the page's source code.
You will see that Elmi was logged into his personal Instagram account while he was creating the link to Noor's company Instagram account.
Well, I actually did look into this.
David Steinberg posts this source for the website, where we can see that in this highlighted portion, the username is AhmedNLMe, and then the user's profile URL is GritPartnersInternational.
That doesn't confirm that he is working with her, but it is interesting.
Now, I have pulled up the site and can independently confirm this does exist on this About section for Sahra Noor, the Grit Partners Consulting, who we are, and we can see that the Instagram name was, in fact, let me see, oh, I'm sorry, I have the wrong one highlighted.
We can see up here that the Instagram name, username, is Ahmed Elmi, and that the profile URL is Grit Partners International.
It doesn't necessarily prove they're working together.
However, it does provide evidence to suggest the Grit Partners Instagram account once ran with the display name of Ahmed Elmi, suggesting they work together.
It doesn't prove it, but I think it's pretty strong evidence that is likely the case.
David takes it a little step further by saying it's provable, and I want to put that out there.
It's evidence.
That's about it.
It's not necessarily provable.
David says there is no reasonable explanation for this code to exist besides Elmi working for Noor.
It could be that Elmi at one point transferred the Instagram account.
There's a million reasons to offer up why he may have offered the Instagram account to Omar's sister.
We don't know.
I think the Occam's Razor would suggest that they're working in some capacity, especially if David says he has evidence that Elmi is in Nairobi as well.
I'd imagine they're in contact.
He says.
And that's a bombshell.
In 2017, Ilhan Omar swore, under penalty of perjury while divorcing Elmi, that she had zero contact with him since 2011, and no clue how to find him.
Just one year later, Elmi, having just been divorced without being served, leaves London to work for his ex-wife's sister in Nairobi?
It's absurd.
Yet the Star Tribune chose not to even report Elmi and Noor were both living in Nairobi.
If that can be proved.
Now, the issue is Star Tribune says they can't confirm the validity of the screenshots.
Old social media posts that show Elmi in Nairobi may have been deleted.
Now, here's why this is important.
Why would Ilhan Omar claim, under penalty of perjury, that she couldn't get in touch with him?
Because she needed to divorce him without him being able to sign the papers.
And if he was in Nairobi, it would be much easier for her just to claim she can't get in touch with him.
If it's true that she could, well, then that potentially is perjury.
Now, I don't want to assume her motives.
I don't know why or why she, you know, why she would or wouldn't do this.
Occam's razor would suggest she just couldn't get in touch with him, but there is a lot of interesting information here, and I will stress that the Instagram thing is kind of strange, and the timeline for everything is actually strange, which I'm going to point out a lot of discrepancies moving on.
Again, this will be a long one.
I'm sorry.
It's a complicated story, but I believe it's important.
Steinberg says, as for what's next, the Star Tribune is wasting its time seeking Omar's immigration documents.
The documents reveal irregularities, such as two sisters born only two months apart, but will not provide proof of a fraudulent marriage.
I will confirm here that I have identified other documentation that, according to sources and additional evidence, will confirm the fraudulent marriage.
An attorney is currently assisting me in attempting to obtain them legally.
In the following week or so, I expect to either have the documents and be publishing them, or will be publishing the information I obtained that led me to seek them.
I believe the supporting evidence already places the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and looking forward to asking Ian Amar for comment.
Now, this is PJ Media, uh, um, David Works for PJ Media.
This is their rating on NewsGuard.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
I disagree with NewsGuard in many capacities, but I use NewsGuard specifically as a shield for critics who would accuse me of not using valid sources.
I am showing you this not to tell you you should or shouldn't believe David, but to show you the rating.
NewsGuard says they do not repeatedly publish false content, but alleges that they gather and present information irresponsibly, they don't correct errors, And they don't handle the difference between news and opinion responsibly.
Now, they do get strikes for not disclosing ownership and labeling advertising.
I take less of an issue with that.
We're trying to figure out if what this man is saying is true.
I believe that based on a statement about proving Elmia's working with Omar's sister, it's actually not true.
But NewsGuard believes they're not consistently publishing false content.
So I would err on the side of David is probably closer to, uh, it's much more likely his information is accurate within a certain range, so I can respect that.
Now, I'm gonna do this.
This is a blog called FrontPageMag, which is rated very, very negatively.
They're basically across the board considered to be fake news by NewsGuard.
But there is one reason I'm going to use this page.
Because this is an overt critic of Omar, and they've pulled snippets from Star Tribune specifically to ask specific questions.
These paragraphs that were pulled from Star Tribune, they actually exist.
So the veracity of, I should say, the credibility of the paper is less relevant when they're directly quoting and asking questions about quotes.
So again, take that into consideration why I'm using this source.
In this article, they say that Elon Amar could easily clear up within five minutes that she did not marry her brother.
But they ask an interesting question that I want to highlight.
Specifically, Omar and Elmi used a Columbia Heights address on the marriage application.
Three months later, Hersey used the same address to obtain a business license for his one-on-one cafe lounge, Public Records Show.
Omar declined to offer an account of their living arrangements at the time.
Either all three were living together, or some of these filings are off.
It would be really strange if Ilhan Omar divorced someone, had her new husband move in with her, While her ex-husband lived with her, and then, you know, at some point her new husband divorces in their faith tradition and leaves, the timing is all very, very strange.
But I will say, if these filings are potentially, they could potentially be off, or it could also mean that Hersey filed a fraudulent address to obtain a business license unless they lived together.
So if the filings are off, I would assume it was intentionally misleading.
There's a few other questions they bring up.
Omar's relatives could also clear the air, but they have remained silent about her marriage to Elmi.
She declined to make her family available for this story.
They also talk about how she declined to make her tax and immigration records available.
While I can understand immigration records, I'm curious as to why she won't release her tax records, because people have been calling on Trump to do the same thing.
Back at the Star Tribune.
It may be that they've omitted information that other people feel to be true.
But we're going to operate on this premise.
The story highlights that there are many conservative blogs that have made accusations Star Tribune can't corroborate.
I can respect that.
While David may believe he can prove certain things, that's fine if he does, Star Tribune is a different source with different editorial standards.
If they can't independently verify information, I wouldn't expect them to publish it.
But I will stress, the Star Tribune picking up the story is a net benefit to David and others who believe they have evidence to prove Elon did marry her brother.
If that's the case, a left-leaning mainstream paper presenting the story and saying it is a possibility is only a net benefit as it thrusts the story into the mainstream.
It's very easy for people to discredit the story by claiming it's just conservatives and bigots and all of those things, like Omar's spokesperson said.
It's another thing to say the Star Tribune is doing the same thing.
Now, interestingly, the Star Tribune highlights leaked emails that show Elon Omar put together a crisis management team to try and stop the story, even expressing how they were able to get Star Tribune to drop stories in the past.
It's interesting now why Star Tribune would be running this story when it would only lend credibility to the narrative she may have married her brother.
I'll read the conclusion, but then I want to go back up to the timeline.
They say, Omar expressed frustration over the controversy again last October, telling the Star Tribune in an interview that like many refugees without birth certificates, anyone can accuse me of whatever they want and I don't have a way to defend myself.
But that's true of basically anything.
You can't prove a negative, so I don't know what to tell you.
Rep Mohamed Nour, DFL Minneapolis, lost to Omar in the primary before replacing her at the legislature when she went to Congress.
He compared the attacks on Omar to claims that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.
Because he took over Omar's state legislative office phone number, Noor's voicemail was getting filled with hateful messages until Google removed the number when people conducted Google searches for Omar.
In the end, Noor said, Omar will be judged by what she does for her district.
Initially, there were missteps, and so much focus on her rather than on what she was doing.
She's made some tremendous efforts to reconnect and re-engage and focus on the district.
They go on to say that Star Tribune reporters added yadda yadda yadda.
Now, Omar is controversial for a lot of reasons.
She's made a lot of disparaging comments towards a certain country and, perceivably, a group of people.
But I want to highlight something that I find interesting.
The only reason I would ever entertain the story is because we are seeing kind of a... I don't know, the dam's broken.
With the Star Tribune coming out, it's becoming less of a partisan issue and more of a corruption issue.
In the timeline from Star Tribune, they say, In 2008, Omar and Hersey, now the parents of two children, reach an impasse in our life together, that's a quote, and divorce in their faith tradition.
Apparently they were never legally married.
But a year later, Omar legally marries Ahmed Nursad Elmi, whom she identifies only as a British citizen.
School records show he attended high school in St.
Paul and studied art at North Dakota State University.
In 2011, Omar and Elmi end their relationship and divorce in their faith tradition, but not legally until 2017.
A year later, she reconciles and has a third child with Hersi.
Here's what's interesting.
The year after she divorces Hersi, she marries Elmi, and the year after she divorces Elmi, in her faith tradition, not legally, she gets back together with Hersi.
But according to the Star Tribune, there's an overlap in when they lived together.
So let me make, let me just, I want to make sure I absolutely verify The point here where they say, Omar and Elmi used a Columbia Heights address on the marriage application.
Three months later, Hersey used the same address to obtain a business license for his one-on-one cafe lounge public records show.
