Really, that's when they say, you know, anger is a consuming force.
It makes people make...
I hate to use rebel news.
They're not news.
We're news.
Two idiots promoting violence, misrepresenting what actually happened, defaming an individual, relying on the ignorance of their audience who is not, I don't know, maybe not familiar with Billboard Chris?
Maybe hasn't actually seen my interview with Billboard Chris?
Alrighty then.
Good afternoon.
I wasn't going to go live today.
I spent the better part of the day.
What did I do today?
I went for the jog early on in the day.
Apparently the frogs, or the toads, have now, their eggs have hatched.
I'm going for a jog, and I see what, I thought they were like little pieces of leaves blowing across the sidewalk, and then I realize they're a bunch of...
Baby toads, but not like the hermit toads, like the ones that stay small.
Just baby toads everywhere.
And then, for anybody who might have been looking at me from a distance, I looked like the totally craziest spasmatic person on Earth.
Because I'm jumping around tiptoeing, and then I had to jump onto the road to avoid them.
But then, you know, I'm sitting around, doing some work, clipping some highlights from last night's stream.
And then I see this.
Well, I saw that later on in the day.
I saw a story.
About the Dalai Lama apologizing for a video that's doing the rounds on the internet.
And I hadn't seen this video.
Then I went to see the video.
Didn't really fit with the Dalai Lama's description of what actually happened.
We'll talk about that.
I don't know why.
I mean, I do know why.
But I don't know why.
But I do know why.
To generate interaction.
Twitter has been recommending some people to me.
And I've been watching them.
And it's beyond hypocrisy at this point in time.
It's not hypocrisy.
It's not double standards.
It's lawlessness.
You have this kid who, good for him, he's speaking his mind.
It would just be nice if he would do it consistently and logically.
Harry J. Sisson, who at least, unless it's a computer-generated image or advanced AI, he's a real human.
The flavor of the day is to loud celebrate, what's the word?
Opposite of demonize?
Lionize.
No, that's not the right word.
Lionized the two Tennessee lawmakers who were expelled from the Tennessee legislature.
Lionized them.
They were just being the righteous protesters, sticking it to the man.
Their expulsion is egregious.
It's an injustice.
It's racism.
But impeaching the president for imploring his supporters to...
March on the Capitol and protest peacefully and patriotically.
That's totally logical.
Oh, I said I was going to talk about the Riley Gaines story yesterday.
We're going to.
Let me look at the title here.
Riley Gaines, Dalai Lama, Daniel Perry, Tennessee hypocrisy.
Viva Freur!
I've been typo-ing my way into infamy.
It says Viva Freu, F-R-E-U, and I spelt the Dalai Lama as in Lama, the animal, and not Lama, the human.
And I meant no disrespect by that.
It's just...
I don't even know if it's autocorrect or if that's how I thought it was spelt with two L's.
Now, the question is this.
We are going to go to Rumble.
We're going to go to Rumble exclusively for a number of reasons, not the least of which is, you know...
Some of this stuff is going to be instantly demonetized on YouTube, and I do not care about the monetization of the videos.
I care about the suppression of the content.
But we're going to go over to Rumble.
So the question is, what do we start with on Rumble, YouTube, and Local?
So let me just make sure we're all rolling here.
We are good.
There is...
Oh, son of a beasting.
And now I hope I didn't just lose the Rumble rants.
We're live on Rumble, live on YouTube, live on Locals.
Want to make sure that that's good as well?
So you can watch.
We are live on Locals.
And there's the beautiful picture of the Scottish Terrier sitting at home from LNF.
It's too much.
It's too much.
At some point, you can laugh at it, but at another point, it will drive you crazy.
So you have to keep laughing if you're not going to go crazy.
Let's start with Henry Sisson.
Let's start with the...
I'm just going to...
I need to find it.
I have too many things in the background here.
We're going to start with Henry Sisson, and then we're going to get to...
I had another Twitter exchange with Mehdi Hassan yesterday about the...
Conviction of Daniel Perry in Texas.
So we're going to look at that.
And then it devolved as do...
Oh, yeah.
And then the FBI.
Oh, my God.
There's so much...
Okay.
We're going to start with Henry J. Sisson, Cher, an individual who I do not mind people expressing themselves.
I do not mind.
