Charlie Kirk Defamed? Douglass Mackey Trial Takes Wild Turn! AND MORE!
|
Time
Text
You like that guy Gavin Newsom?
All you people voted for him.
Stay home.
Hey, how about little Billy de Blasio?
Oh, not Bill de Blasio.
You mean the former mayor of New York whose real fucking name is Warren William Jr.?
But I changed it to get the Italian vote?
And he locks down everywhere?
Little Andy Cuomo, the daddy's boy?
Whitless fucking Whitmire?
Little DeWine over there in Ohio?
Hey, all you people in East Palestine and the whole area that have been poisoned to death, don't you love that little fucking arrogant prick that shut everything down?
Here's my slogan for the next, for the 2024 presidential election.
Wait for it.
Or any election in any country near you.
It's a good slogan.
Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do?
Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do?
Stay home?
Fuck off!
Get the jab?
Shove it up your ass!
Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do?
These people destroyed our economy.
They artificially popped it up.
With cheap money so the bigs could get bigger with their zero interest rate policy and dumping trillions of dollars into the economy.
If you guys didn't know who this man was before...
Hold on one second.
Admittedly, I only discovered him about 17 minutes before posting that clip.
I just want to get his Twitter handle again.
Gerald Salente.
I only discovered him 17 minutes before posting that clip, which was the exact amount of time It took me to watch that video that he put on YouTube.
I was referred to Gerald by my financial advisor and friend back in Montreal, who said, Viva, to answer your question as to the lamentable state of the economy and some stocks that you may have decided to purchase on your own, such as Credit Suisse, Tabarnak, he sent me that clip and I watched it.
I've never heard of Gerald Salente.
But I'm subscribed now.
I hope I'm subscribed.
Anyways, I'm following him now for sure on Twitter.
He reminds me of my father.
My father without a filter.
My father, even, you know, I've never seen my dad horrendously drunk.
I don't think my dad could be drunk enough to lose the filter that much.
But my dad espouses similar beliefs.
Let me paraphrase it more politely.
Dear government, who on earth do you think you are to tell me what to do?
You, as an entity, as a historical entity, have been guilty of the most egregious atrocities known to man.
Human experimentation, testing on your own citizens, violent conflict.
Mass casualties, arguably crimes of wars, but not so arguably crimes of war.
Who the heck are you to tell me what to do when everything you have ever touched, with some exceptions, has turned to absolute crap?
You can't do your own job properly, and now you want to govern my life?
Who the heck are you?
Oh, man.
And now we're seeing what's going on here with the banks and Credit Suisse, which I purchased at $3.07 a share.
Not very much, but, you know, how much lower can it go?
Oh, we're finding out now!
The government...
People don't understand this.
This is one of my arguments as to why people have this idiotic trust in the government more so than private enterprise.
And as far as I'm concerned, both require distrust.
Both require...
I won't even say trust, but verify.
It's don't trust them with anything more than you can afford them losing for you.
But people trust the government.
Because why would the government be bad?
But private enterprise, well, they're corrupt.
Private enterprise will cut corners and do whatever it takes to make a profit.
What do you think government does?
They will do whatever it takes to retain and enhance their power.
And if you think that there are more corrupt, dishonest, disingenuous...
You know, deceitful people in private enterprise, why would you think there would be any fewer of them proportionately in government?
You think just Mother Teresas joined the government because they have such a deep yearning to help society?
I would argue that more people would join private enterprise if they actually wanted to help society, because at least private enterprise tends to get things done.
It tends to get things done in a more cost-effective manner because they are held to the bottom line of profits, not squandering endless monies that they can just go dip into your back pocket to take.
But people trust the government.
They have to be good.
I mean, that's their purpose, right?
It's to help the people.
Oh, there wouldn't be corrupt, dishonest psychopaths in government.
There would be fewer of them in government than there would be in private enterprise, right?
No.
And then they come in, like Gerald astutely pointed out, and locked you down.
While they shipped off COVID-positive elderly people to long-term healthcare facilities, old people homes.
They locked you down and they shut your business down while they gave themselves raises throughout the pandemic.
Jagmeet Singh, I'm looking at you and the Canadian government.
Four pay raises since the onset of COVID.
They lock you down, screw up your life.
So they can create problems that they can then screw up in trying to solve.
So they can then give themselves more power because they screwed up trying to solve the problem that they caused in the first place.
Gerald Salente.
I love it.
I mean, I actually did love it, but there's a reason why I loved it.
There's a reason why it resonates with people.
Because he's saying what anyone with half a brain already understands now.
Who the heck are you people in government to tell me what to do at the micromanaging level of my life and my existence?
I know who you are that you want to tell me what to do.
You want to take over my friends, my family.
You want to take over my father and my mother.
You want to be the cornerstone of my life.
You want to replace God himself.
Yes, I gendered God.
Government wants to replace God himself.
And I don't trust government any more than I trust private enterprise to do that.
Am I saying that chasing profits makes better products?
Yeah, I'll say that to some extent.
In that if you make a shitty product, no one's going to buy it.
So you can cut corners to maximize profits short-term, but if you make a shitty profit, a product, you're not going to maximize profits long-term.
So go ahead and make a crappy drone that falls out of the sky, and it's not going to build brand.
That being said, where's my GoPro?
Make an amazing camera that might happen to cost a little more than cutting corners, and you will increase quality.
Nobody buys crappy products for very long, and if you do buy them, like my grandmother said, you buy them twice, your first and your last time.
Now, is that to say that they don't cut corners in manners that might not affect the bottom line until they're discovered?
I don't know, like, for example, not recalling shitty tires that blow up on the road?
Maybe.
And then you do the Fight Club calculation, and then you figure out what would you trust government's private enterprise with to regulate on their own based on their bottom-line interests?
And what do you need government potentially to come in and regulate?
Because, yes, it is true that private enterprise would conceal problems if it meant...
Not exposing them to further damage.
But when it comes to manufacturing a product, you don't make profits by producing shitty product.
And it works in private enterprise.
It works on the internet.
It works in school.
It ought to work in life, except for the fact that we seem to be no longer living through a meritocracy.
I'm not yet sure that we're living through an idiocracy, but we're certainly living through what is no longer a meritocracy in its truest and most effective form.
Let me see this here.
Where were you educated, Viva?
I was educated by my great uncles and aunties who saw World War II from Southern Italy.
They warned us about those regulate the rules, never play their game.
Leo Scalzi, I was educated.
Should I go through all the schools?
I went to one elementary school, three high schools in five years.
Dawson Segep, McGill, undergrad, philosophy, honors degree with a minor in history.
Université Laval, law degree.
Interned at Borden Ladner Gervais, where I worked from 2005 as a student to 2010 as a lawyer.
And then life experience.
And my grandfather, born in Poland, he fled multiple times, returned last in 1936 to try to get family and I think a loved one out of Poland.
Then he emigrated to Argentina, if my memory is correct.
Then when he went back to Poland to try to save more family, he ended up in Canada.
Grandmother.
Her family was born in Ukraine.
And the rest on my other side, I think, Romanian, all Eastern European.
We've got a good...
I'm still not used to saying we've got a good show today because I still don't view this as a show.
This is just...
Viva's slow descent into reality.
It's not a descent into madness.
It's a descent into reality.
Trying to make sense of the madness that has become our reality.
We got a good subject matter for the day.
We're going to talk about Drew Barrymore literally kneeling at the feet of the patriarchy.
I'm going to do that on Rumble, not because of the subject matter.
I'm not scared of the subject matter.
I'm going to post it to YouTube tomorrow.
But I'm actually afraid of copyright abuse on YouTube.
Because there are copyright trolls on YouTube.
YouTube has chosen to turn a blind eye to that problem.
And copyright abuse is actually more effective censorship than censorship itself.
You commentate on a newsworthy item, transformative, educational, absolute fair use by definition, you'll still get a copy troll who will claim an entire stream because of an incidental use or overt copyright troll abuse.
When I was doing the Ottawa protest on YouTube, They would claim, somebody would claim, seven hours of a live stream that had 500,000 views because at one point, background music was playing as I walked through the protest.
So we're going to talk about Drew Barrymore, Dylan Mulvaney on Rumble.
Charlie Kirk, for those of you who don't know, as far as I'm concerned, in my humble opinion.
Has one hell of a defamation claim against the Sacramento Bee and the journalist who drafted an article that didn't even say what the Sacramento Bee said it said, but then retweeted a tweet from the Sacramento Bee which referred to Charlie Kirk as having said he wanted to lynch trans people.
And then the ensuing violence that occurred at UFC.
I don't know exactly where it is.
We're going to talk about that.
We're going to talk about Douglas Mackey because it's the case you all watching know about it because it's the case of all cases that everyone should know about.
The twist of the turns and the prosecutorial...
There's something running afoul in this case.
We're going to go over the case, the indictment.
We already talked about it before, but good to refresh everybody's memory.
And the latest, the Sacramento Bee.
I thought the Sacramento Bee was parody because of the Babylon Bee.
We're going to talk about that and some other stuff.
But first, because some of you may not have gone to the after-stream party on vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Check this out.
If you could feel how heavy this is, I did an unboxing on Locals after yesterday's stream.
It's solid, I don't know what they call it, carved steel with silicone, something of an insert in there.
But my trophy, my statue, it's idolatry, people.
I understand that in as much as when I got my silver play button.
It's idolatry, but we can be children sometimes.
And at least...
Oh, no.
Piece of dust.
Polish the idol.
Rumble sent their equivalent but far superior version of the subscriber number recognition trophy.
This weighs at least two pounds, maybe four.
And it's beautiful.
Came yesterday.
Rumble, thank you.
And above all else, thank everybody who has subscribed.
I don't like...
I don't know, followers, subscribers, everyone who is a part of this community, both on YouTube and on Rumble and in Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
Thank you all for being here.
I used the box as the mantle.
It's very ingenious.
By I, I mean my wife.
Help me.
Don't fall.
And actually, just before we get started, just before we get started, because you may have noticed, there was a little thing that said, this...
This video contains a paid promotion because it does.
And it's one that I like.
It's the easy one as Joe Rogan.
This is easy for me because I actually use it.