This paints a very interesting picture, which I would say is light circumstantial evidence.
I wouldn't say it's proof.
I would say it's interesting and could provide a motive.
Or not a motive, but a timeline per se.
It sounds like, assuming that she did marry Almi to get him into the country faster, that what happened was, while she was married to Hersey with children, she, in her faith tradition, divorced him.
They were never legally married in the first place.
But then she married Almi so he could get to the country, and as soon as he was set to leave because he left around this time, she reconciled and had a third child with Hersey.
It sounds like this time frame shows That she never really left Hersey.
She wasn't legally married to him in the first place.
She had kids with him.
It sounds like she married this man, Elmie, while still actually with Hersey.
And then when Elmie left, they didn't do anything.
She never legally divorced him.
From the timeline to me, it sounds like she was married to Hersey the whole time.
It's possible that it's just conjecture, that they used the same address, somebody filed a false address, or they lived together, which is very strange for an ex-husband and wife to do, and, you know, for whatever reason.
I will say this, however.
It doesn't matter if Elmie is her brother.
That's a moot point.
It's interesting, and I think it's used to severely discredit her, but think about the lighter possibility that Elmie is just a family friend, and she married him so he could come to the US, period.
Snopes asked, why would she marry her brother when she could file on his behalf as a sibling to have him come to the country?
Star Tribune brings up the point that it's because spouses move here more quickly.
But why not the simpler question that she committed immigration fraud and she married someone so he'd move to the country?
Plain and simple.
She never legally married Hersi, and she stayed legally married to Elmi even after they ended their relationship.
It's all highly suspect, period.
I'll leave it there.
Nothing is definitive.
Nothing.
What we know is, Ilhan Omar committed a campaign finance violation and she had to pay a fine.
She filed her taxes incorrectly and that's why she was fined.
I believe she was fined for that and for using campaign funds to hire a lawyer to fix the problem.
Her marriage is murky and suspect.
But the story about her marrying her brother came from a single post on a forum, and it might not be true.
It may be much simpler than that.
She married somebody so he could move to the US.
End of story.
She was in a relationship with Hersi.
She has three kids with Hersi.
My understanding, she has no kids with Elmi.
And there's no reason to believe that Elmi is her brother, other than it makes her look bad.
In documents she's provided to journalists, we don't see anyone named Ahmed Elmi among her siblings.
So why push that conspiracy theory at all?
Why not just say, okay, maybe she legally married this guy so he could move to the US, like many people do all the time.
And she never legally married Hersi because she didn't need to.
Although apparently she filed tax filings with him.
It's an interesting problem.
I think, if anything, that's what she did.
It was simple immigration fraud.
Marry somebody who doesn't come here.
But that's my personal opinion.
All we know now?
She married a guy.
He came to the U.S., he left the U.S., and she committed some campaign finance violations and misfiled her taxes.
That's where we're at.
But I will add, with the final point, and to reiterate the main point, with the Star Tribune jumping on this story, it's making the story much more bigger, much more plausible, and as they say, a man, possibly her own brother.
We are now moving into the realm where mainstream journalists are starting to challenge the narrative, and we're moving out of the realm of conspiracy theory.
When the story first emerged, it was considered hateful and bigoted, But now mainstream papers are saying, hey, maybe this is true.
But I'll end by saying, regardless of the possibility, I think it's somewhat irresponsible.
Because a lot of things are possible.
And she really can't prove a negative.
So take it all with a grain of salt.
But I think if we're seeing this mainstream coverage, it's worth talking about at least this far.
But I remain a skeptic, plain and simple.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
I'll have more videos coming up.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews starting at 6 p.m.
For those in the podcast, the order is very different.
But thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
Because Sundays are always slow days as people aren't working.
The story we have today, actually it's kind of funny, foodie calls.
Dating for a free meal rather than a relationship.
Yes, like the booty call, a foodie call is when women will try and get a date with a guy because they want a free meal.
And according to this study, I believe it's around a third of women engage in what's called foodie calls.
Now we're going to read through this.
But let me tell you a few things.
For one, I recently saw a post on a subreddit called Am I the A-hole?
And this subreddit is, you know, you ask the audience, essentially, am I the bad person for doing X?
And then they tell you whether or not you are good or bad.
I've actually seen several where guys talk about how they refuse to pay for the woman's meal and the woman gets really angry or how they skipped out on them or left them stranded and things like that.
And it's kind of funny for two reasons.
Feminism has brought us to the point where men no longer pay for the woman's meal.
And that makes sense.
One of the arguments being that back in the day, men were the breadwinners.
They made the money.
So yeah, the guy would pay.
In today's day and age, men and women are expected to be equal in the workforce and everywhere else.
In which case, men aren't going to pay for the woman's food.
But here's the great double-edged sword.
How this story was brought to my attention was that someone on Facebook tagged me in the post to explain to me how this is an example of male discrimination against women and the patriarchy.
Because yes, The fact that a man wouldn't pay for a woman's food now is actually patriarchy, because men make 33% more money, which the number just seems to get bigger and bigger, which is not true.
By any reasonable statistic, based on today's averages, it's actually around 5%.
I think 5% is the fair percentage, because 3% to 7% is the range.
Men from the same job, right?
So if you hire a male school teacher and a female school teacher, a guy's gonna make probably about 5% more.
It's between 3 and 7.
And we don't necessarily know why, but it's not believed to be based on discrimination.
But it's mostly about women negotiating or asking.
There was one anecdote that was presented in a study where it was... I can't remember exactly which one, but a school was giving men higher-ranking jobs and women lower-ranking jobs.
And when they asked why, they looked at the documents and found the women weren't asking for higher-ranking jobs.
So there's a belief that men are naturally more assertive, probably has to do with testosterone.
And thus, men are going to demand or want more.
I also think it has to do with men's likelihood to take risks.
Men are substantially more likely to take risks.
Therefore, you know, if a guy goes to a meeting, he's going to be like, I would rather ask for everything, you know, whereas a woman's going to be less risk averse and play it safe.
This will create a small imbalance.
But no, not 33%, not 23%, not 20%, not even 15%, it's between 3 and 7.
But let's read the story about foodie calls.
And then I've got a special treat.
A Reddit thread where a guy tells a story about how he ditched, he split the bill with a date who got really angry.
It's a simple story, that's basically it, but we'll read it.
So this is from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
They say, Washington D.C., when it comes to getting a date, there's any number of ways people can present themselves and their interests.
One of the newer phenomena is called a foodie call, where a person sets up a date with someone they are not romantically interested in for the purpose of getting a free meal.
New research finds that 23 to 33% of women in an online study say they've engaged in a foodie call.
Upon further analysis, the social and personality psychology researchers found that women who scored high on the dark triad of personality traits, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism, as well as expressed traditional gender role beliefs, were most likely to engage in a foodie call and find it acceptable.
Now I'll stop here and say this.
I absolutely, uh, if I was going to go on a date with a woman and I knew her to be conservative, and maybe she said to me, she expressed how she's looking to start a family, she's not as interested in a career, I would actually understand if she expected me to pay the bill.
If she's looking to start a family, not a career, her priorities are not in making money, necessarily.
Although I do think we're in an interesting period in our culture where I don't know how you have a family and someone can be expected to live and just cross their fingers their partner is gonna pay for them.
Made a lot of sense when there was marriage, not so much today because marriage... Well, I think marriage is on the decline.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure millennials aren't getting married or having kids.
Anyway, I digress.
If I went on a date with somebody who is liberal, there's no way in hell I'm paying for your food.
Okay?
Plain and simple.
Now, I'll say this.
When I go out to eat with my friends, we argue over who's gonna cover the food.
It's like, you know, if we go to a diner, it's gonna be like 20 bucks.
It's like, ah, and then somebody eventually just pays for it.
But if I'm going on a date with a woman, there's gotta be mutual respect.
So if it's someone who's, you know, career-driven, which is kind of like the women that I tend to be attracted to, you know, assertive, career-driven, liberal types, then I'm not paying for your food.
Plain and simple.
Let's read more.
Oh yeah, but the point I want to make there is that I have no problem with someone expressing traditional gender role beliefs and not wanting to pay for food.
I do have a problem with psychopaths and narcissists trying to score a free meal off me.
So that was the point I was trying to make.
The research by Brian Collison, Jennifer Howell, and Trista Herig of Asusa Pacific University and UC Merced appears in the journal Social Psychology and Personality Science.
In the first study, 820 women were recruited, with 40% reporting they were single, 33 married, and 27 saying they were in a committed relationship but not married.
Out of them, 85% said they were heterosexual, and they were the focus for this study.
The women answered a series of questions that measured their personality traits, beliefs about gender roles, and their foodie call history.
They were also asked if they thought a foodie call was socially acceptable.
23% of women in the first group revealed they'd engaged in a foodie call.
Most did so occasionally or rarely.
Although women who had engaged in a foodie call believed it was more acceptable, most women believed foodie calls were extremely to moderately unacceptable.
So let's be clear here.
Here's the thing.
If a woman who is practicing traditional gender roles or believes in them goes on a date with you, and it's a legitimate date, and expects you to pay the bill, that sounds reasonable, right?