It's good.
Being vocal, wanting to make a change is good.
And when you're young...
That's typically the sentiment.
You want to make a change.
You want to be value-added.
You want to change the world for the better.
The problem is, for too many people, being young and ideological, or being young and naive, being young and not knowing how to think critically, will make you want to change.
And then the way you do that is by taking the path of least resistance, the most obvious, the most immediately gratifying pursuit of change, which is not always the correct one.
Oh, it's Harry Sisson, not Henry.
Sorry.
Harry J. Sisson.
Republicans thought that Gen Z was going to sit down and shut up about the Tennessee Three.
They couldn't be more wrong.
I don't think anybody thought that.
Let's hear what Harry Sisson has to say.
I've seen some videos of Harry Sisson on the street doing interviews.
Let's hear what Harry Sisson has to say.
To all the Republicans who expected Gen Z to just sit down and shut up about them expelling Democrats from the Tennessee legislature, you couldn't have been more wrong.
Because a majority of the Nashville Metropolitan City Council will vote to reinstate Representative Justin Jones.
Back into the Tennessee legislature and to the Republicans.
How does it feel to know that you lost?
You tried to put in your fascist, crazy agenda and you lost.
You tried to silence their voices, you lost.
You tried to silence the voices of Gen Z activists and you lost.
And if you thought this was bad, just wait until 2024 when there's a wave of young voters letting Republicans know exactly what we think about them.
To all the Republicans...
First of all, can you understand that...
The criticism here is that Republicans tried to shut down activism from the Tennessee Three.
It's like branding.
Everything is branding.
Tennessee Three.
They are being hailed as heroes.
We talked about it last night.
The expulsion might not have been my first course of action if I were there.
I can understand it.
I don't think I would have voted for it in principle, but that might have been the person who believes in principles that says, I won't do it here to the extent that we would...
We would be equally ideologically accommodating when the shoe is on the other foot, but the other foot is never that accommodating.
The other foot doesn't let you put the shoe on it, and it just sticks itself up your rear.
I would have probably said no.
There's a number of reasons.
It might just be a Pyrrhic victory to the extent that they can go and get re-elected back into office, as I think is the process that can be done, as we discussed yesterday with Robert Barnes.
And in which case, they're going to be the double heroes.
You've expelled them, now they're back in.
Flipside to that is maybe they won't engage in deliberate, overt rule-breaking by protesting, organizing, protesting, facilitating what, if the shoe were on the other foot, would be described as an insurrection.
Maybe they'll think twice about how and when they protest.
Maybe not.
But can you just appreciate the hypocrisy and the double standards of what is being said here?
And it's what's being said across the board.
They're heroes for their protest.
A majority of the Nashville Metropolitan City Council will vote to reinstate Representative Justin Jones back into the Tennessee legislature and to the Republicans.
How does it feel to know that you lost?
You tried to put in your fascist, crazy agenda.
Fascist, crazy agenda.
Consistency would not be too much to ask, but it's not about consistency.
It's not about double standards.
It is about lawlessness, which is weaponizing the law against your ideological adversaries and claiming exemptions, lionizing yourself for your own.
It is lawlessness.
And if Harry J. Sisson believes that Jones and the Tennessee Three are heroes for having protested what they think is a worthwhile subject matter to protest, which I think most people would agree it's relevant, it's important.
If they're heroes for protesting the way they did.
Knowingly, deliberately, overtly breaking the rules, facilitating protests, screaming with a bullhorn in a place of government that is literally, maybe we could say sans a little bit of the violence that occurred on January 6th might have been instigated by those dozens of informants, FBI agitators, FBI whatever.
Some of that violence might have been stoked by agitators.
It doesn't seem that the other side, you know.
Infiltrates its own agitators into the left side of the protest.
One is insurrection for which people have gone to jail for years.
The other is righteous.
The other is protected by the law.
The other is exempt from any form of repercussions.
Forget the Tennessee Three going to jail, being charged with insurrection, sedition, I don't know, seditious conspiracy.
It's getting close.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
It's getting close if it's not that already.
But at least, maybe now if they've been expelled and they go and they just go get re-elected, maybe they'll think twice about the method of doing it the next time.
Maybe they'll double down and get even more aggressive.
And rely on the fact that they'll get voted back in if they get expelled again.