It's sitting right here next to my desk.
I'll show you afterwards.
Field of Greens, desiccated vegetables.
It's not a supplement.
It's not an extract.
It is an easy way to get as much of the nutrients of fruits and vegetables as you can get short of eating.
Five to six servings of raw fruits and vegetables a day, which most people are supposed to do.
No, sorry, which everybody's pretty much supposed to do, allergies aside, and most people do not do.
For example, when I was in Vegas for our meet and greet, the vivabarneslaw.locals.com meet and greet, sweet, merciful goodness is tough to get vegetables.
When I was in Texas covering the Alex Jones show, it was tough to get vegetables.
If you don't have a place that has a kitchen and you go to a grocery store, good luck getting good vegetables and fruits at...
Fast food joints or at burger joints.
I had a burger at Gordon Ramsay.
Very few vegetables.
And even if you get the vegetables, they're not typically healthy.
One spoonful, desiccated fruits and vegetables, will get you one serving of fruits and vegetables.
One spoonful is one serving.
Twice a day, it's the great alternative.
As good of the alternative to the actual thing itself.
Let me get this idea.
Fieldofgreens.com.
Promo code Viva gets you 15% off your first order, 10% off a subscription.
It is...
Can you see this?
Full of fruits and vegetables, antioxidants, boosted immunity, antioxidant power, and USDA approved because it's a food.
It's not an extract.
It's not a supplement.
I spent a half an hour on the phone with the doctor behind this to make sure that I was comfortable with what goes in there, what goes into my body.
I am.
It's good.
Fieldofgreens.com.
Promo code VIVA.
Link is in the pinned comment.
Now, does it have vitamin D?
I'm going to look.
Whether or not it does, I take vitamin D, vitamin C supplements anyhow as...
Oh, sorry.
Thank you.
No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
And one last thing just to start the day.
I saw this here.
Superchats.
YouTube takes 30% of all Superchats.
If you don't like that...
Mathematical equation.
You can go watch us on Rumble, where we are simultaneously streaming up to 331,000 followers on Rumble.
And Rumble has their own version of Super Chats called Rumble Rants, where they take 20% instead of 30, so you can feel better supporting a company that actually supports free speech, and it's better for the creator.
But let me just show you what they have Rumble Rants, like this one right here, which I just noticed come in.
Lord of the Re, I think that's a Salty Cracker reference, says, have you heard any rumblings, pun intended, about any free speech alternative to music sites like Bandcamp and Spotify?
No.
I never even heard of Bandcamp until...
I never heard of Bandcamp until Five Times August and Tim Pool got yeeted from it.
So...
Yeah, I don't really listen to music anyhow.
And you know what I think we're going to do?
I think we're just going to end this on YouTube right now and move on over to Rumble.
Let's go to Rumble right now so that I don't have to cut into this at an inopportune time and we can get into the news.
No, no, we'll do one thing here.
We'll do one thing today.
One thing here on YouTube.
We're going to define woke people.
Oh, this...
Sorry, I brushed my hair yesterday, so it doesn't have its curls.
It's just mad, mad straight.
There's a running thing going around where you ask someone to define woke, and they can't do it.
And there's a clip that, even by the author's own admission, is probably going to go viral because someone's giving an interview, and I don't know where and I don't know when.
And they're asked to define woke, and they respond like...
Like this.
And look, one should have a very reflexive answer already prepared and be prepared for one of the typical retorts to when one is asked to define woke.
And it goes one of three ways.
You either can't define it, in which case you get...
And maybe rightly so.
It's not good using words that you don't know what they mean or you don't know how you're using them when you use them.
Or you'll provide a slew of examples.
Woke is thinking boys can be girls just by thinking it.
Woke is thinking that pronouns should be mandatory.
Woke is thinking that censorship is...
And then you'll give a bunch of examples and they'll say, well, those are examples.
That's not a definition.
And they're not wrong.
But at some point, you know...
Definitions come down to examples from which people extrapolate broader rules.
But it's good to be able to formulate the rule.
And I think I've done it.
But then I've done it and then fallen victim.
Or they come with the other tact.
That's a good definition, but it's not the actual definition of woke.
Well, I'm sorry.
I thought you told me that woke doesn't exist.
And then when I give you a definition, you tell me it doesn't actually satisfy the original definition of woke because there is no original definition of woke.
So there is a way to retort to that.
But let's start with this.
I feel a little bit bad for Bethany Mandel.
I understand what went on, but you listen first and then we're going to talk about it after.
Americans consider themselves very liberal and probably fewer of them consider themselves to be woke.
What does that mean to you?
Would you mind defining woke?
Because it's come up a couple of times and I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Fair question.
So, I mean, woke is sort of the idea that This is going to be one of those moments that goes viral.
I mean, woke is something that's very hard to define, and we've spent an entire chapter defining it.
It is sort of the understanding that we need to totally reimagine and redo society in order to create hierarchies of oppression.
Sorry.
It's hard to explain in a 15-second soundbite.
Take your time.
Here's what just happened.
First of all, she got a pretty concise definition about here.
It is sort of the understanding that we need to totally reimagine and redo society in order to create hierarchies of oppression.
Reorganize, reduce, redo society to create hierarchies of oppression.
That's also Marxism, to some extent, or at least, you know, to create the oppressed and the oppressor for the purposes of, you know, war of the classes.
So she got something of a definition in there.
Where I feel very bad for her is this massive, extended brain fart that lasts a good...
Defining woke, because it's come up a couple times, and I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
One, two, three.
So, I mean, woke is sort of the idea that...
11, 12, 13, 14. This is going to be one of those moments that goes viral.
So you know what's happening in her mind.
And it's, by the way, why panic is never the good response.
She's panicking.
She's having a brain fart.
For anybody who's been on air for any extended period of time, myself included, occasionally it happens.
You just don't know what you're thinking anymore.
Or you just start saying something, and you're like, holy shit, what am I saying right now?
The words are coming out of my mouth.
It's kind of like the Miss America.
The words are coming out of my mouth, and I don't know what they mean anymore.
I could see panic in her eyes, but she got the definition in there.
And then the other difficulty is, imagine trying to reduce a chapter of her book, apparently, to a definition for a 15-second soundbite.
She did it.
Reorganizing, restructuring society for the purposes of creating hierarchies of oppression.
That's a decent explanation.
Woke is whatever you want it to be.
No, it's not.
The most standard rebuttal after that is to say, well, that's not the definition of woke.
The same people saying woke doesn't exist, woke is just a manufactured term that nobody understands, then tell you when you give the proper definition, or at least your definition as to how you're using it, that that's not the definition of woke.
Here's my definition of woke.
Damn, I dare say, I do like it.
I made it a quote with make it a quote, and this is it.
And I thought long and hard about it.
What are the underlying themes connecting the examples of boys can be girls, and if you don't acknowledge that, you're a bigot.
If you don't call someone by their preferred pronouns, you're intolerant.
Structural, what do they call it?
Institutionalized racism.
If you don't believe in that, what is the underlying theme of all of these examples or manifestations of woke ideology?
I believe it's this.
It is the ideology of insincere fabrication of victims and victimhood through manufactured oppression, discrimination, for the ultimate purpose of acquiring power through such victimhood and attaining undeserved social standing through faux outrage and virtue signaling.
Boom, viva!
And I thought about all the words very, very carefully.
Actual victims and actual victimhood is not woke.
That's called justice.
If you're actually trying to write a...
A real wrong.
Not an insincerely held belief in a victim.
If it's actual, sincere, and real, or even if it's sincere but maybe not real, that wouldn't be woke.
That would just be one sense of justice.
Woke, as I understand it, and as I understand most people use it, when using it as the insult or the critique that you're just being woke, it's insincere belief in victimhood.
Like, anyone's going to look at...
A trans athlete, not a trans person, but a trans, and we're going to say male to female athlete, and then say, pretend to be sincere, they should be allowed to compete in women's sports, biological women's sports, and if you don't believe that, you're a bigot.
That's woke, because that is, and I don't care if they say it's sincere, that is insincere manufactured victimhood.
That a biological male, born a biological male with all of the physical...
The attributes and advantages that being born a biological male procures to the biological male who's born a biological male, who then wants to compete in biological female sports, there is no actual victimhood there, except arguably, and not so arguably, for the actual biological females who are now being forced to compete with biological males who have had all the advantages of biological malehood.
So that's insincere.
Manufactured oppression discrimination.
There is a difference between saying trans people should not be discriminated against versus saying biological females should be discriminated against.
Discrimination is a problem where the object of the discrimination has no logical correlation to the act of discrimination.
So not letting a blind person drive a bus is, I guess, technically discrimination.
You're going to say blind people can't drive buses.
Yeah, it's a shame.
If you're born blind or you have a visual impairment, If your dream were to become a school bus driver or a greyhound, you can't.
That's discrimination.
There's a very logical correlation between that act of discrimination and the discrimination itself.
If you're blind, you can't drive a bus.
If you're born a biological male with the bone structure, length, average height, muscle mass, testosterone, etc., you can't compete in women's sports.
That would be discrimination that is wholly logical, justified, and biologically sound.
Saying that a trans person can't go into a bar, however, would be illegitimate, illogical, and unjustified discrimination.
So it's manufactured oppression and discrimination, and the ultimate purpose of it?
It's to acquire power or to acquire social standing through nothing more than finding fake problems to resolve by...
Tearing down the existing power so that you can grab it for yourself.
That is what I think wokeness is.
Gosh darn it, do I think it's a darn good definition.
And then someone says, that's not what woke means.
You have to go back to the Marxist.
That's how people are using the term woke now when they're saying, when they're using it to discredit ideologies and philosophies that are woke.
Okay.
What does everyone say here?
Let me see.
I'm just going to go to the chat and see if anyone has any radical disagreements with me.
Nietzsche warned us about what is happening today.
All right, let's go over to Rumble, everybody.
Let us take the party over to Rumble.
Okay, let's do it.
Am I schvitzing here?
It's a good thing I put on my black Viva Frye shirt so that nobody can see the sweat, the sweat that is coming off.
And by the way, just before we go, what does everyone think of the layout now?
I've rotated the office multiple times.