It's a legitimate inquiry into a potential relationship, and she is traditional, so that makes sense.
What we're talking about specifically, what makes this less moral and more unethical, are the secular, liberal, progressive women Well, I guess it might be narcissists, who don't have any interest in you whatsoever and just want free food, so they go on Tinder and say, I'm hungry.
And then they try and get you to go on a date with them, so you pay the bill.
They say the second study analyzed a similar set of questions of 357 straight women and found 33% had engaged in a foodie call.
It is important to note, however, that neither of these studies recruited representative samples of women, so we cannot know if these percentages are accurate for women in general.
So, it's an interesting thought, I suppose.
For both groups, those that engaged in foodie calls scored higher in the dark tribe personality traits.
Several dark traits have been linked to deceptive and exploitative behavior in romantic relationships, such as one-night stands, faking an orgasm, or sending unsolicited nudies.
We'll say that.
Collison and Herrick said they became interested in the subject of foodie calls after reading about the phenomenon in the news.
As for how many foodie calls might be occurring in the United States, Collison says that can't be inferred from the current research.
They could be more prevalent, for instance, if women lied or misremembered their foodie calls to maintain a positive view of their dating history.
The researchers also note that foodie calls could occur in many types of relationships and could be perpetrated by all genders.
Yes, yes, of course.
So here's what we'll do.
I'm gonna pop over, because I saw this from a couple months ago, but I've seen a ton of these threads.
So check it out.
They say, am I the a-hole for leaving my date to pay her portion of the bill?
I'm gonna tell you straight up, no, you're not.
Not at all.
You did nothing wrong.
We are not in the era of traditional gender roles, and if that's what society has deemed socially acceptable, then it's actually socially unacceptable for a woman to assume the man will pay for her meal.
Plain and simple.
Now, it's unfortunate for conservative and traditional types, but I think you need to make that clear moving forward.
But I also think you can infer that from if you meet someone and she says she's more conservative, then you can probably expect you should, you know, you're going to cover her meal.
And if she says she's liberal feminist or whatever, then you can probably expect you're going to split the bill.
So this guy writes, um, presumably this is a true story.
This happened a week or so ago, I met this girl on Tinder.
And we were talking for a couple days and she asks me something along the lines of, so when are we going out to dinner?
Cool, I ask her where she wants to go.
She says this local trendy seafood place.
We agree on a time, and that's that.
A few days later, we meet at the restaurant.
I order an appetizer and a beer.
She orders a cocktail.
We then both order entrees, and she gets a second drink.
Anyways, we finish eating, and she seemed pretty cool up until that point, and we had been hitting it off.
Our waiter comes by, and I ask if we can get our checks.
And to put the appetizer on my check, the girl immediately looks disgusted.
The waiter brings out our checks, and she just kind of sits there quietly.
When the checks arrive, the conversation between me and her goes on like this.
Why would I pay for your food if anything you asked me out, but I'm obviously willing to pay for myself?
Excuse me.
At this point, she looks angry and tells me she didn't bring any money.
Why would you go to a restaurant and not bring any money?
Because you're supposed to pay, and I didn't realize you were a jerk.
Aww, that's too bad, isn't it?
At this point, I couldn't believe how entitled she was, and I knew we weren't compatible.
Well, I guess I'm a jerk then.
I laid down $40 to cover my bill and tip, and walked out of the restaurant to let her figure out how to cover her part.
I think it's fairly obvious what's gonna happen.
Nobody, for the most part, thinks this guy did anything wrong.
All the top comments are, not the a-hole, not the a-hole, not the a-hole.
I'm at the fifth top comment, still not, you know, just... Pretty much everyone's in agreement, like, nah, dude, you didn't do anything wrong.
In today's day and age, just split the bill.
Basically, every single response is that he didn't do anything wrong.
So I think, uh... Well, let me do this.
I've been in these situations before, and I want to stress something that I find really, really angering in the story.
And it's the part where he says she orders a cocktail, and then she orders a second drink.
Oh, I've been there, man.
Maybe you guys have been there.
I've gone out on dates where, you know, like...
They order a bunch of drinks, the bill ends up being over $100, and I'm like, so are you covering your cocktails?
Like, dude, I'll be nice, and I'll, you know, like, I'll take the appetizer, like this guy's saying.
I can relate to this story, like, to a great degree.
I order an appetizer, we share it, but don't worry, I ordered it, I'll pay for it.
You didn't ask for it, I'm not gonna make you pay, but I'll absolutely share what I have.
But you ordered two cocktails.
What are those, like $7 to $10 a piece?
Now the bill's racked up?
I've been on dates where the women will just have like three cocktails, and they add like $40 or $50 to the tab, and then I'm like, dude, yeah, I get it, I'll pay, but come on, man, you're chugging, you know, old fashions?
Nah, nah, nah, none of that, right?
So I'll say this.
I am at a point in my life where the culture war and the weird cultural dynamics have just become so strange, and you don't know what's what anymore for the most part.
Like what I was mentioning earlier in the study, if a woman just believes in traditional gender roles, then I can respect that she assumes you'll pay the bill, but if it's like a feminist type, then I wouldn't respect that.
But more importantly, I think just all in all, Unless you're in, like, unless you know the person to be, like, I'll say this.
You should absolutely know beforehand what kind of date this is going to be.
Is the man going to be the gentleman and pull the chair for the woman and hold the door for her?
Or is the guy gonna be like, it's on you, man.
Because I'll tell you what, for me, you know, growing up in the city and most of my friends being liberal, I'm not paying for your food.
But not only that, I mean, I'll put it this way.
Respect is earned, not given.
I'm not going to pay for your food no matter who you are.
If I respect you, if you're my friend, I'll cover the tab, no problem.
If we're going on a first date, if we're going out to eat, yeah, I'm not doing anything for you, period.
And I'll say this too, because I think this discussion often can be roped back to this idea of You know, you've got a lot of guys, nice guys, they call them, who say things like, women only like jerks, and it's just not true.
Women like guys that are confident and assertive, and there's a difference between someone who's a jerk and someone who's assertive.
So you see a lot of stories about nice guys saying, like, you know, basically yelling at and insulting women, talking about how nice they were, like, no, dude, if you were actually a nice guy, you would be like, hey, I'm into you, and then when she says I'm not, be like, alright, have a nice day.
There was a post on Reddit a while ago from a woman who complained about getting girlfriend-zoned.
And she was saying that guys always complain about getting friend-zoned, but she's complaining about getting girlfriend-zoned, because she's like, every time she meets a guy, they want to go on a date with her, and she says that's not fair because she just wants friends.
And I've understood this for a long time.
I'm like, yeah, welcome to life.
Okay, I meet a girl.
I like her.
I say, hey, would you be interested in going on a date sometime?
She says, I'm not interested in you.
That way, I say, have a nice day.
And I'm not going to talk to you anymore.
I'm not going to be a jerk and just, like, ghost you.
But no, like, consider it done.
I'm not going to hang out with you.
You know, I'm not going to go to the movies with you.
I'm not going to go to eat with you.
We're not going to be friends for one simple reason.
If I'm interested in something more than friends and you're not, we're at an impasse.
There's nothing that can be done here.
And if you try to be friends with a guy who wants to date you, That's going to cause problems for both of you.
And I think, look, you've got two human beings who both want something.
If they can't get what they want, then you've got an imbalance in trade, and that doesn't work for me.
I know what I want, and if I say, you know, go on a date with a woman, and she's like, I don't think, I don't see this going any further, I'd shake your hand and be like, it was nice knowing you.
Right?
Because I'm not going to put you in the girlfriend zone.
If you're, like, you're going to be in the girlfriend zone, I'm going to be in the friend zone.
It's not going to work.
It's just never going to happen.
You know?
So then, so then I, you know, I always see these stories about people making fun of guys because the guys are complaining about getting friend zoned.
And I'm like, well, I can certainly sympathize with both the woman who gets girlfriend zoned and both the guy who gets friend zoned.
But I think that the, the, the cold reality is don't be friends with someone you want to date if they don't want to date you.
And, uh, Don't be mad if somebody doesn't want to be friends with you because they do want to date you.
I don't know.
So anyway, I don't even know how I got into that portion of the conversation, but I thought it was a funny story, and it's Sunday, so maybe Sunday will bring a little bit more levity.
Although I'm sure a lot of people are gonna see this and then start, you know, hating women or something.
But I think the truth is, going back to this story, they talk about the dark triad, right?
Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, Narcissism.
The truth is, people are bad people.
Like, they're- I'm sorry.
Bad people are bad people.
They exist.
There's enough of them.
And what we're seeing here, I do not believe is indicative of women, it's indicative of negative personality traits.
So I will stress, in our society, an exploit was created.
Men of good nature, seeking to take care of women, offered to pay their meals, and women of good nature were honored by the privilege.
Today, things have changed and now people kind of pay their own bills.
But you have women who want to exploit that system.
They want to exploit that goodwill with a foodie call.
Men do similar things.
It's just about people who are willing to exploit others for personal gain.
Man, I'll tell you what.
I went on a date once like 10 years ago and thought the chick was pretty cool.
I was fairly broke at the time and we ordered and I ordered real light.
I got like a Caesar salad and a drink and she went nuts.