Let me see here.
I don't want to bring up anything.
I want to bring up something.
Okay.
The Tennessee rep didn't like that he didn't get his way on that vote.
Figured, I'll call a protest shutting down the process.
It's so obviously an egregious double standard.
There's no way to look at it, but it's not a double standard.
It leads to lawlessness.
It leads to lawlessness where...
You literally persecute those on the other side of the aisle for what you yourself have done.
One gets protection.
One gets persecution.
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Now, speaking of all animals being equal, but some are more equal than others, we talked about the Perry conviction.
So, Texas.
Daniel Perry.
Convicted.
Now, I keep forgetting if it's first...
It was second-degree murder.
Let me just double-check.
Refresh my senile memory.
And no Perry.
Perry.
Thank you.
Ilk, do you have murder?
First degree or second degree?
Second degree.
It was second degree murder.
Okay.
Guilty of murder after he's shot and killed.
Why are they not saying if it's Daniel?
Chat's going to let me know.
For goodness sake, am I senile?
We talk about the lawlessness.
And people cannot appreciate the comparisons because it will illustrate the lawlessness.
You have people right now lauding, applauding the conviction of Daniel Perry for the shooting in Texas.
The victim was a man openly carrying an AR.
It was an AK-47.
So you have people applauding the conviction of a man who was in his car, who, by his own testimony, by the video evidence, might have taken a wrong turn, swarmed by protesters.
Among the protesters is a protester carrying openly an AK-47.
But it's legal in Texas.
And then that man gets shot.
And the man who shoots him also with a legally procured firearm, they applaud him being found guilty of murder.
The victim openly carrying an AK-47.
It's an amazing thing how in circumstances which are similar but not identical and distinguishable on material grounds, Kyle Rittenhouse openly carrying a rifle at a protest, a protest that he was there to help with, not assist and partake in, openly carrying.
As per the laws of the land, they wanted him convicted of murder.
So the hero, when it's them, is different, is the hero in their story, whereas when it's on the other side is the villain in the other story.
People have to appreciate this as well.
Materially different, but nonetheless sufficiently similar.
If they applaud Daniel Perry getting convicted of murder...
They should also support Gage Grosskrauts being charged with attempted murder.
The material difference?
Gage Grosskrauts was in possession of that firearm illegally.
The material difference?
Gage Grosskrauts chased down an open-carrying Kyle Rittenhouse, unaware of what was going on.
So, material difference is there.
It's not as though Gage Grosskreutz stumbled upon the incident and didn't know that Kyle Rittenhouse, openly caring, was acting in self-defense.
And we had talked about this in Kyle Rittenhouse.
There was a conceivable world where it could have been legitimate self-defense for both people involved.
If Gage Grosskreutz had not been pursuing Kyle Rittenhouse, knowing what had just transpired, but instead had come across the situation and didn't know that Kyle was acting in self-defense and legitimately feared for his life not knowing that, There could have been an argument for mutual self-defense for whomever the survivor would have been.
But the people applauding the conviction of Daniel Perry have to then support the idea that Gage Grosskreutz has to be charged with attempted murder, or at the very least aggravated assault, something along those lines.
Because he was carrying a gun, and had he killed, had he successfully shot and killed Kyle Rittenhouse...
Other than being applauded as a hero for having stopped an active shooter.
That's how the left would have framed it.
Had he successfully killed Kyle Rittenhouse, well, he would have to be convicted of murder in the same way they are applauding Daniel Perry for getting convicted of murder right now.
Now, that being said, one has to check one's own bias as well and motivated reasoning as well because I am...
In the Rittenhouse case, I could have understood and I could have appreciated the argument that had it ended differently under the circumstances, both parties could have had a claim for mutual self-control.
It's a theory that we actually floated among the lawyers on the panels at the time.
Having seen what happened here, in as much as I saw some of the trial and read up on it afterwards, where you have the victim of the shooting, who's not at a protest...
For the same reasons Kyle Rittenhouse was there, you might think those reasons are dumb and he shouldn't have been there in the first place, but they were there for different reasons.
One was to partake in the protest.
In Rittenhouse's case, he was not there to partake in the protest whatsoever.
Material difference.