At first, everyone might remember it started this way with my fossil mantle behind me.
Then I rotated 180 and had it on the other side of the room.
Then I rotated 90 and had it with this black wall behind me, but I found I was having lighting issues.
Now I think it creates depth.
It already uses the stands that are on the wall.
It allows me to show some wonderful art, Ziggy Shrugs, Creations by Ziggy.
This is from...
I'd have to forget the name now.
Darn it.
I posted the link on Twitter and that came yesterday.
So I think I like it.
Yuck.
Looks good, man.
Good.
Okay.
All right.
Now let's do it.
Over to Rumble.
People, ending on YouTube.
Fieldofgreens.com.
Promo code Viva.
Thank you very much.
No, I don't want to open another window.
Close this down.
I want to end on YouTube.
Going to Rumble now.
3, 2, 1. Booyah.
All right.
Let's just make sure we're good there.
And then after this stream, we're going to go over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com where I see some chats already and I see some good memes from Dissident Garage.
And we're good here.
I think we're all good.
Peeps, I did say we've done it.
All right, I guess we're on the woke stuff.
So you want to know what woke is?
Woke is Drew Barrymore fawning literally at the feet of Dylan Mulvaney.
Over the hardships that Dylan Mulvaney purports to be experiencing because Dylan is making a mockery of what being a girl, being a woman is because Dylan is a biological male who's still a male.
you know, as if we have to have these higher, a fully intact male from what I understand, who identifies as a woman, has been making the rounds, made his way all the way to the White House.
He's doing a shtick on Instagram, celebrating his days of girlhood, which, you know, apparently, according to Dylan Mulvaney, he thinks being a girl consists of and is defined by hiking in heels, saying, I love you to everything, uh, Thank you.
It's madness.
And what Dylan doesn't understand is that any backlash that he is experiencing in life...
It's not because of how he views himself and how he identifies.
It's because of how he is compelling other people to refer to him.
Where we drew the distinction between the gay rights movement and the trans movement is one was leave me alone, let me do what I want and let me marry who I want and don't tell me what to do.
And the other one has morphed into I am literally going to tell you How to refer to me when talking about me to third parties, because that's all that preferred pronouns are.
Preferred pronouns is an individual telling you how you are to refer to them when they are not there.
When referring to Dylan Mulvaney, to a third party, because you'd never refer to Dylan Mulvaney as he or she in ordinary parlance.
You'd be talking to Dylan.
It would be you.
Hey, Dylan, how are you doing today?
When Dylan or anyone else says, oh, let's take the other guy there, Sam.
Sam Harris or Sam Smith?
Which one is it?
Sam Smith.
When Sam Smith says, I'm a they, Sam Smith is telling you that when you are talking about him to someone else, you refer to him as they.
He's not only controlling your speech when he is not there, when you are talking about him to other people, he's actually trying to control your own thoughts, your own use of language.
That's where there might be some backlash against Dylan Mulvaney, not because Dylan identifies as a girl and wants to dress up like a girl and do that, but because Dylan, first of all, in thinking that he's a girl or identifying as a girl, is embodying and embracing the most regressive stereotypes of what a man thinks it means to be a girl.
That's one thing.
And the hate.
I mean, if one is capitalizing off the hate, well, he's done it all the way to the White House.
To be invited to the White House by President Joe Biden to talk about girlhood, to be a spokesperson for girlhood, I mean, I can imagine biological women being very angry about this.
But wait until you see.
Wait until you see.
I mean, it's like we're living through the most absurd hourglass, looking glass.
That's conceivable.
He made it onto Drew Barrymore yesterday, and I suspect a lot of you are like me.
I guess this is...
You know, they say that any publicity is good publicity because in as bad as this is and makes Drew Barrymore look like a total, total jackass, I didn't know that she had a show.
Now I do.
Drew Barrymore has a show.
Who knew?
Not me.
I don't want to invite.
I want to share a screen.
Let's take a look at the clip.
We're not going to watch the whole thing because it's three minutes long of the most eye-gouging, torturous content you can imagine.
Where is it?
Okay, so that's...
Okay, we got Charlie Kirk, Savannah Hernandez.
I got it from...
Yeah, I was like...
Drew Barrymore has a show, people.
It's called Drew.
And when I first saw this, I saw Dylan Mulvaney, and I thought it was Dr. Drew.
I swear to you, I thought it was a clip from Dr. Drew, and I couldn't identify who Drew Barrymore was for a second, but let's watch a little bit of it.
Let me ask you about the negativity.
How have you dealt with it?
And what's an approach you take?
What's your self-talk?
What do you filter?
Yes.
How do you...
I still read the comments, but there is so much hatred directed at the trans community right now.
It's everywhere.
And I think the greatest weapon that I can contribute is trans joy.
I'm not sure what hatred is directed at the trans community.
I know that everybody out there who respects freedom respects a trans person's freedom to do whatever they want with their own body in full awareness of fact and law.
It's not to say that there's no hatred towards...
There's hatred out there towards everybody, and I don't know that it's directed at any one specific community over another.
That being said, I don't know what Dylan Mulvaney means by hatred here.
Does Dylan Mulvaney mean by hatred people saying, no, I will not refer to you as a they or as a zay or as a zee?
But I'm going to refer to Dylan Mulvaney as a he.
Even though he identifies as a woman, he still has a penis.
And he's clearly...
It's like we're having these Orwellian conversations that make absolutely no sense.
By virtue of the fact that Dylan has to say, I identify as a woman, means that he is a man.
It means that he's not a woman.
Going back to my definition of identifying as.
One that is something doesn't need to identify as it because they are it.
Therefore, it's definitionally superfluous to say I identify as a white male when I am a white male.
So Dylan Mulvaney says I identify as a woman is predicated on the fact that he is not a woman and that this is his preference as to how he views himself.
And that's fine.
It's fine for probably everybody out there who some people might still think in a religious sense it's sinning and whatever, and they might judge them.
That's fine.
Some people, most people say, that's fine.
You do you, boo.
You do you, but where it becomes a problem is when you start telling me how to talk.
And if you take someone misgendering someone, misgendering...
As an act of the violence and the hate towards a community, then we might actually disagree on what is meant by bona fide, legitimate, actual, illegal, sanctionable, reprimandable violence and hatred.
I have a feeling the term is being used a little too broadly.
A feeling.
Comedy and talking about hard...
Wait until you see where this goes.
You know, subjects and really intricate moments of a transition and try to let everybody in to see that, you know, I'm not a monster.
I'm not somebody that, you know, is trying to do anything but be myself and be happy.
Typically, I think there's some people might disagree with a certain element of that.
I'm just trying to be myself and be happy and potentially influence and motivate others to do something similar, which other people might take issue with.
Certain influencers seemingly abusing of their platforms to try to reach a young audience, a young and impressionable audience.
And I'm just doing what I want to do.
Well, that may be the case.
But if what you want to do is making a mockery of women, of what is a woman in the eyes of someone beholding the most regressive stereotypes, some people might take offense to that.
Look at Drew Daniels.
Thank you, everybody, for that support.
How do you...
This looks like parody!
This entire thing looks like it's a skit on SNL.
Stay on your own path.
Where do you draw boundaries?
Where do you find the strength to keep being the joy?
Well, I think having my chosen...
Can you believe that Drew Barrymore's face?
Look at this.
Keep being the joy.
Well...
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Having my chosen family and the people that I love to take care of me, but I also...
Day 365 of being a girl.
Dylan Mulvaney just wants to be himself, so he makes videos about girlhood being hiking in heels and running away from bees like that's what it means to be a woman.
Hey, Dylan, I scream like a child and run away from bees.
Is that a womanly attribute?
Because if you say it is...
You might be harboring the most regressive stereotypes of what you think it means to be a woman in the first place.
You might be the one with the bad stereotypes, not me.
I don't think the fact that I scream at bees makes me a woman that I would put it in any sort of transition to womanhood.
It makes me a bit of a baby because I know it's irrational, but I hear that buzzing noise and it's a visceral, uncontrollable response.
I think there's something just about...
Making sure that you don't put something out there before you're ready and really just surrounding yourself with good people.
It's interesting because I look at someone like you and I can't imagine anybody disliking you.
Oh, please.
Do you want to know, ironically, who dislikes me the most sometimes?
Who?
Myself.
Me too.
I swear to you, I thought this was a Sesame Street skit.
Myself.
Me too.
And, but...
I guess, you know, you've asked me now, like...
This is so insincere, it makes saccharin look like original sugar.
That's me, like...
What I would do to combat the hate, right?
Yeah.
But what do you do?
Okay, that's a great question.
Now, I started...
You've been doing it a little longer than I have.
Well, you know, it's funny, because when I was a kid, you...
I think we've had enough.
Starting with ET, it was the first time I was introduced to film reviews.
The memes that have been born out of this.
Now, there is one aspect of legitimacy to this entire thing.
Yeah, you go online and when you make yourself public and you share your views and you share parts of your personal life, do you think there's not going to be people that are going to take the opportunity to insult you?
Who might disagree with you and who might lack the eloquence to disagree with you respectfully and in a manner that you find place.
You choose to be a public figure, you're going to have to take the good with the bad or the bad with the good.
And it's not everybody out there who expresses themselves politely or who will agree with you.
And if you came looking only for affirmation, well, that's a bad perspective in life.
On the one hand, because it's not reality.
And on the other hand, because critique makes you a better person.
It does force development, whether you like it or not.
So Drew Barrymore, you know, like reading negative reviews.
I don't know how people who write a book then go read the reviews of someone who eviscerates their last two years of their life work project.
Who's...
Rock...
What's her name?
Adele.
No, it wasn't Adele.
It was someone who had a very lazy singing voice, sang jazz-ish music, and was reading one of the reviews, and they called her work...
Boring, monotonous, a waste of time.
That's got to be soul-crushing and devastating.
And no question about it.
Adopt the Joe Rogan perspective, which is post and ghost.
Don't read the negative comments if it's going to upset you.
Don't read the negative comments if it's going to compel you to engage with them.
Because there's no point doing it.
And some people do it just to distract you.
So there's that aspect.
I think Drew Barrymore made a good point.
Like, reading negative reviews as a child, it hurts.