And then once we were done, she was like, I really appreciate like getting up to leave.
And I'm like, uh, what's like, you're gonna split the bill.
She just left and then me being broke.
I was like, oh my god, dude I can't afford to pay for everything she bought and that was a total manipulation.
These are bad people, but I'm an adult now, right?
That was like actually that was like 12 years ago or something ridiculous.
So uh live and learn today I'm more of a I don't want to say A-hole or jerk or anything like that, but more sort of like
I'll sit down and be like you're paying for your own food You know like I appreciate your company. Have a nice day,
and I'll get up and I'll say waiter. She didn't pay for her bill
I'm not paying for it. Sorry. I think one thing that's important, too
Is just I don't really care anymore. You know when you're a younger dude. You're really like I don't say desperate
But it matters a lot more for some reason I guess once you're older and you've just been through all of the muck and the mire, you're just like, you know what, man?
I really have no time for this.
I've been there, done that, and I just realized there are more important things in life.
So you want to play games?
I'm not playing games.
Anyway, I'm just ranting now.
We're going long.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Maybe there'll be news today, but this is funny.
I mean, this is kind of news.
It's interesting.
So next video will be at 1 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you there.
I don't know or care about Anita Sarkeesian.
I don't mean that in a disrespectful or negative way.
I mean that it seems like a lot of people are either rushing to her defense, putting her up at VidCon as a speaker, or they absolutely detest her.
I don't know much about her, to be honest.
I just know she's a controversial figure who hosts Feminist Frequency, and I only have a peripheral understanding of her involvement with Gamergate and things like that.
But, I still thought it would be interesting to talk about this news story from Hot Air, as well as her YouTube channel, and then I want to talk to you about my perspective on the issue from someone who doesn't know anything about what happened with her and GamerGate and all that, based on what I see.
While I wouldn't necessarily consider myself, like, an outsider on the issue, for the most part, at its core I absolutely am, right?
So...
Like, your regular person on the street's gonna be like, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I have kind of a peripheral understanding of some of these things, but I want to make a greater point about, I don't know, internal subculture conflict kind of stuff.
But let's take a look at what's going on.
So, this is actually a bit relevant outside of any personal gripes people have with Anita Sarkeesian.
Anita Sarkeesian did a series called Feminist Frequency, which they still host, and there have been some fake news stories surrounding her.
I think it was in 2014, I can't remember where.
I saw a news report that claimed video games depicted things they actually didn't, and it was the setup for a story about Anita Sarkeesian.
Again, I don't really have an opinion on her necessarily, but it was interesting to me that the news would publish misleading... This was like a major... I think it was like ABC News published outright misleading information to prop up a narrative.
The reason this is important is that, in a certain time period, for those that aren't familiar with Anita or Feminist Frequencies, she was particularly influential with a lot of game studios and developers.
That's my general understanding, in that she would consult and talk to them.
And her videos were getting, I believe, a couple of them got millions of views.
Again, I'm kind of an outsider on this.
But this kind of symbolizes something different.
We may be seeing an era of a decline of certain personalities who grifted off of social justice.
We're entering a different kind of era though because it's certainly in politics and it's disconcerting.
But it may be that the mass wave that sparked the culture war may actually be becoming less appealing to a lot of people.
Or it could be that simply Anita Sarkeesian is no longer a relevant individual.
But let's read this story from hot air.
Anita Sarkeesian's feminist frequency non-profit is broke.
You may not recall Anita Sarkeesian, but she's a feminist critic who made a name for herself with a group of YouTube videos highlighting sexist tropes in video games.
She's also received a lot of threats and made news when she cancelled a talk in Utah over the fear that concealed carry permit holders would be allowed to bring their weapons into the venue.
That same year, 2014, Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency Organization became a recognized non-profit and, as a result, she was required to file an annual report on the money she raised and spent.
This is called a 990.
Form 990s are available for all non-profits that I believe are 501c3.
I believe 501s... I don't want to get in the jargon.
Let's put it this way.
Some non-profits that are tax deductible, 501c3 is what it's called, I believe their financials are all published.
It's called the Form 990.
You can Google it and you can see this.
So I've done this background stuff on a lot of organizations, and I used to work for non-profits so I'm somewhat familiar with this.
Because of this, we can actually see how much money they've raised and spent, and as it appears, they're broke.
According to those reports, Sarkeesian's group, which had two employees plus a producer, has raised and spent about 1.6 million dollars over the past five years.
That's actually very, very, very small.
Okay?
Small non-profits, in my experience that I've worked with, like 1 to 3 million dollars per year in revenue.
But think about it.
If you're paying for a studio space, if you're hiring staff, you know, these numbers might sound big to someone who assumes you have that cash in your bank to spend, but it's not really that simple.
Excuse me.
So for Anita Sarkeesian, 1.6 million, excuse me, over the past five years, it's actually only a couple hundred thousand dollars per year.
With three employees, they may be making a decent amount of money themselves.
Six figures.
Hey, that's not bad.
However, you also have to consider other expenses.
They produce a show, they probably have some kind of space to pay for, so I wouldn't say they're personally hurting on terms of their salaries.
They're still pretty good.
But there could be some unseen expenses in terms of equipment to make the business operate properly, but let's read on.
They say, but it seems that is coming to an end.
A lengthy profile of Sarkeesian published by Polygon this week reports that earlier this year she laid off her two employees and stopped taking a salary.
Earlier this year, Sarkeesian decided that feminist frequency needed to change.
She ceased taking a salary and laid off her co-creators and close friends Ebony Adams and Petit.
She closed her offices and stopped making videos.
Feminist frequency is still going, but it's now mainly focused on a regular podcast hosted by Adams, Petit, and Sarkeesian.
It's a purely voluntary organization.
Sarkeesian has no pat answer to the question of why she's decided to move on.
No.
It was just time.
The answers are more complicated.
Partly it's about money.
Fundraising is always a struggle, she says.
Paying my staff is always a struggle.
I'm capable of fundraising.
I learned how to do it through the process of running a non-profit.
But I didn't get into this work to be a fundraiser.
It's not a fun job, I'll tell you that.
I used to do it.
Feminist frequency relied heavily on corporations willing to fund the sort of work that looks into intersectional feminist critiques of commercial art.
When corporations make financial commitments to non-profits, they like to make song and dance about their noblesse oblige, most especially when it portrays them in a positive light.
But they're also prone to nickel-and-diming once-favorable media coverage fades.
Sarkeesian won't talk specifics, but it's clear that corporate generosity crept away once she outlived her usefulness.
I believe that is the big point to take away here.
A lot of what we saw with her being propped up and other people like her is the usefulness of positive press.
Why would any organization make a donation?
To make it seem like they're supporting certain issues.
There's one problem.
I don't care whether you like or don't like a new Sarkeesian, I don't know much about her.
I don't have a bad word to say about her personally, but I can say there was only one experience I had with her, and that was when I was at VidCon, and she spoke disparagingly to Boogie.
If you're not familiar, Boogie is a very gentlemanly YouTuber, and he was considered a nice guy.
They were on a bullying panel, and apparently afterwards, she kind of bullied him.
And this created sort of a backlash because, you know, it's one thing if you're mad at people who actually harass you.
It's another thing to yell at a guy.
At the time, I believe Boogie was wheelchair-bound, and, you know, so he's just, he's somebody who got picked on, and here she was yelling at him.
But also, VidCon, which is the largest video conference, came to her defense when she, from the stage, insulted people in the audience because they had personal beef.
Look, you're gonna get people on the left saying Sargon rightly criticizes her, you're gonna get people on the left saying Sargon and other YouTubers, you know, harass... I don't know anything about that.
I really, really don't.
So, from an outside perspective, I just see a woman on stage yelling at someone in the audience, and then I see a massive organization defending the person who started it.
I get it.
If you guys have a personal beef over some issues, you're both public figures.
Welcome to the real world.
All I can see is this woman yelled at Boogie, and all I can see is that VidCon came to her defense when she not only yelled at Boogie, but she also yelled at people in the audience.
There was a mixture of clapping and booing.
When I see that, okay, from an outside perspective, again, you might be saying, Tim, you're wrong.
I'm probably wrong about the history of her and whether she's good or bad.
But I'll tell you this, from an outside perspective, it's just volatile.
It is a bad bet, and thus, when you have someone on stage yelling at someone for any reason, corporations are probably going to say, we don't want to be involved in that.
When you're called out for yelling at a guy in a wheelchair, corporations are probably going to say, we don't want to be involved in that.
People need to realize that ideology isn't always the defining factor for why action is taken.
Why are certain organizations receiving funding?
Well, it's actually quite simple.
Not because their ideas are good, it's because Pepsi believes they'll make money by pandering to the masses.
That's why they put pride rainbows on their logos for Pride Month.
Not because they actually care about these issues, because it's socially acceptable.
But not just socially acceptable, it's almost socially, it's like social peer pressure.
You have to do this to an extent.
Like, are you going to come out in support of this community?
Otherwise, people will wag the finger at you.
So people probably, my assumption, gave Anita's Feminist Frequency some money in an effort to appear as though they cared about these issues.
I will tell you what, though.