Get over it if that's what you want to do in life.
But the hatred that Dylan Mulvaney, the vitriol, whatever.
First of all, I'd like to know what it is.
But second of all, there might be biological women who take offense at what Dylan Mulvaney is making of a spectacle of his perception of what it means to be a woman.
I didn't send that link to you guys.
Yeah, turn it off.
Real truth, 2022.
Turn it off, Eva.
It's off.
I don't think I have anything more to say about that.
Except to say...
We found a definition of woke, a proper definition that I think I've adequately formulated.
Drew Barrymore, in that moment, has gone full woke.
And you would have thought that Drew Barrymore would have been more sensitive to this.
Hold on, let me see if I can pull this up.
It just came up as I was thinking.
Remember when Drew Barrymore got accused of racism for making that TikTok video in the rain?
Drew Barrymore rain racism.
Here, look at this.
You would think that Drew Barrymore might be a little bit more reluctant to, is the word kowtow, kowtale?
To bend over to, or to get on her knees to the woke mob.
Drew Barrymore was called racist.
For having posted a video of her frolicking in the rain, I didn't know there was some stupid TikTok thing.
And I suspect some of you may not have known this.
Now you're all going to be dumber as a result.
Hollywood star Drew Barrymore has been accused of racism after the Hollywood star posted a TikTok video wherein she is dancing in the rain.
Oh, get out of there.
Soon after the American star, that's a typo, uploaded the video through her social media account, a TikToker slammed the actor for copying a trend called black men frolicking.
Notably, the trend was brought into the arena by black TikTok video creators in the early part of 2020.
You hear that, people?
And she did it.
Did she apologize?
While commenting on the video, the TikToker named...
A mushroom blackly claimed that Barrymore disrespected and dismissed the boundaries that black content makers set.
The user took a jibe at the 47-year-old actor, actor?
She should be an actress?
Oh boy.
Someone should get cancelled for that.
And said that the actress, what the heck?
And said that the actress was well aware, she was well aware of the fact that she should enjoy the rain and frolic freely, but there was no need to film it and post it.
Remember people, wokeness.
One of the identifying attributes is not thinking for yourself and saying, leave me alone.
It's telling other people what they can and cannot do with their own minds, mouths, and bodies.
She's free to do it.
Don't make a video about it.
That's our thing.
And post the video shortly.
The user also claimed that Drew Barrymore had co-signed people who breached boundaries to disrespect Black creators.
The video which TikTok user found offensive shows she was dancing in the rain.
I didn't even know it was Drew Barrymore, by the way.
Did she actress?
Did she apologize?
The user also claimed that she...
Okay, the actress is accused of copying the trend, which became viral, yada yada.
The user...
Okay, we don't care about this.
The video garnered a lot of views, and many users recreated the clip, adding the hashtag, Black Men Following.
Interesting, the hashtag was used over 600,000 times.
However, several fans of Drew Barrymore have also come out in support of the actor.
One of her fans said they watched Barrymore's video six times but could not find anything racist in it.
That's because there was nothing racist in it.
And nobody had any idea that there could have ever been something racist in posting a video of you frolicking in the rain if you're not a black man.
But you'd think that she would have learned, but apparently she hasn't learned.
And right now, Drew Barrymore literally kneeled at the feet of a biological male in the pursuit of inclusivity, feminism, and diversity.
because, um, Because what it means to be a woman, as I've said multiple times now in response to Justin Trudeau's, one of his recent treats, what it means to be a woman is merely the figment of a man's imagination.
And if you disagree with that, you're a bigot.
All right.
That's that.
That's all I have to say about that.
Some good news.
I had some good news, I guess.
I'm not sure that anybody knew this.
Come on, people.
Yeah.
From post-millennial, Pozo, Jack Posobiec.
Very good-looking man.
James O 'Keefe has started a new media group called O 'Keefe Media Group, and I have recently subscribed to it on Twitter.
I think it's called O 'Keefe Media.
I'll double-check in a second.
And I'm so nervous about accidentally reading an article that refers to another handle that's not the actual thing, but it looks like it's legit.
They've got the whole video up there, and it's James O 'Keefe's new project.
So I want to know how many days it's going to be before O 'Keefe Media has more followers on Twitter than Project Veritas.
Who I have unsubscribed from and will not subscribe to them again.
James O 'Keefe appeared on the Charlie Kirk Show to...
Oh, it's amazing how it all dovetails, just magically.
To promote his newest project since being ousted from Project Veritas, the O 'Keefe Media Group.
Oh, very nice.
I like it.
OMG.
He launched a website Wednesday, urged viewers to sign up, as did Kirk.
And then here it is.
Boom.
That's it.
It's called O 'Keefe Media, and it's James O 'Keefe's new venture, which is the...
Spirit, essence, and talent of the old venture minus the insidious corruption or whatever the hell happened that led to the board of directors ousting James O 'Keefe from Project Veritas, which Project Veritas to me is no more.
So go check it out.
It's O 'Keefe Media.
And that's it.
Okay, here.
You know what?
I'll give everybody the article in the chat here.
Article, and I'll go put it in...
VivaBarnthLaw.locals.com as well.
Is my forehead shiny?
Okay, I might have to back the lighting up a little bit.
Well, I guess while we're on the subject of Charlie Kirk, let's do it.
You know what?
I love it when there's like this organic, natural structure and sequence to all of this because I didn't...
I didn't do this on purpose, but now we've gone from Defining Woke to Drew Barrymore to the new venture of the day, James O 'Keefe's new project, as he stated when he was on Charlie Kirk.
And Charlie Kirk, who's been in the news, and I think the Sacramento Bee will also be in the news for reasons that are not ideal.
Let's start by...
Let me just get the tweet.
I want to get the tweet so that I don't...
Yeah, this is the tweet here.
Okay.
Just in case I haven't already opened it.
We're going to read the article before we read the tweet through which the article was tweeted to the world.
So, the article.
It's from the Sacramento Bee, which is not a parody news account, but it might be a bankrupted news account sooner than later.
The Sacramento Bee.
It's opinion and commentary, so do bear that in mind.
So, I still think Sacramento Bee would probably be on the hook for defamatory opinions that they publish in their journal.
They would be.
But as we're going to see, the article does not say that which the Sacramento Bee said it said when they retweeted the article with some highly defamatory...
What's the word I'm looking for?
Commentary.
Here we go.
Sacramento Bee.
Opinion by Hannah Holzer.
Another fascist, by the way.
Define fascist, Hannah.
For the people that ask you to define woke, define fascist.
Has he killed anybody?
Is he leading a regime that promotes totalitarian, authoritarian policies?
Another fascist, it's not just a fascist, it's another fascist speaker is coming to UC Davis.
How should the community respond?
Opinion.
Well, the Sacramento Bee took it on themselves to tell the community how to respond in so many words.
We'll get there.
Less than six months after a violent brawl broke out at UC Davis over a speaking event organized by the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA, its founder, Charlie Kirk, a vocal transphobe and Donald Trump fanatic, will visit campus on Tuesday.
I'd like to know what they mean by fascist, and I'd like to know what they mean by transphobe.
I'd like to know what she means by transphobe.
Someone who disagrees with it.
We'll get there.
Nationwide attacks on transgender community and on the broader LGBTQ plus rights.
It's also worrisome considering an abysmal history of public events that have gone terribly wrong at UC Davis campus.
How have they gone terribly wrong?
Have they gone terribly wrong because of groups that came to cause violence?
It's an amazing thing how one can say you can't host the events because they lead to violence that we provoke.
Don't let someone think of the children.
You can't host that event here.
They always get violent because we always...
Call people in to get violent, so don't do it.
It's an amazing way of getting your way through violence.
Most people still remember Campus Cops pepper-spraying students in 2011 in an incident that garnered global news.
Well, let's just see if the incident had any of the same traits as the one we're about to look at now.
But there have been more recent incidents as well.
Last October, students and community members protesting Turning Point USA, including members of the Proud Boys.
Last October, students and community members protesting a TPUSA event for podcast hosts.
Okay, there doesn't seem to be a sentence there.
Including members of the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group.
TPUSA and UC Davis leaders agreed to cancel the event due to safety concerns.
Kirk subsequently took to Twitter to blame the violence on Antifa agitators.
Okay.
Kirk has turned controversy into money for many years.
Ironic!
Ironic, Hannah!
Hannah Holzer, it's ironic because that seems to be exactly what you're doing right now.
No blame.
You are creating controversy so you can publish an article in the Sacramento Bee, which I presume pays you for it.
And even if you don't get paid for it, which I suspect you do, there's other types of remuneration that you are garnering from this, what do we call it?
Turning controversy into money, into currency.
Hashtag confession through confession through projection, such as California colleges campuses.
In 2022, the Washington Post reported that TPUSA was a nonprofit that prospered because of its ties to Trump.
The Post reported that TPUSA raised $80 million.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I didn't realize that raising a lot of money turns a nonprofit into something sinister.
Why don't you do American Red Cross now, Hannah?
Do American Red Cross.
Raising a lot of money.
It undermines its non-profit status.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Kirk has been...
Oh, here we go.
Here we go.
Whoa, I didn't see this in the original article.
Kirk has all...
Among his most atrocious comment, Kirk suggested trans people, who he referred to as garbage, ought to be lynched.
He also got...
This is a different article than the one I originally saw.
Hold on one second.
Oh, we're going to get to that in a second.
I didn't realize that she...
The article that I read from the Sacramento Bee at first didn't seem to...
It would seem to be another article that didn't have the word lynched in it, but holy cows, this is going to get bad real quick for the author.
Among his most atrocious comments, Kirk suggested transgender people, who he referred to as garbage, ought to be lynched.
And I got the clip in the background.
He also called George Floyd a scumbag.
Kirk has also called for lynching of trans people, a comment that is beneath contempt, frankly, as a UCD alum.
I have little confidence in the ability of UCD We will all agree that if Charlie Kirk called for the lynching of anybody, it would be unacceptable.
We agree with that.
Okay.
While I abhor inflammatory speech of the speaker, UC policy permits the students to invite the speaker.
May wrote in the letter, we will be monitoring the event closely to determine if a threat or incitement develops that meets the threshold or violates campus policies.
Ironically, despite shilling for unequivocal freedom of speech, UC Davis communications team denied not only my interview request with an administrative representative, but also my request to merely submit questions.
Really, UCD?
Really?
Okay, so we go on with this.
Oh, I can't wait to...
We're going to play this video in the back here.
My overwhelming inclination is to demand UC Davis get ahead of the situation and uninvite Kirk, but there's no legal basis for doing so.
Even calling for legal reform to curb the trend of fascists speaking on campus...
Opens the door to First Amendment restrictions that could have huge unintended ramifications.
So let's just get violent and try to break it up with violence.
So while the First Amendment protects hate speech, it also protects our right to protest this speech.
Charlie Kirk has a right to speak, and the Davis community has a right to show him he's not welcome.
Oh, through what degree of violence, Hannah?
And I hope that the hypersensitive UCD administration, which sure lacks for transparency despite its professed commitment to free speech, is up to the task of keeping students safe along with protecting their First Amendment rights.
Thank you.
Now, this is the tweet referenced.
Hold on a second.
Let me just make sure here we got this.
Yeah, we're looking at the same thing.
This is the tweet that was referenced in that article.
Let's hear it.
And these people are sick.
And I don't say that lightly.
The NCAA is...
A perverted organization.
They platformed a biological male who won a national championship and then was allowed in incredibly disturbing detail to be around you and your fellow competitors.
And again, I blame the decline of American men.
This never should have been, you know, you should have, someone should have just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s.
But, you know, as you have...
Have testosterone rates go down and men start acting like women and they don't do anything, then, hey, who's to say?
Look, there are a lot of sick people in the world, unfortunately, and without the strength to go against them, the country is going to completely...
These people are sick.
Very interesting.
So it is dealt with like they did in the 50s.
To be around you and your fellow competitors.
And again, I blame the decline of American men.
This never should have been, you know...
I blame the decline of American men.
Someone should have just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s.
But, you know, as you have...
How does one get to lynching from that statement?
Now, I do tend to agree in general.
One has to weigh one's words so that they can't be misinterpreted.
That being said, when someone disingenuously wants to misinterpret words on purpose, you could literally say protest peacefully and they'll turn it into an impeachable offense.
How does that translate into lynching?
First of all, I don't want to be historically ignorant.
I don't know that lynching as a practice...
It was occurring in the 50s and 60s, and ironically enough, when it was occurring, it's ironic as to which political party might have been responsible or been behind that atrocious practice.
Irony.
But in the 50s and 60s, if I were to hear that, I would have thought nothing in terms of lynching, maybe something in terms of protesting, or maybe something in terms of the idea of men being men, whatever that means.
I'm not any more of a fan of that than saying...
Womanhood is about wearing heels hiking.
You know, gender stereotypes of what being a man means, I mean, I might not fit the definition.
That is what they took to mean lynching.
And then they quote it because, let me just actually bring that back up.
Add to stream.
They quote it as though he said it, and then someone else quotes the quote.
And that's how disinformation laundering occurs.
You have Aaron Reid.
Aaron in the morn says, Charlie Kirk, CEO of Turning Point, is openly calling for the lynching of transgender individuals.
That seems to be relatively unambiguous.
Someone then retweets that, and then lo and behold, you have the misinformation that Charlie Kirk, from his own mouth, said lynch trans individuals.
What he said...
If you go down and read the tweet and actually listen to it, I don't know what dealing with men in the 50s and 60s dealt with things, but I don't think it was lynching.
I don't even think that was happening.
But this is how disinformation laundering goes.
And then you have Hannah.
I was going to say Hannah Guterres-Reed, but I forget her last name now.
Then you have Hannah quoting it, putting it in an article in the Sacramento Bee.
And then what does the Sacramento Bee do?
I'll show you what they do.
And as far as any legal standard goes, I think it is...
Undoubtedly actionable.
When they tweeted out the story, holy cow, I did not realize.
In the article that I read yesterday, I didn't see that Hannah was unequivocal in saying that Charlie Kirk actually promoted lynching of trans people.
Said that he said trans people should be lynched.
It seems to me that if anyone ever had said that, they would have rightly suffered some form of sanction.
Because that might still be protected speech under the First Amendment, under the American system, because it's not specific and imminent.
But something tells me that had he actually used those words, or even had that intent, other people would have come out, and not just people on one or other end of the spectrum, reasonable-minded people would have come out and said, yeah, that's not rhetoric anybody finds tolerable.
Let me see something here.
Here, I even gave her the benefit of the doubt because I didn't see when I...
In the article that I read...
This was the screen grab from the article that I read.
I have to go see if I just missed it.
This is the original article in the tweet.
Let's back it up here.
Sacramento Bee.
Charlie Kirk has called for the lynching of trans people.
That's not saying he's implied, he's suggesting.
It says he specifically called for the lynching of trans people.
That doesn't leave any room for ambiguity.
It is a statement of fact that is factually incorrect that can lead to what we saw happen yesterday.
A comment that should warrant cancellation of his speaking from the UC Davis.
Okay, that was the Sacramento Bee tweet.
This was the article.
Another far-right speaker is coming to Davis.
How should he be dealt with?
And then...
I put in the word Lynch.
I read the article.
Then I did this to double check.
I didn't see the word come up.
And I showed the section where they quoted his statement.
The NCAA is a perverted organization, Kirk said.
They platformed a biological male to win an NCAA championship.
Kirk blamed the presence of trans women in NCAA sports on, quote, the decline of American men and that if this were the 1950s and 60s, someone would have, quote, taken care of it.
Some trans activists wondered if Kirk was referring to potential violence associated with mid-century America, but he strongly denied this on Twitter.
Well, they tweeted it.
And then a number of people said this is quite defamatory.
And above all else, it is not just reasonably but predictably prone to inciting violence.
That is logically, I won't say reasonably because that's a moral judgment, but it is predictably prone to inciting violence to say that someone who openly and unequivocally advocated for the lynching of an identifiable group is coming to speak somewhere.
That is exactly what the Sacramento Bee did.
And lo and behold, perhaps it's not an accident that that's exactly what ensued.
Check this out.
This is from the event.
Apparently.
Maybe it's not, but it looks like it is.
And just watch incidentally how it happens.
Watch how the violence, the destruction occurs, us being protected, being shielded and blocked from the banner.
*Mindy music*
In order to oppose the violence we perceive, we must engage in the violence we engage in.
Hey!
Can you hold somebody?
Hey!
Get up!
Hey!
You gotta go!
Get up!
That's what happened.
Notice how they're using the banner.
I guess they're rocks.
I don't know what it is, but it's interesting.
Who would have thunk that spreading lies about someone openly and specifically advocating for violence against an identifiable group could lead to that?
Who would have thunk?
And then I think, let me see if I got the article where they took the tweet down.
They took the tweet down due to inaccurate wording, as they said.
Let me just see if I can find that tweet.
And then I'm going to go see some comments in the section.
Now I'm wondering if the archive link of the article that I found was pre-any edits that took out those specific accusations.
I'll have to double-check that.
I'm genuinely confused because The article that I read didn't have that explicit accusation in it, but the article that I pulled up today was from an archived link, and it might have been a pre-edited version.
In the chat, if you guys know, let me know, because I'm actually, I'm confused, and I'm going to have to do this, I'm going to have to check afterwards.
But, um...
Check this out, peeps.
The internet is forever, and once the damage is done, deleting the tweet...
That's nothing.
Deleting the tweet does nothing, and you have already done some damage, yeah.
That was fast.
Here we go.
Here's my latest.
Charlie Kirk has called for the lynching of trans people.
A comment that should warrant the cancellation of the speaking event at UC Davis.
Oh, what was that?
That was at 1.35 p.m.?
Seems like it was later than that.
I think I saw that yesterday.
Oh, that's when they posted it.
That's not when I saw it.
And then...
Nope, not that one.
Here's my latest, and they had deleted it.
The author deleted it after 3,200 views, and I believe the violence had occurred by that time.
Now I just have to figure out the...
I need to figure out the...
What's the word?
The mystery of why the article that I had on archive seems like it contained accusations that I did not see and would have seen in the article that I read at the time.
Chat, do you know what's going on?
Okay, so we got AFS1970 says, I don't see where he called for lynching.
He didn't really call for violence, but I have a hard time thinking taking care of wasn't at least referencing violence fondly.
It's ambiguous wording in that it could leave open the idea of like, deal with it like a man, I'll punch it in the face, which I understand some people might take it as.
Or it might mean protest, which is what I think was characterized by the 60s at least.
But lynching, lynching, I don't think, even as the historical atrocity goes, I don't think it was occurring in the 50s and 60s.
I think it was occurring in the 30s and 40s more so.
But I mean, what allusion to lynching was there in there?
Maybe, at worst, and inadvisably so, there was leaving ambiguity for men dealing with problems like men, like, you know, deal with a bully and do it the way, what was it, Salente suggested dealing with bullies.
Did I pull that one up?
But let's just see if anyone in the...
I don't recall any lynchings growing up in the 50s and 60s, says La Chevre Noire, which is the black goat.
La Chevre Noire.
Maybe the media always lied, says Jesse Jennings.
They have!
The media has always lied.
It was just a lot easier to control the lies before the advent of the internet.
And it was a lot easier to paint everybody as conspiracy theories.
EDI says means men would have took that pervert out of the girl locker room.
Ah.
Did I pull up the video, the other one of...
Well, you know, it's...
It's relevant, so we're going to bring it up.
How...
Oh, the...
Here, this one.
Another amazing clip from George Salenti.
Let's watch this one.
His advice on how to deal with bullies, which I don't think is gender-based in any event.
I think it's tactical.
Listen to this.
Here.
Boom shakalaka.
Listen to this.
It's so good.
I'm 76 years old.
I'm not a kid.
I've been around.
And I'm a Napolitano born in the Bronx.
Born to be free.
1946.
Born to be free.
I'm the littlest kid.
One time I come home crying.
My father's coming home.
I'm about six years old.
He said, what are you crying about?
He said, I got beat up.
She don't come home crying.
When they used to have school, they put the littlest kid first.