At the end of the day, the people running these businesses care about one thing, and that's the green.
Because when you have someone who cares more about ideology running a business, the business will go under.
Okay look, if you have a business and the person is focused on sustaining that business by bringing in revenue, like you bring in more than you put out so your business can grow, well that's the focus you need to make the business survive.
If your intention is to push an ideology, well then start a non-profit.
The problem is someone's got to fund it.
So here's where it gets interesting.
There was a tweet that, earlier this month, Anita Sarkeesian put out, kind of begging for money in a weird way.
They say, earlier this month, Sarkeesian noted that fundraising problems on her Twitter feed while taking a shot at Electronic Arts.
Fem Frequency has been a non-profit on the front lines of the issue for years, constantly struggling with funding.
She said, am I gonna have to learn how to play FIFA?
Cuz Volta looks pretty awesome.
Sorry, what?
EA is donating a million dollars to non-profits working to end bullying and online harassment.
Some facts.
They didn't speak up during Gamergate at all.
Feminist Frequency has been a non-profit on the front lines of this issue for years, constantly struggling with funding.
Just last week, Sarkeesian was seen offering her services to the creators of a forthcoming game, Cyberpunk 2077, on the grounds the game might get dragged by the whole of the internet for some potentially sexist representations.
Cyberpunk 2077 is expected to be a big release.
The game was introduced at E3 this year by Keanu Reeves, who plays a character in the game.
So then we have this tweet where Anita says that she's available for consulting.
So here's what I think happened.
I think she became a toxic brand.
She was shown to be volatile.
And again, you might be saying I'm wrong, but this is what I know from an outside perspective, which means when it comes to anybody who might donate, they're going to be thinking similar things to me.
Cursory glances, no idea what the subcultures are arguing about, just somebody who has been very divisive and has actually created controversy.
Not a good investment.
So why would I bring that person on or donate to them?
Probably not going to happen.
Now, Anita says that they don't want to fundraise, but I believe the issue is actually she hasn't been successful in fundraising, because as we can see on Twitter, she's trying to raise money for feminist frequency.
They say that Feminist Frequency's annual report demonstrate that the group was down to its last $30,000 in January.
But as the video below points out, the real problem isn't just a lack of corporate donors.
It's a lack of public interest.
The group has more than 200,000 subscribers on YouTube, but the average podcast it released this year only had a few thousand listeners.
That's not much impact for a group that spent several hundred thousand dollars in 2018 on salaries and other expenses.
The era of feminist frequency is over, and I'll make a few points.
There was a time, it's my understanding, let's uh, for those that are listening on the podcast, I'm here on the YouTube channel, let's go to their oldest videos.
There was a time where I believe they actually generated a substantial amount of viewership.
We can see that ten years ago, hundreds of thousands of views.
In fact, nine years ago, 1.1 million views.
Now, I did some reading.
Some people said that there was originally another guy involved who was helping guide the tone and the narrative.
And when he left, things kind of petered out for them.
But his content is still successful, I believe.
I believe he is an intersectional feminist.
And we can see now that the current content they produce only gets a few thousand views, their podcast.
But I will say one thing.
It seems like they haven't figured out what they're actually doing.
Some of the videos they've made that focus on specific issues actually got 40,000 views.
But then they only made three of them and then kind of carried on, so I will say it seems like the organization is a bit dejected.
They're all over the place.
I mean, they're doing a Star Trek podcast.
I think that's, you know, Star Trek's great, whatever.
I'm not sure what that has to do with feminism and feminist frequency.
It seems like they got to a point where they just kind of wanted to do their thing, and this causes their channel to fizzle out and become kind of culturally irrelevant.
So, you know, I'll put it this way.
I'm not sure if any of this actually mattered, but I thought it might be interesting to talk about my personal perspective.
So I don't want to make this video too long.
I'll talk about a few other points.
I see a lot of people talk about Anita Sarkeesian, and I just don't know who she is or why she matters, for the most part.
I know she was, like, influential early on in GamerGate with pushing the feminist narrative so I can understand why people care, but it's interesting to me that this story popped up at all.
Honestly, I read this and I thought, you know, I saw this story and I was like, I don't care to talk about this.
This doesn't mean anything to me.
This is one random person who had a small business, and their small business is going out of business.
This is completely normal.
I understand she was influential in the past.
But I think there's, uh, this is a good example of symbols.
People like to latch onto symbols for emotional vindication.
So, uh, a friend told me this.
When someone throws a brick through a Starbucks window, it's not because they actually think they're going to solve any problems.
It's because it makes them feel good emotionally that they damaged the window of a Starbucks.
They view Starbucks as an oppressive corporate system, so breaking that window makes them feel good.
I think, for the past several years, Anita Sarkeesian and Feminist Frequency have had zero relevance.
They had relevance at, like, 2013 and 14.
Again, the way I see it, you may say I'm wrong, but I'm just coming from somebody who's an outside observer, sort of.
I understand a little bit about this.
And I just don't think she's had any relevance at all, yet I've still seen people talk about her.
And I think that's because she emerged early on as a symbol for what people were upset about.
She was kind of the face of this wave of intersectional feminism coming into culture.
And she still kind of is.
So stories like this, for some reason, are still relevant to some people.
I think one of the big issues with this video particularly, and I've been thinking about it the entire time I've been talking before I even made it, is that I'm willing to bet there's going to be a ton of people who say, Tim, I have no idea who this woman is, and I don't know why I should care.
And that's exactly the point.
So if you find yourself as someone who has no idea who she is, and you're confused as to why I'm even talking about it, I'll put it simply.
She was very influential in the spark of the culture war, in one of the more prominent moments in Gamergate, and people still hold her up as a symbol of the regressive left, or intersectional feminism, or of the social media grifter, and now she's broke.
What that means, I don't necessarily know, but this is relevant to a lot of people.
More importantly, I think her going broke is a symbol And perhaps a sign of the times to come.
Keanu Reeves introduced Cyberpunk 77.
It's a video game, and everyone loves Keanu Reeves.
I think Keanu Reeves is fantastic.
I don't think you're going to see people, you know, bring the outrage to Cyberpunk.
I think it'll be one or two Twitter accounts.
You might get these woke news outlets then highlighting these Twitter accounts, but look man, it's a popular game, you got Keanu Reeves involved, and I think that's it.
So anyway, I can't believe I was able to pull off 16 minutes so far on this because I think it's such a niche issue, you know, Nita Tarkisian.
And so I'll end by saying, you know, I've talked about her in the past a bit.
I mean, no disrespect to her personally.
I don't know her.
I have no issues with her personally and nothing like that.
You know, I would say to the people who really, really don't like her, It's time to move on, you know?
Admittedly, I think it's a small amount of people who are still obsessed with, like, who this woman is and what she represents.
Again, just my outside perspective.
So I'd say, you know, who cares?
You know, really, honestly, just who cares?
I'm surprised Hot Air wrote about it, you know?
But I guess she was influential at such a point that it matters now to people that she's going defunct.
Whatever.
You know, that's what I say.
I mean, I don't wish failure upon people for the most part, so I can't really say anything to that, but I'll leave it there, because I could talk for a million years on the issue over this stuff.
It's interesting.
Feminist frequency is basically defunct at this point, and that was... I guess that means something to some people.
My next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
on the main channel.
For those on the podcast, you probably already heard it, but stick around.
More stories to come, and I will see you all shortly.
Trump has postponed his mass deportation plan.
And while he said it's because he wants to give Democrats and Republicans a chance to come together and close the loopholes that people use to try and enter the country, it may have to do with other things.
The story from BuzzFeed News says Trump has unexpectedly postponed the nationwide ICE raids targeting, excuse me, illegal immigrant families.
Sources said administration officials believe the acting Homeland Security Secretary Or his staff had leaked operational details putting the plan in jeopardy.
Now, I said excuse me actually because I burped, but also because at the opportune moment, I was going to read the title where they didn't include the word illegal immigrant families and just said immigrant families, as if to imply Trump is rounding up legal immigrants and sending them back to their homes, which he is not doing.
These are people who have legal deportation orders.
No one is above the law.
Not even President Trump himself.
Let's have a little bit of standards here.
But I want to say something before we get into this.
You know, the left is claiming that Trump is, I don't know, for some reason it's wrong to enforce the law.
I don't understand.
Trump is claiming he's postponing it for, you know, practical political reasons.
But I can say that I do believe the information was leaked.
Before you read the story, I'll just say this, because there were rumors circulating And tips abuzz behind the scenes in the journalism space.
So I'll just, I gotta be a little vague on this one for source reasons, but I believe the information was absolutely leaked, which probably put it in jeopardy and thus they've postponed it.
So let's read the story.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option for PayPal.
There's a crypto option.
And yes, I am actually in the new studio space.
You can send stuff here if you want to.
People do.
But let's just get back to the news.
BuzzFeed writes, President Donald Trump suddenly canceled on Saturday a planned U.S.
immigration and customs enforcement operation targeting undocumented immigrant families from across the country that was set to begin in the pre-dawn hours on Sunday.
The Operation Details, which had been reported by multiple outlets including BuzzFeed News, had set off an unprecedented level of preparation among immigrant advocates this week.