I was always the smallest kid.
The smallest kid first.
The bullies pick on a small kid.
Yeah, the bullies that beat women, yeah, those little shitheads, they're the ones that go for the little guys because they can't fight the big men.
So I had to learn how to fight right away.
So when you're a small guy, you've got to get this in your head, and you're not going to if you haven't been there and don't know what it is.
Where I was born, when I was born, and being the littlest, you've got to punch above your weight.
Don't fuck with me.
Don't fuck with me.
Back off.
I'll send you that clip as well, everybody.
And now that I'm realizing it, Gerald Salente, the coincidences of life, my father's middle name is Gerald.
He's just like my father, without the filter of the Mortimer.
So that's what happened with Charlie Kirk.
It's not arguably defamatory.
It is defamatory.
It's not arguably malicious.
Because he's a public figure, in my view.
I think the argument for actual malice is as transparent as the lie itself.
And the damage to the reputation, fine, that's one thing.
but the actual violence that ensued from this, from whipping up people into a frenzy, because in their minds, there was someone who was an actual, immediate existential threat to a group that they identify with.
It's foreseeable that such a group would then If, indeed, it was a bona fide, legitimate, existential, specific, true threat to their community, to the people that they care about.
Sacramento Bee, as far as I'm concerned, should get sued.
They've really done everything in their...
They've maximized their odds of getting sued.
The only question is, it's nice to have a good lawsuit, but it's better to have peace of mind.
Ah.
Oh.
Thank you.
But on the subject of, you know, the trans debate and what Charlie Kirk didn't say, etc.
And the NCAA issues of allowing biological males to compete in sports that were designed for biological females because of the biological differences between biological males and biological females.
Snopes, the fact checker of all fact checkers, the fake fact checker, the absolute bullshit fact checker of all fact checkers, fact checking a statement that nobody really cares about.
There's a talking point going around that there are no...
There are no biological female athletes who transitioned to male.
I'm putting transition in quotes because I know a lot of people don't think one cannot transition, but they can have medical surgeries.
So the statement, which gets disabused, I think is the proper term, that people run with and that people say, that's not true, is that there is no biological female that has ever succeeded in a sport for biological males after having transitioned and then competed in the sports.
Snopes decides to fact-check a statement that says, there have been no male athletes who were assigned female at birth as if you can assign a sex to a baby.
It's assigned.
It's not a real thing.
It's just what a doctor, you know, willy-nilly, he flips a coin.
Heads is for penis, tails is for vagina, and then I get to decide regardless.
There have been no female athletes who were assigned female at birth, transitioned, and later competed in professional men's sports.
That's not a statement that anybody cares about.
That's not a statement that illustrates the fundamental injustice about which Charlie Kirk is objecting.
The fundamental injustice is that there have been no, that I know of, and if there have been maybe in some sport like darts where muscle mass itself is not necessarily the determinant factor, but I don't think darts is exclusive of females in any event.
There's no males league versus, there might be a females league, but females are allowed to compete in male darts.
I know this because I watch a lot of darts.
The claim or the issue that illustrates the injustice is not that no biological females have competed in professional men's sports.
It's that none have gone and dominated the same way we have seen biological males transition to female and then dominate biological female sports.
So Snopes, instead of fact-checking the fact-check that no one asked you to fact-check, fact-check the one that people care about that will actually illustrate the injustice.
How many...
Biological females have transitioned to male and then gone off to dominate any professional sport for men.
Or any professional sport, for that matter, that is open.
I guarantee you the answer is, if it's not zero, it's infinitesimally close to zero.
But no.
Fact check a stupid statement that nobody really makes that doesn't prove anything, especially the injustice, to then claim that there is no injustice of allowing...
Leah Thomas to compete in biological female sports.
Okay, then we're going to have Douglas Mackey, or do we do one interim story to freshen the palates?
Let me see what's going on in the chat here.
Okay, looking good.
Let me see if there's any Rumble rants.
There's a Rumble rant from P. Moyer.
Let me bring it up so people can see it so I don't get accused of misquafing.
P. Moyer says, A thought, Viva.
People watching this on their phones cannot chat on Rumble since it's disabled for Android and Apple.
So could you keep a closer eye on locals chat in deference to that fact?
Thanks.
P. Moyer, first of all, thank you for the Rumble rant.
I go over to locals afterwards exclusively and go through all of the tips in locals and the comments in locals, but exclusively on locals.
And cynically, I want to drive people from Rumble also over to our locals community.
Now, you don't have to become a paying supporter.
You can just join the member community of 105,000 or 106,000 people now.
Or you can choose also then to be a supporter on Locals if you like the work that Viva and Barnes do.
That me and Barnes do.
That Barnes and I do on Locals.
You can choose to support.
But I am going to read all of them afterwards on Locals at the Locals exclusive post-mortem afterstream and hope to drive some people over to that community from Rumble, from YouTube.
All right.
Let's cleanse the palate with something that's going to make you gag.
You all know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is?
You know?
Gerald Salente talks about punching above your weight.
Well, there's some people who...
I don't use it frivolously to discredit people who might actually have learned something and are able to understand something that's out of their lane.
But when you watch something like this, you realize that AOC is the walking, talking embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Gets a little bit of information, thinks that she's a master who can then go on YouTube, go on Twitter, whatever the heck this platform is here that she's talking on, and then give people medical advice that could very well and statistically did, in fact, injure people.
Listen to this.
COVID, it gives you basically the COVID print so that your body learns how to fight it.
So how does that work?
Well, you know, you ever see like these COVID spikes, like little photos of COVID, and it's like this little...
With all these spikes around it.
Those little spikes are how COVID gets into your body and kind of infiltrates your system.
It's the spike that's really dangerous.
Oh, yeah.
It's the spike that's really dangerous.
Now do mRNA vaccines, AOC.
It's good.
She got a little bit of information.
And I'm watching this with my wife.
She's like, you know, technically what she's saying is right.
The question is not whether or not it's right.
The question is, does she actually understand it?
And does she understand it to a sufficient degree to then give people medical advice as she proceeded to do?
Cells are replicating themselves.
They have to follow instructions.
And the instructions are coded into the cell's mRNA.
What does mRNA stand for?
What does mRNA stand for, AOC?
...to split up and become another COVID cell and get a spike.
Just like...
When you have an eye cell or a skin cell, you know, the way that these cells become your skin and your eyes is because there is mRNA that say this is how you make an eye cell.
This is how you make a skin cell.
And we found the mRNA for how to make a COVID cell.
And so what the vaccine has is mRNA that tells your body, this is how you make a COVID cell.
I guarantee you she doesn't know what mRNA is.
Conceptually.
I have to keep going to the definition to look for it.
It's called messenger ribonucleic acid.
Keep giving us medical advice, AOC.
Let's go for it here.
Let's keep going.
And I'm not going with the cheap shot of what she did before becoming a congresswoman.
I'm just going to go with the...
This is not in her purview to be dispensing...
Scientific medical advice on the interwebs to tell people to put something into their own body with full immunity.
It's so nice to be able to give people advice with impunity.
COVID cell.
And so your body starts the beginnings of how to make a little bit of a COVID cell.
And then it recognizes immediately.
Whoa, there's something really wrong about this.
Let's attack it.
And that's why you might get a little tired.
There's something really wrong with this.
Let's attack it.
And it would be really bad if it says that to, you know, a number of other parts of your body that it's not supposed to say, hey, that's really bad.
Let's attack it.
Because your body is learning.
How to fight the virus.
It's kind of like the difference between if you had a burglar and he broke into your house and then you learned how to fight him off versus if someone gave you a picture of the burglar that has been breaking into something.
Can't do it.
I want to know how many people were injured by AOC's advice.
Because there were...
She dispensed of the advice, go get your jibby jabs for the greater good.
Because she understood mRNA technology.
It's perfect.
It's effective.
I forget when that...
I think that was in 2021.
It's safe and effective and it will prevent you from getting COVID.
A la Rachel Maddow, Joe Biden, Anthony Fauci.
She doesn't understand it well enough to do anything.
So when she's wrong, she can say, well, I was just relying on the experts.
As they all were, just relying on the experts.
Relying on the experts on a new, from what appears to be the reality, untested science.
Because despite what they said, they didn't actually run the test that they said they did.
When they then came out afterwards and said, we never actually tested for transmissibility.
So it didn't do what they said it was going to do, but don't blame AOC for coming out and parroting things that she doesn't understand in any way, shape, or form.
She's just saying what the experts said, so it's the experts' fault, not her fault for parroting it, not understanding it, although she does it with impunity.
Oh, and by the way, let's go give it to our...
Let's make sure that we have enough to give to prisoners.
Oh, I am so glad that I found this tweet, people.
I knew a number of people, you know, like back in the day, the benevolent thing to do was to say, we got to get the prisoners.
Prisoners are a vulnerable, marginalized group of society.
They are in need for this, and we need to, for their protection, we need to give them this new experimental gene therapy.
Out of benevolent.
We're not Dr. Mengele here, people.
We're not experimenting on them.
Although, as Obama made it clear, yes, you were experimenting on them.
We're not.
It's for their own good.
Out of the goodness of our benevolence, we need to go get as many prisoners vaccinated because they're in closed quarters.
And this prevents transmission, but it doesn't.
So let's just go give it to them, even though it doesn't prevent carrying, contracting, and transmitting the virus.
But we're doing it out of benevolence and not, you know, the way the government had done things historically, of testing things on prisoners.
George Soros!
Those who are incarcerated are at particular risk for COVID-19.
They should be prioritized to receive the vaccine.
And right now, I'm remembering Lewis Carroll on tyrants.
The most dangerous tyrants are those who are genuinely convinced that they're doing it for the greater good or purport to be doing it out of benevolence because they can do it all day long.
They can torment you until both you and they are dead and feel good about having done it.
It was the robber baron.
Even the robbing baron's deceit sleeps when he sleeps, but the benevolent tyranny of a busybody who thinks they're doing it for the greater good never knows any tire.
I mean, the original quote is much better than how I'm mangling it.
But George Soros, whose history we know well, says we should be prioritizing vaccinating prisoners.
Here's a little...
Just a few headlines.
From PBS NewsHour.
Report.
Medical experiments conducted on U.S. prisoners.
Patients.
This is from 2011.
As if anybody needs to be reminded of this.
Let me just get the best one for later.
This is from Wikipedia.
Project MKUltra.
United States Project MKUltra was CIA-run human experiment program from 1953 to 1973 where volunteers...
Prisoners, because they are a captive and vulnerable segment of society, easy to exploit, easy to test on, most often don't have family, don't have people protecting them, so they are the easy ones to exploit.
Prisoners have historically been tested on when the government was testing and experimenting on its own citizens.
And unwitting subjects were administered hallucinogenic drugs in an attempt to develop incapacitating substances and chemical mind control agents in an operation run by Sidney Gottlieb.
MKUltra?
Other ones?
I forgot what the other article is.
And then let's just go to Nazi human experimentation.
Nazi human experimentation was a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners, including children, by Nazi Germany.
The phenomenon of experimenting on prisoners is neither new nor unique.
And I suspect back in the day when they were doing those tests on prisoners, they also cloaked it in benevolence.
Much in the same way George Soros now and others prioritizing administering an experimental gene therapy shot to prisoners for their own good.
I just have to remind, refresh everybody's memory on that.
Okay.
Last subject of the day before we go.
Exclusive to davavarnslaw.locals.com.
Oh, okay.
Hold on.
Before we do that, let me bring up this super chat.
Chet, I know you texted me and I didn't get to it.
I'll read this here, people.
Chet Chisholm, today is the first day of the National Citizens Inquiry.
Dr. Peter McCullough testifies tomorrow morning and I am on in the afternoon.
First event is in Nova Scotia with more than eight other Canadian cities.
Chet.
I'm gonna get back to your tweet at the end of this, to your tweet, to your text message at the end of this.
Everybody check it out, National Citizens Inquiry, and maybe I'll livestream that tomorrow on Rumble exclusively for obvious reasons.
Chet, thank you very much for that.
Okay, last subject matter of the day.
You may not have heard of Douglas, is it Douglas Mackey?
Douglas Mackey, two S's.
Douglas 2S Mackey.
Let's just pull up an article just to refresh all of our memories on this.
Do we have an article?
Oh, here we go.
This is an article from back in the day.
By the way, it's also disinformation.
Twitter troll tricked 4,900 Democrats in vote-by-phone scheme, U.S. says.
By the way, they're not lying.
They're just quoting the United States government.
So it's not true because I don't believe there's evidence of one person of the 4,900 who actually texted in the number who then did not go out to vote.
I don't think there's evidence of one person who did that.
Douglas Mackey, aka Ricky Vaughn on Twitter, had a Twitter handle which posted trolls, memes, all the sorts of stuff.
And at one point, as we're going to see, put out a tweet that said, don't wait in line, vote from home, text blank blank to Hillary.
He's being prosecuted now for election interference on the basis that that...
That meme tweet, which he posted to Twitter, resulted in 4,900 Democrats, although I don't know that we know who they were, if they were Democrats necessarily or just people, you know, running with the gag, tweeting in the number.
Not one, as far as I understand, actually confirms that they thought that that tweet validated their, that they thought that that text message validated their vote and subsequently did not vote, but they did have allegedly 4,900 people who texted in as per the text.
This man is being Douglas Mackey, a right-wing provocateur, was accused of spreading memes that made Hillary Clinton supporters falsely believe they could cast ballots in 2016 via text message.
Far-right troll arrested on Wednesday charged with spreading disinformation online that tricked Democrats in 2016 to cast their ballots by phone instead of going to the polls.
Federal prosecutors accused Mackey, 31, of coordinating with co-conspirators to spread memes on Twitter, falsely claiming that Hillary Clinton supporters could vote by sending a text.
Okay.
The co-conspirators were not named in the complaint, but one of them was Anthime Gione, a far-right media personality known as Baked Alaska, who was arrested after participating in the January 6th riots.
Sorry, the January 6th riot on the Capitol.
As a result of the misinformation campaign, prosecutors said at least 4,900 unique phone numbers texted the number in a futile effort to cast their votes for Mrs. Clinton.
Notice how they didn't say that they didn't actually then go to vote for Hillary Clinton.
He was arrested.
Yada, yada, yada.
Okay.
A lawyer for Mackey declined to claim it.
$50,000 bond.
It's ridiculous.
I can give you the link.
You don't need it.
I don't think there's anything more that we care about in that.
Mr. Mackey was obsessed with his posts going viral, the complaint said.
Once telling his associates the memes are spreading, he and his co-conspirators joked about tricking dopey liberals.
Okay.
The rest of the article is not particularly important.
That's what Mackie did.
Pull up the indictment just so we can have a look at it.
Hold on.
I thought I had brought up also the...
I'll bring up the indictment here.
Okay.
Boom shakalaka.
Here's the indictment.
United States of America versus Douglas Mackie, also known as Ricky Vaughan.
From Major League Charlie Sheen's character.
In or about between September 2016 and November 2016, both dates being approximate, Mackey and elsewhere, the defendant Mackey, also known as Ricky Vaughn, together with others, conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate persons in the free exercise of an enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States to wit the right to vote.
Let's just get to the...
He kept on starting new accounts.
Here we go.
Various individuals who interacted with Ricky.
Okay, we don't need that.
Mackie posted numerous statements to Mackie account number one.
He created a bunch of accounts as he kept on having his accounts shut down.
And let's just see where we are going with this.
Does this have a graphic of the image?
Okay, here we go.
On our boat, October 5, 2016, Twitter suspended Mackie in account number one for targeted abuse, although Mackie could no longer use Mackie account number one.
Yetta, yetta, the groups, including Cobra, they continued to use other accounts.
Okay, so they kept on using other accounts.
And...
Ugh, you know what?
Scrap this.
Text code records.
Yeah, well, that's smart.
According to iVision, the company that owned the text code listed in the two deceptive images distributed by Mackey, at least 4,900 unique telephone numbers texted candidates' name or some derivative to the text code on or about before Election Day, including many belonging to individuals located in the Eastern District of New York.
Of the approximately 4,900 that correspond to the text code, approximately 4,850, or 99%, sent their texts after Mackey.
Notice how the indictment or the charges don't specify that any of them subsequently did not go out and vote.
Anyways, he's going to trial now.
He's going to trial now, but there's been some serious, serious chicanery in that allegedly one of the witnesses, one of defendants Mackey's expert witnesses, Was contacted by a journalist who is apparently going to publish an article disclosing certain details and private emails that that expert witness allegedly sent or received.
So much so that the defense has asked for a postponement so they can find a new expert witness because apparently the former expert witness now no longer wants to testify.
Because he might lose his job where he works as a professor because the journalist apparently contacted their employer as if this is not outright witness tampering.
But that doesn't matter.
The laws only apply to certain political orientations.
Let's go to this article here.
Law and crime.
And there's a couple of things in this article.
The substance of the article is shocking because it details what is arguably but not arguably witness intimidation, witness tampering.
This is from Law and Crime, and wait until you read this.
Where is the article?
Read more.
The trial of the Major League Douglas Mackey, better known by his Major League reference Ricky Vaughn, has been postponed after a researcher from an anti-hate watchdog group obtained private emails concerning the defense's expert witness.
Nothing to see here, people.
It's totally normal.
And if anyone else were to have done this, surely nothing would have happened.
Now Mackey's expert has withdrawn from the case and his defense team is scrambling to replace him, his lawyer revealed.
In the latest wrinkle in the high-profile prosecution or persecution of Mackey, who was on the cusp of an imminent trial for sharing memes, encouraging black supporters of Hillary Clinton to vote by text message in 2016 election.
I'd like to know how law and crime makes this statement.
He was targeting black Hillary supporters.
Why?
Because the person who's in the meme is black?
To me, it seems that that assumption is predicated on some form of racism, soft bigotry or outright.
As if to say, because it's a black person in the meme that black people were being targeted by this, I would never have looked at this meme and thought anything racially motivated or racially targeting in it.
Period.
But maybe that's just because I'm racist for not seeing race everywhere.
How does law and crime say that this is encouraging black supporters and not Hillary Clinton supporters at large?
Either that or are they going one step further and saying that, you know, who else?
I won't even say what they must be thinking as the alternative because it's a terrible thought that they might think, oh, who else would be silly enough to actually fall for this gag?
There seems to be a lot of soft bigotry baked into that assumption, law and crime.
Federal prosecutors say that...
Mackey measurably interfered with the election through misinformation about casting votes by phone, which isn't a valid way of casting them.
The government says the meme fooled at least 4,900 Democrats.
No law and crime.
That's actually not even what the government said.
What it said is that it got 4,900 people to tweet and text in the message.
Didn't actually say that any of those 4,900 people then went on to not vote.
Thinking that their text message counted as their vote.
If they did, I presume they would have showed that evidence.
They would have had those witnesses come to trial.
Maybe they will.
I don't know.
Maybe they have.
But listen to this, by the way.
Let's not focus on the fact that a journalist got private emails from the defense witness's expert witness and is now interfered with the trial.
Let's not focus on that.
Let's smear Mackey.
Let's smear Mackey for other issues so that it becomes palatable in the General opinion of the public that even if he's wrongly convicted on this, well, he's gotten some sort of retribution for his racist, anti-Semitic, and white supremacist means.
Mackey is known for laundering racist, anti-Semitic, and white supremacist talking points into mainstream conservative discourse.
His Twitter bio read, it's okay to be white.
Sorry.
It's okay to be white.
Before his account was suspended.
That's racist.
Oh my goodness.
Geez, I guess Candace Owens and Kanye West are also racist, but of course they are, because they are the black face of white supremacy, right?
Like Larry Elder?
This is how it works now.
It's okay to be white before his account was suspended.
He tweeted out images of an octopus with the Star of David enveloping the globe with its tentacles, and another suggesting Jewish control of the media to elevate black people.
I'll show you those, because in as much as I don't...
In as much as they might be...
And as much as anybody might have a legitimate reason to think it's anti-Semitic, what relevance does that have to what he's being charged with right now?
Abso-frickin-lutely none.
He might be...
I'll go one step further.