But in a tweet Saturday, Trump said that he had delayed the plan at the request of Democrats to put on a plan to solve issues at the border, including what he believes are inherent loopholes to the system.
At the request of Democrats, I have delayed the illegal immigration removal process for two weeks to see if the Democrats and Republicans can get together and work out a solution to the asylum and loophole problems at the southern border, Trump tweeted.
If not, deportations start.
However, two senior administration officials told BuzzFeed News that those within the administration believe Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, or his staff, leaked operational details and that this is what ultimately put the ICE operation in jeopardy.
Leaking the locations and details to stop the operation from happening not only harmed operational integrity, but it put the safety and well-being of its own officers in jeopardy, said one senior administration official.
The ICE mission is enforcing the nation's laws and ensuring those who are unlawfully present in the country are removed if ordered by a judge.
This will leave an unerasable mark on his tenure.
DHS officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the matter.
I'm going to say I believe that statement to be correct, as I stated earlier.
It appears that there were leaks abuzz with many journalists having conversations about preparing overnight stings because, it would seem, people knew the location of the raid.
At least in my secret spy network.
I'm saying that somewhat facetiously.
Among internet chat rooms from journalists asking about what's going on, it seems like people knew.
So if that's the case, it probably got back to the Trump administration that journalists were preparing, as were immigrant advocacy groups.
And that's the other thing too, is a lot of these journalist sources come from activists.
You know, source information comes from activists, or the sources are activists.
So I think it's less of a concern for the Trump administration that journalists were going to be on board and filming this, that happens all the time, more so that activists were going to show up.
And that may actually be just the fear that activists might jump to protest the removals prompted them to cancel.
So, assuming that's true, it's a win for advocacy groups.
Regardless, postponing this is a win for the advocacy groups.
BuzzFeed writes, The roundup had been expected to begin Sunday in several cities across the country, including Los Angeles, targeting families who had been issued final removal orders after not appearing in court, according to sources close to the administration.
The enforcement action was set to come during a period in which the administration has called for additional funding to help add resources to handle the record number of immigrant families crossing the border this year.
Earlier this week, Mark Morgan, the acting ICE director, signaled that the agency would conduct a raid on immigrants who are in the country without authorization.
In a call with reporters, Morgan focused on a group of around 2,000 individuals who were part of an expedited docket at immigration courts reserved for family units who have recently arrived.
Across the country, 10 immigration courts in cities like San Francisco, Miami, Houston, Baltimore, and L.A.
have quick dockets for immigration families.
The 2,000 individuals, Morgan said, had been ordered removed in absentia, without appearing in court, and had been notified to present themselves at ICE offices to facilitate a compassionate removal.
These individuals, Morgan argued, had been given an adequate level of due process and a chance to make their case in court.
Without officers targeting and removing them, immigrant families from Central America would continue to come without any fear of consequence.
Now that's a statement apparently from BuzzFeed, not from a quote that BuzzFeed seems to be saying.
That if the courts don't remove these people, then it's incentivizing, essentially incentivizing people to keep coming.
And yes, migrant caravans have not stopped.
I think last month was a record month for the past decade or so, with like 144,000 families coming in.
Look, at a certain point, you will face mass deportations.
So these advocates who are pushing against this, they're actually talking about people who are given due process and failed to appear and are being ordered to be removed in a compassionate manner.
And even BuzzFeed is saying, otherwise, you're going to get people coming, you know.
And so, you know what, man?
I'm going to throw in real quick.
It's Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Rashida.
It's the far-left Democrats who are obstructing the humanitarian aid package that's supposed to go to the border.
None of this, please?
Like, can we have a real conversation about these problems?
Within the agency, some ICE officials were concerned Trump's tweet last week, which warned ICE would soon begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the U.S., had tipped off the operation, one source with knowledge of internal agency discussion said.
Teresa Brown, a former DHS official who now heads immigration policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said that the cancellation would allow ICE officers to continue their normal, ongoing operations across the country.
In recent weeks, the agency has conducted sweeps, not specifically targeting families that have resulted in dozens of arrests at once.
There's something to consider here.
While I do think it's true information has leaked, it's important to point out that Trump made this a big story by tweeting about it, but it's also important to know about the strategy called the Big Ask.
I think what Trump does very, very often is called a Big Ask.
For those that aren't familiar, what it means is when I'm negotiating a salary, I'll ask for a massive number to shock the other party and then negotiate down to what I actually want.
It sounds more reasonable.
You tell someone, I want $100,000 a year, and they gasp, and then say, okay, fine, $70,000, and they say, oh, $70,000, okay, $70,000, that's way less.
But because if you ask for $70,000, they'll go, oh, $70,000, and you'll get lower.
It's possible what Trump is doing here, by claiming he's gonna deport, you know, all of these different families, is send a shock to the system, and then stop, and say, okay, how about you close the loopholes instead?
So Democrats seeking to protect their constituents, not the illegal immigrants, I'm talking about the activists and advocates, Well then immediately, excuse me, come out and say, okay, we're going to do something.
Otherwise Trump's going to take action, which is going to negatively reflect on all of us.
It's also possible.
Trump's tweets sparked action among advocates, which, you know, got them into action.
At the same time, Trump is a master of media manipulation.
You know, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Trump knows how to play the press like a fiddle.
Call it 4D chess, call it whatever you want, but Trump gets free press, and he knows how to use his silly tweets to shift the narrative away from other issues.
It's also possible Trump tweeted this because of other issues going on with, say, Iran.
Or Saudi Arabia.
There's a massive weapons deal with Saudi Arabia that is being blocked and maybe Trump's trying to draw attention away because he knows whether or not there's going to be any operation or not, the media will chase after his tweets like a bunch of, like a bunch of, I don't know, idiots chasing a carrot on a stick, whatever.
I was going to make a more disparaging comment, but we'll leave it with the carrot on the stick because journalists are vultures that seek the carcasses of... I'll tone it down a little bit.
But yeah, they call journalists vultures.
Trump knows this, so he throws out the rotting meat to the disgusting flying birds to swoop down and eat it while Trump sits back nibbling on his nice juicy piece of fried chicken or whatever.
Trump has his fabulous meal, and in order to make sure the vultures aren't pecking at it, he throws the rotting flesh across the hall.
They chase after it.
Congratulations, journalists.
You're vultures.
So, um, we'll read a little bit more of this, but then we'll move on.
Teresa Brown, a former DHS official who now heads immigration policy at the- Oh, I'm sorry, I read that.
Brown noted, however, that any discussion of the operation being used as a ploy by the Trump administration to secure changes to immigration laws and ongoing conversations with Democrats could be an issue.
The idea that this is a negotiating tactic with the Hill might not sit very well with the agents.
And that was the point I was making.
This may just be a big ask.
Get everybody all riled up, tone it back, and get what you really want.
The story concludes by saying, Trump's threat of raids has also had the unintended effect of giving undocumented people a renewed chance to prepare for future operations, said Alfredo Salazar, a member of the Congress of Day Laborers, an immigrant rights organization.
The group, he said, has been fielding calls from concerned undocumented people seeking information and U.S.
citizens inquiring about how they can help.
Well, it is what it is.
I think I've hit all the points.
That's where we are.
The vultures will chase this story.
It'll pop up.
So think about what Trump just did.
He said there was going to be a raid.
The media runs wild.
He then cancels said raid.
The media runs wild.
He's literally throwing out rotting carcasses to the vultures, and they go for it every single time.
We've got a serious problem with Iran.
They go for this every single time.
We've got Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
They go for this stuff every single time.
I swear, he plays the media like a fiddle.
But, um, for whatever it is, I'll just end by saying the main point, Raid's off.
We'll see what happens, stick around, I have more stories coming up in a few minutes, any developments I will cover, and I will see you in the next story.
A rally is taking place, July 6th, and there's going to be a lot of contentious figures.
People like Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, Enrique Tarrio, Laura Loomer, etc.
It's a rally for free speech, so you know pretty much what they're calling for.
free speech. Many of these people have been deplatformed in a variety of ways.
They've been smeared in the press, but not everyone who's attending is necessarily a
controversial banned figure. While you do have people like Laura Loomer and Milo Yiannopoulos
and Gavin, people who have been removed from various platforms and Proud Boys and Rick Attario,
Mike Cernovich has not been banned.
He was banned from Medium, I think, but not from Twitter.
Posobiec hasn't been.
I think Roger Stone isn't allowed to post anything right now.
You've got Omar Navarro from the 43rd District.
That's Maxine Waters.
You've got people like Joey Salads and Will Witt, Ashton Burdi.
So there's a lot of people who haven't been banned.
Only a few of them have been.
And they're basically holding a rally for free speech, though these figures are controversial, plain and simple.
Like, you know, controversial in the sense that they themselves don't warrant the controversy, but there's controversy around them because of their politics.
But here's the main story.
All Out DC appears to be a new Antifa account targeting this rally specifically saying the
alt-right is coming to DC July 6th for an organizing clearinghouse.
Together we can stop the alt-right and put an end to Trump's white supremacist fantasies.
They've been putting up posters throughout DC.
In this tweet they say, first posters put up and around town opposing the alt-right.
in one of these tweets, they doxed Tucker Carlson.
Now, I can't- I don't know if that's true because apparently the post has been removed, but we can see this poster that was put up.
It says, however, Tucker Carlson is not speaking at the event, so I don't know why they're targeting him.
But these three arrows represent the strikethrough.
It's the Antifa mark.
It's supposed to be a mark over, you know, Like, it was related to World War II Germany.
It says, Influencer.
Racist with a huge following and platform.
Uses to promote racist dog whistles.
But he has nothing to do with the event.
Now, apparently, this person says Antifa group All Out District is posting Tucker Carlson's personal information around DC and then sharing it to Twitter.
Last time Antifa accounts Doxton, Twitter initially left the tweets up despite groups showing up at Tucker's house.
This was against Twitter's TOS.
That's true.
I don't know what was blocked here.
Apparently it's personal information.
But what I can say is, They did dox Tucker Carlson.
Activists showed up to his house.
Apparently his wife hid in the closet.
Tucker claimed they broke the door.
Maybe.
It wasn't like they broke the door in, but there was damage to it.
And this is actually a hate crime in D.C., targeting people.
So these posters might... If this is being put up in D.C., this might actually be a violation of human rights to target people for their political beliefs.
Now, naturally, Antifa is putting up a lot of lies in their posts, and I'll show you in a second.
But assuming this is doxxing Tucker Carlson, I imagine that might make sense because the actual All Out DC apparently hasn't posted that individual photo.
Though you can see the poster here, you can't make out what's on the flyer.
But I want to point to a few things about the lies that are being put up with this specifically.
In this photo, we can see what looks like Jack Posobiec, but also Richard Spencer.
My understanding is that these two individuals absolutely hate each other.
Richard Spencer had a rally, Jack Posobiec held a counter-rally, and there was smack-talking abound.
Putting them both in the same flyer is disingenuous.
More importantly, Richard Spencer's not speaking at the event.
At least as far as I can tell.
I'm not saying you gotta be fans of these people.
A lot of people don't like these people, but I'm pretty sure Richard Spencer is not one of the speakers.
Although it looks like there's some confirmed speakers, um...
Freedom Q&A VIP ballroom event will contain some controversial individuals.
Jacob Wall, for instance.
But I don't believe Richard Spencer would be speaking, considering they don't get along with him.
So I'm curious as to why they posted that photo.
Now, they also show this photo of Joey Salads wearing a World War II era German armband.
The thing is, that's from a prank video.
From a skit.
Not a real thing.
It would be akin to, like, activists pulling photos from Saturday Night Live to try and make a claim about somebody.
It's a purposefully out-of-context photo meant to just smear Jack Masobiak.
Additionally, Laura Loomer is not alt-right.
Not in any capacity.
Look, I get it.
People want to argue that Gavin McInnes is alt-right, and he's denied this, and he's denounced the alt-right, but he does have quotes like this one, assuming it's true.
The point is, Gavin McInnes has said things that have crossed the line.
100%.
Now, some of these quotes have been taken out of context and used to sound way worse than they really are, but he does have things that I believe he shouldn't have said.
Crossed the line.
And you know what?
You re-put you so.
Laura Loomer, on the other hand, is far from alt-right.
She's Jewish, I'm pretty sure.
Not sure why they're smearing people like this, because a lot of the people they're claiming are alt-right aren't actually alt-right.
But I guess the main goal, as with most time when you see Antifa smearing people, the intention is to lie.
It's to accuse everyone of being the worst of the worst.
You know they've tried throwing that label at me once or twice?
It's failed.
Completely.
Um, it's, you know, because, for one, I'm not even fans of these people, and, like, I've been openly critical of them as I just criticized Gavin McInnes.
But also, I'm, as you may know, mixed race, so that's kinda weird, isn't it?
But sure, sure enough, The Daily Beast published a story claiming that minorities are joining alt-right groups.
Don't ask me why, it's just complete absurdity and insanity.
So, um, I'm gonna ignore their website for now.
But, uh, they do have other posts where they highlight the speakers, and then reference things they've said, referring to all of them as alright.
I'm gonna sneeze.
I'm trying not to.
Now, what they've done is, they've posted phone numbers here, um, saying, please call these people.
These are publicly available phone numbers.
FYI, someone's gonna complain.
I'll get a privacy complaint or some nonsense.
But this is all publicly available, uh, information.
Not like Twitter- Not like YouTube cares anymore.
And they have a call-in script.
They want people to accuse people of being alt-right and get their event shut down.
So that's what we're at with this story.
Whether or not they're actually doxing Tucker Carlson, I can't say for sure.
But what I can say is we have an additional story from last year.
And I think this shows the tactic of doxing, which is a common tactic.
And often it goes un... There's no accountability for these accounts that break the rules.
So I highlight this specifically because I want to get back to the point about Tucker Carlson and the removal of doxing.
This story says Antifa Group shares link to list of 1600 ICE employees alongside photos, locations, and job titles.
The list was originally compiled by a New York-based artist.
Yes, this did in fact appear on Twitter, and Twitter didn't remove it.
In fact, they only removed it after, on the Joe Rogan podcast, I pointed out that this is common.
That it's against the rules, and they do it anyway.
You now have All Out DC posting these photos, these posters around DC, which is false and defamatory, but also seemingly, they're accusing them, of containing Personal and private information.
These posters, I believe, would constitute a hate crime if they include personal information.
We can see here the photo of Tucker Carlson.
I can't make out what's on it.
But here's the thing.
After I appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast, the tweet in question doxing these ICE agents was taken down.
The Twitter people asked me for the information on these accounts and I refused to give it up.
Now the left tried to claim that it was a secret conversation where I was trying to like pass off information to them when in reality you could hear me refusing to do it.
But after Tucker Carlson was doxxed on Twitter the first time, And activists showed up to his house and Twitter didn't remove it.
Fox News actually refused to continue using Twitter.
I don't know if they've ever come back.
And they claimed it's because Twitter wouldn't uphold the rules.
I kid you not.
They posted the address of a private individual.
It wasn't a news story.
It was meant to target and harass and incite people to show up to his house.
And Twitter did nothing to stop it.
Once again, we now have another Antifa group doing the same thing.
Well, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I want to make sure I'm really clear here.
Presumably, according to this one account, there's private information for Tucker Carlson on this post.
They're talking about some event that's going on, and they're trying to encourage people to protest it.
Well, in DC, you're allowed to protest.
However, If it is true they're posting private information, I'd lean towards that probably being the case because they've done it before.
And I would also lean towards Twitter will not take any action against this at all.
There are lies.
Where's the photo of Joey?
I wanted to find that photo of Joey specifically because, oh, maybe that was it right there.
Let me see if I can find this photo of Joey Salads.
For those that are familiar, Joey Salads is a YouTuber who is a conservative, but he does, um, like comedy and pranks for the most part.
In this photo, there we go.
This photo of Joey right here is probably gonna get me in trouble on YouTube.
It's from a skit.
It's literally him doing a skit where he shows up and tries to get people to yell at him for wearing the armband.
But you know what?
There's a lot to criticize Joey for, and I'll criticize Joey right now for that skit because it was a bad idea.
Because now you have a photo of you wearing the armband and that's all that matters.
And they're putting it in their photos.
So unsurprisingly, what we can say definitively is Tucker Carlson isn't speaking at this event.
I don't know who else is speaking at the event that they've posted on these posters.
But many of these people aren't alt-right.
In fact, many of them are very anti-alt-right.
Yet, of course, we're going to see the smears.
It's actually a tactic.
It is.
One of the goals of the far left is to try and smear everyone as extremists because the average person won't actually look into it.
What we have now are people who are going to see these, assume it's true like this photo of Joey, And there you go.
Case dismissed.
So, anyway, I feel like you guys get the point for the most part.
There were a couple other things that I wanted to highlight, but I think because I'm already getting close to the line with YouTube due to the activism, I'm going to leave it there.
I'm not going to scroll down on this.
You know, the phone numbers are all publicly available or published by All Out DC, but You know, I don't know what else to say, so I'll probably have to blur some of this stuff.
So that's why I think I'm gonna stop here.
It is what it is.
We'll see what happens at the event.
Stick around.
I got another story coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
Oftentimes, people will say something to me or in the comment section that I've been red-pilled or that I've transformed, and I don't think they realize what's actually happening.
To them, in their bubble, they've seen the problem of these regressive social justice activists, and it impacts their community.
Therefore, if people don't feel the same way as they do, they're blue-pilled, but once they come around, they're red-pilled.
That's actually not what's happening.
I've explained this before, but let me break it down again.
The story in question, One Punch Man's new hero blackluster, sparks racism controversy.
It's not that people are waking up to being woke, or they're not waking up to being red-pilled or anything like that.
It may be that the intersectional feminism ideology has spread far and wide, but people are getting involved in certain subcultures.
So why is gaming impacted by the SJWs?
It's not because all of a sudden it was a concerted effort by activists, it's because games started getting a wider and wider appeal, and they started broaching a community, these, I'm gonna do air quotes, journalists, who needed rage content to produce.
But for people like me, when I start noticing problems in journalism and elsewhere, it's not about being red-pilled, as they say, It's about skateboarding being impacted by.