They are objectively...
I'll say this.
I will hypothesize that they are objectively anti-Semitic and vitriolic racist.
This is the image right here.
How do I get out of here?
How do I close this here?
I will grant you as a premise that this is anti-Semitic.
I may or may not agree with it.
We could agree that these are vitriolic, trope-y type memes.
Let's just take for granted it's anti-Semitic.
Let's take for granted...
This is antisemitic.
I don't think this could be called racist.
I think this could only be called antisemitic.
Okay.
What relevance does that have to the accusations that he used a meme for election interference?
Absolutely none.
Law and crime and everybody else knows it.
But what this is, it's the Alex Jones treatment in that you're going to demonize an individual at a global scale so that you will justify an injustice at the macro scale.
Well, he's racist and he posted stuff that I find very offensive.
And so, therefore, the wrongful conviction for election interference for a meme, I'm prepared to live with that.
He should have just known better.
Had he been a good boy, none of this would have happened to him.
Yada, yada, yada.
Okay.
Oh, and then, by the way, and then they're going after Elon, too.
Because Elon, who might be able to dissociate what some might consider to be offensive memes or offensive postings to the...
Abuse the judicial abuse of going after him for election interference for a meme.
Elon Musk says it's concerning.
Where do we go here?
Mackie also appeared to obliquely find a supporter in Twitter's owner, Elon Musk, who agreed with someone who called Mackie's prosecution concerning.
Yeah, yeah, it is concerning.
And you can find it concerning without having to find yourself compelled to condone tweets that you might not want to condone.
Hey, I say they're bad tweets.
That's why I'm going to go defend this guy.
Because you don't get away with persecuting and prosecuting an individual just because you don't like them, even if you have good reason not to like them.
It's called justice, by the way, not political justice.
Ooh, I like that.
Political justice.
In the middle of the jury selection for his trial, Mackey's lawyer, Andrew Frisch, alerted the court to a story pursued, oh, by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Wow.
On the defense's would-be expert witness, George Hawley, an associate professor of political science from the University of Alabama.
Though the article has not yet been published, Frisch claimed that it, quote, unfairly disparages, end quote, Hawley, and is based in part on the professor's private emails.
So let's go defame and besmirch.
Or smear.
Let's just call it smear.
Let's go smear Mackey on things that have absolutely nothing to do with the charges that he's currently facing.
And then let's go smear his expert witness so that we can get the public to say, well, I'm going to disregard that expert witness's opinion because, I don't know, something in a private email that we don't know about because it hasn't been published.
The SPLC has not yet run this story by freelance journalist Luke O 'Brien, who specializes in investigating extremism and disinformation.
You know what that tells me?
That he's an extremist and a purveyor of disinformation.
That's what it tells me.
In my opinion, based on the time-tested and true principle of confession through projection, accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing so as to create confusion.
Oh my goodness.
Okay.
Mr. O 'Brien waited until the start of the trial to submit written questions to Professor Harley in an attempt to paint him as an extremist, including questions based off private emails, which O 'Brien obtained simultaneously asking Professor Harley if his employer...
Hey.
You've got a lovely job there.
You sure you want to testify?
Nothing wrong with that.
It's aware of his proffered testimony at Mackey's trial, Fish wrote.
O 'Brien declined to discuss the story on record because it has yet to be published.
Oh, on the record because it has yet to be published.
But Mackey's lawyer claims that Hawley responded to the journalist's question in writing.
Frisch told the judge that Hawley has now asked to withdraw his name as a witness.
Oh, that's...
No, that wasn't what we intended.
I'm just an investigative journalist investigating disinformation and extremism.
I didn't mean to intimidate a witness into not representing a defendant so that they're deprived of their fundamental constitutional way to a full defense.
I didn't force him to withdraw from the file.
I just asked him if he liked his job.
Oh, he granted, the judge granted a tentative adjournment opening statements until Monday, March 20th.
The proceedings were originally scheduled to take place.
Okay, fine.
I hope we have been looking at the right thing together.
We have.
Okay.
People have to understand why this is such an important story and an important prosecution.
I'm still on the fence, in a sense, in that Robert Barnes and I have talked about this a number of times during our Sunday night streams.
Barnes thinks the law is totally inapplicable here.
This was never the intended object purpose of the law, and I tend to defer to Robert's big brain.
I would think...
That if someone did in fact play this type of joke and tell people not to vote on the day of and it actually worked, I could see that being the basis for some unlawful conduct and prosecution.
Is there any evidence other than 4,900 people who might have texted it in to be part of the meme?
Is there any evidence that any one of them subsequently then went on to not vote as a result?
As far as I know, no.
Absolutely no evidence to that effect.
Which makes this a politically motivated persecution, a politically motivated attempt to suppress any form of political rhetoric.
Imagine this is the criteria now for election interference.
If someone says it's a lost cause to vote, your vote doesn't count, and then people don't go out to vote, is that going to be election interference?
People who say voting is useless, is that going to be deemed to be election interference?
If someone says, as a meme, Democrats are so stupid they would vote by phone if they thought it was lawful, and then someone says, hey, go ahead and do it.
Are we criminalizing that level of speech?
The answer thus far seems to be yes.
So it's a wildly important case to follow, and everyone should be following it, and I'll be following it as of next Monday.
But what we're seeing right now is nothing short...
Of witness tampering, witness intimidation, witness interference.
Had anybody else done something like this and it been politically reversed, I suspect they'd be facing charges now as well.
Two more Rumble rants before we end this and go on over to the Rumbles.
Okay, let me see here.
Kenzie67 says two...
Oh, sorry.
So let's start with Kenzie671.
Calgary Mayor brought in two new bylaws to stop protests against drag shows for kids.
Please discuss with Keith Wilson possibility of raising a suit against her, the city, for allowing sexual content, one, for minors, in the second part, and, of course, the right to protest.
Pray at City Hall without being slapped with a trespass notice.
The bylaw carries a $10,000 fine or six months in jail.
We need to push back in a real way.
In a real and peaceful way.
Please and thank you.
And by the way, Kenzie, not that I'm suggesting you ever supported anything not peaceful or violent.
I just feel the need to compel so that anybody who even disingenuously and maliciously purports to say I said otherwise, I will have more than enough concrete evidence to demonstrate that they are a liar.
The only problem being we live in a world where, say, protest peacefully and it's a violent incitement to insurrection.
Okay, so let me see what I have left on the back burner.
I think it's not particularly important.
Oh, okay.
Well, I know how I'm going to play us out.
Let me bring this one up just for one second because I think there's a good reason.
Oh, yeah, that's why.
Here, let me get the...
Everybody should read Stephen Dyson and Horowitz.
The rise of the Fourth Reich.
Daniel Horowitz just tweeted, the UK has ended COVID shots for those under 50, which they have.
Yet the FDA just approved a fourth booster for infants, for a variant that no longer exists, for a virus that never affected them, even after all of the death and injury from the shots, and they did it based off a trial of 24 participants.
Everybody...
Should go listen to The Rise of the Fourth Reich.
You may find it inflammatory in rhetoric.
That, I dare say, is the purpose of it.
Because it can be inflammatory in rhetoric and then substantiated in evidence, which it is.
I just gave everybody the Amazon affiliate link to go procure it because it's an efficient way of...
Amazon affiliate links, for everybody who doesn't know, like you go buy a link through an Amazon affiliate link, the person whose Amazon affiliate account is through gets a, I don't know, whatever, like a penny.
They get a commission off everything.
For sales, they go through Amazon affiliate links.
So go buy...
I bought the audiobook because I can't read books anymore.
It's great.
And to play us out, people, while we head on over to the locals, now here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to give...
Yeah, the locals.
I'm going to give everybody the link.
To locals.
There's the link to locals.
Give me kickbacks, says member of the public.
Look, Amazon is not...
It may be a terrible company owned by a terrible person, but it is the way that people sell their books.
I mean, it's like you can go directly to websites sometimes when people are not allowed on Amazon, but Amazon is the easiest way for people to actually learn.
And it's not because...
Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a good tactic in life.
That's it.
Oh, this other link you gave.
The other link I gave Jesse Jennings is for vivabarneslaw.locals.com where we're going to have a little after-party post-mortem Locals exclusive where I'm going to get to the Rumble rants, which are there, which are known as tips, Locals tips.
And I'm going to play a video because Rumble, when it ends, it cuts off the end of the video.
And it's also a good excuse for me to share some of my older content.
This, I think, is one of the greatest editorial masterpieces that I've ever made.
Everyone, if you're prone to seizures, you might want to not watch this.
I'm going to play this, and I'm going to leave the screen blank for a few seconds, then end the stream on Rumble.
Everyone make your way over to Locals and we'll continue having the party right there.
This is Viva.
This is old, people.
This is from...
I think like six years ago.
Jesus.
And yeah, it's classic.
It's hilarious.
Enjoy it.
See everybody on Locals.
We have a sidebar tonight.
Holy crab apples.
We have a sidebar tonight with Garland.
Not Merrick Garland, but Garland.
And I'm going to set that up right after this.
So meet us on Locals and see you all tonight.
Seven o 'clock for the sidebar.
Enjoy this.
People always ask me how you make a viral video.
What type of camera do you need?
What type of equipment do you need?
What subject matter do you need?
You want to know the trick to making a video go viral?
No pauses!
You want to be in a viral video?
Too late!
Put some kids in the video?
No!
No pauses!
Dogs in the video?
No!
No pauses!
Get on the news?
Useless!
No pauses!
Why aren't you wearing clothes?
Pauses!
This is a pause!
We just lost people!
Why no pauses?
People don't like being alone with their own thoughts!
People need action!
Action!
Action!
People have short attention to them!
They need action!
Let's go bowling!
Because the internet finds silence intimidating!
Because on the internet you pause!
News!
Lighting?
Irrelevant!
Audio quality?
Irrelevant!
What's the key to a viral video?
You took too long!
What's the key to a viral video?
No pauses!
No pauses!
What are you doing here?
No pauses!
Seriously, how much of that cronauts have you eaten?
What happens when you're alone with your thoughts, Barney?
Exactly.
Come to me.
What happens to you when you are alone with your own thoughts?