It's about Magic the Gathering, card games, video games.
If you're involved in a subculture and all of a sudden these people, these weirdos aren't getting involved, then you'll start calling out the problem.
So for gamers, it happened a long time ago.
For anime, it's starting now.
It's actually been happening for a little while, but check this out.
The reason I bring this up is that One Punch Man is now be- has become mainstream popular.
If you're not familiar with what One Punch Man is, it's an anime, which is, you know, a Japanese cartoon, essentially, about this guy who's ridiculously powerful and can defeat anybody with one punch.
One serious punch, like a real punch.
Often in the show he does, like, lighter punches and stuff like that, but he's just ridiculously powerful.
The show's hilarious, well-made, and it's so good, in fact, regular people like it.
Not just anime fans.
But here's the thing.
Anime fans tend to know a simple truth.
That racism is very, very big in Japan.
Not just Japan, though.
Southeast Asia.
And you can take my word for it because I'm part Korean and know for a fact that people in my family heritage were particularly...
Racist.
Very much so.
Now, it's usually towards certain races, but yeah, they really are.
Look, this story from- it's from, like, I don't know, this week in Asia or something?
I literally just Google- Google searched, Asians are racist, and this popped up.
So, yes.
But let's- let's- let's get to the story about One Punch Man.
There's a character in One Punch Man named Black Luster, and people are upset.
Mostly because, I guess, he has big white eyes, and they gave him big lips.
This person said, I think Dragon Ball Z had a much more offensive depiction with Popo.
Come on, we still drawing black anime characters like this?
I think Dragon Ball Z had a much more offensive depiction with Popo.
If you're familiar with Dragon Ball Z, basically the character was jet black,
with big red mouth and white eyes.
But these people who are now waking up to anime, I guess, are realizing that Asians have this depiction of black
characters.
Brooklyn Shinobi says, Here's a thing.
offended by certain anime illustrators and their portrayal of black characters.
One Punch Man was straight disrespectful with this Black Luster guy shake in my
head. Here's the thing. Someone said, here's how Black Luster looks like in season 1
and the manga to compare. I think for the most part he looks the same. Like someone
made an anime version of a black character.
I want to point something out.
By all means, you're allowed to be upset if you don't like the depiction, but what's wrong with someone having black lips?
I mean, I'm sorry, having big lips.
I think it's fair to point out they often depict black people this way, but I also think it's strange, like, they don't give lips at all to any other character.
So I can certainly point out, like, there is a racial stereotype at play for Asians who are a mostly ethnically homogenous, who mostly have ethnically homogenous countries.
They're basically ethnostates like China, Japan, Korea.
Very much so.
And I'll tell you this too.
It's a really interesting racism in South Korea, especially for someone like me.
There's a weird fascination I get from, or I did get from some Koreans being mixed, wondering like how my Korean family moved and like, you know, had a family with white people.
And there were some people who were just like, You're not one of us, you know, like overtly racist.
Something I don't really experience in the U.S.
except when it comes to the regressive left.
The regressive left loves to insult me for being part white.
But regular people, you know, because like regular people in this country, and for the most part conservatives, aren't and don't care.
So, you know, whatever the regressive left is.
And I mean regular people like regular liberals too.
It's the weird regressive left.
But I want to make a point.
I don't think this depiction is inherently racist.
I guess because, I guess people want a character that doesn't look stereotypically, you know, like, like, like, I don't know, look, some people have big lips.
If they made a white person with big lips or a black person with big lips, I don't think that's a problem.
But it's because of Western depictions of black people it's offensive.
Would this be offensive to a Japanese person or a black person living in Japan?
I honestly don't know, but I also think it's fair to point out that anime don't- they don't often make black characters who look the same way as white characters, so I guess people are upset?
What I think we're really seeing though, is that people are finally realizing that yes, In Asia, people are racist.
It's nothing to do with, like, people all of a sudden deciding now that anime needs to change.
So let's read a little bit of this, but I want to do one more thing.
Actually, let's read this article, but I'm going to do one thing real quick.
This picture on your screen, this is Brock from Pokemon.
Um, for those that don't know the podcast, Brock from Pokemon, he's one of the main characters from the original series.
See, I don't know, I don't watch Pokemon, so I don't know where he is, but I watched Pokemon when I was a little kid.
This, this guy Brock, he's presumably Asian of some sort, I have no idea why, like what Asian he is, but he doesn't have eyes.
He has straight lines.
Either he's walking around all the time with his eyes closed, or Asians are racist, I guess to themselves, because they literally drew his eyes as slits.
And that's how he appears in the show.
I was not offended by this.
My family was not offended by this.
I honestly don't know any Asians who would be offended by this.
I guess maybe because it's Asians making art for Asians, and they drew themselves this way.
The point I'm trying to make, however, is that anime draws people as, like, kind of caricatures.
I don't know why that's gotta be a bad thing.
But let's read what's going on in this story a little bit.
One Punch Man Season 2 has been thrilling fans with its expanding world of cast and characters, as well as the series' trademark mix of epic action and satirical humor.
In fact, after all of the early doubt from fans about whether or not One Punch Man Season 2 could live up to Season 1, this acclaim This acclaim for the new season is a major victory.
People who aren't fans of anime are now watching anime, and it's kinda cool.
But now you're gonna see a bunch of normies and a bunch of the regressive left finding out about these shows and getting outraged at the way the art is made.
They say.
However, One Punch Man Season 2 is now taking a big hit, after Episode 22 debut a new hero named Blackluster, a character that many fans see as yet another racist caricature with the not-so-honorable tradition of anime's depiction of people of color.
Sure, but I will point out that these are just a small handful of Twitter accounts.
It may actually be no one.
It may be that no one actually cares, except for like... It's not even just... It's like, what, nine people at most?
Excuse me, because I took a series of tweets from people?
I don't know, whatever.
Let's uh, so I did read some of the tweets.
But let's read some of the, what comicbook.com has to say.
I do think we may be seeing, um, vulture-ish, vulture, excuse me, media?
Trying to find a story and generate outrage just because a few people tweeted something doesn't mean anyone actually cares.
These tweets pretty much lay out the hurt feelings of a lot of One Punch Man fans right now.
Blackluster isn't going over too well with just about anyone.
But it's important to note that Blackluster isn't made for progressive white, you know, American audiences.
It's not made for even black audiences.
It's a Japanese show made for Japanese people, and Japanese people are racist.
So, if you want to get mad at Japan for doing this, go for it.
I guess.
I doubt they're gonna change because they're basically an ethnostate as it is.
This fan makes the case that this arguably racist depiction of blackluster is unique to the anime only, as the One Punch Man manga seems much more genuine in its approach to drawing a black character.
JC Staff's character design and lighting for the anime looks like it stepped right out of a 1930s blackface cartoon.
I gotta be honest, I can't really tell the difference between the manga and the anime character.
Right?
These are two different sequences.
In one, he's grinning, so his mouth is open.
In one, his mouth is closed.
I really- I don't get it.
They say, seriously, the One Punch Man anime staff may need to reconsider just how popular the anime is now.
The diversity of the fanbase is widespread, with many people of color loving the saga of Saitama, just something to keep in mind.
But I guess you can petition the Japanese- I'm assuming it's a Japanese company to make changes?
Long-time anime fans, especially black fans, are not all that surprised to see this kind of offensive portrayal of blackness.
After all, it's pretty much par for the course when it comes to the genre.
I kind of agree with that, let's be honest.
They say for a lot of black fans, this depiction of blackluster stirs up some very unpleasant memories of blackface.
Yep, we're still dealing with this in 2019 in real life in anime everywhere apparently.
No worries my man, we're working on it.
Spotlight on outrage over anime racism coming soon.
One Punch Man has literally just one black character and this is what they do to him.
Listen.
It's Japan.
The characters are made to be Japanese.
A lot of times characters have blonde hair or something, but I was talking to some Japanese friends of mine, and they told me that when... Japanese people have kind of light skin, for the most part.
Not all of them, but a lot of them do.
So when they draw Japanese characters, sometimes they have pale skin.
White people look at that and presume it's drawn to be a white person.
That's not true.
Sometimes it is.
Often it is.
Like, in Evangelion, there's a woman, I guess, from Germany or something?
I'm not a big fan of Evangelion.
But, like, anime has a variety of races, and some characters are made to be Japanese, but they do look like they could be white.
So, the point I'm trying to make is Japanese shows are made for Japanese people.
There's a bunch of American, you know, people who are upset about this.
Well, okay, go to Japan and complain.
I'm sure they're gonna be like, I don't know, whatever.
It's possible though, because a lot of money is made on international marketing, these companies in Japan would bend the knee.
I'm gonna have to lean towards probably not, however.
So, I don't know, whatever.
I like One Punch Man, and the reason I wanted to do this video is because I'm like, oh, y'all are mad about this?
Like, I remember Brock.
And nobody cared.
I certainly didn't care.
Whatever.
I'm more German-Irish than I am Korean anyway, so it is what it is.
I'm beat.
These are nonsensical stories.
It is what it is.
Thanks for hanging out.
Sunday's been fun.
I'll see you guys tomorrow on the main channel podcast.