Because if you are a bystander on that street and you make a wrong turn and your car gets swarmed by people who you know are protesters there, one of whom is carrying an AK-47, well, your frame of mind is a lot different.
Your frame of mind is a lot different than Gage Grosskreutz, who went to the protest packing illegal heat.
So in the Texas case, just so that one is not oneself guilty of motivated reasoning and saying, well, I want Daniel Perry to be found innocent because I want to find a way to claim this is self-defense, there are very, very material differences between Rittenhouse and Daniel Perry's conviction.
A dude.
He had some very compromising text messages or Facebook posts.
Might have to shoot some protesters or might have to kill some protesters.
They're outside my house.
Whether or not that's just dark humor or someone who's premeditating, going out and looking for trouble.
The jury heard the evidence and the jury came to their conclusion.
But the material difference in circumstances is a dude in his car with his girlfriend in the side, apparently taking a wrong turn or not, getting swarmed by a bunch of angry protesters who start banging on the door, one of whom is at the driver's side carrying an AK-47.
Perry thinks he's at risk, does what he has to do in self-defense in his own mind.
One can make the distinctions here.
But the left praising this conviction, not understanding the implications that it would have to have for the other cases.
It's lawlessness.
And so I got into...
A bit of a discussion, although it's never really a discussion on Twitter.
It is who can get the biggest gotcha.
All right, let me see.
This one, we have to go a little bit down.
We have to go down the Twitter memory hole.
Not the Twitter memory hole, the Twitter rabbit hole.
Okay, here we go.
Let's go all the way down.
Is there any other...
You're leaving out the part where?
So we got Nuance Bro.
Don't know who he is.
And again, when I say that, it's never...
I don't know.
It's never that.
You go down these rabbit holes, you meet new people on the internet.
I make videos about politics and current events and stuff.
I like to make a funny movie from time to time on the web.
That's Nuance Bro.
Nuance Bro, in his take on the trial, who was he responding to?
Oh, he was responding to...
You never end up...
You never end.
Less than 24 hours ago, Diana Perry was convicted by a jury of murder after he shot a protester point-blank during a BLM rally blocks away from the state capitol.
Greg Gabbett says he's working on a pardon to pardon Perry one day later.
Absolutely insane.
I can appreciate how people find that absolutely insane.
Mehdi Hassan says the Republican Party is the party of violent crime and disorder, not law and order.
Not sure why Dems can't say this.
They're too busy saying summer of love.
Now, Nuance Bro says you're leaving out the part where he had an AK-47 pointed at him while a violent mob surrounded his vehicle.
This is true.
The only obvious retort to this is you're forgetting the part where he had a trial.
He said that and a jury didn't believe him.
Why the jury didn't believe him?
Up in the air.
Maybe it was the...
Propensity of the evidence?
Maybe it's a jury pool in Austin.
We saw how that worked out in the Alex Jones defamation trial, which was not a defamation trial.
It was just a trial on the quantum of the damages after a default judgment.
We've seen the Austin jury pool.
I've seen it.
I went down to the Jones trial on jury selection day.
I talked to people.
Didn't broadcast any of that video.
In fact, I didn't record any of it because I didn't want anybody feeling uncomfortable or feeling reluctant to talk.
I talked to the jury members.
I say this without judgment.
There's predictability in the Austin jury pool that I encountered at the Alex Jones trial, to which Mehdi Hassan says, you're leaving out the part where this was his defense in court.
It was rejected by a jury of his peers, and he was found guilty of murder in Texas.
In Austin, Mehdi Hassan.
Not in Texas, in Austin.
And what's amazing here is...
I want to say, yeah, now do all of those other cases of people who were convicted of crimes in various jurisdictions that were going to be necessarily hostile to the accused.
But that's not the best type of argument to get into on Twitter or ever, because you can always distinguish the cases.
You're leaving out the part, this was his defense in court, it was rejected by a jury of his peers, and he was found guilty of murder in Texas, in Austin.
To which I said...
You're leaving out the part where the lead investigator was told to exclude exculpatory evidence from the indictment.
And then, because we all know what I'm talking about here, did you know that, Mehdi Hassan?
Because it seems like it's just error after error.
That's a glib joke.
Surely you are prepared to live by the standards you set for others.
Now, we talked about this affidavit yesterday.
This is the affidavit in which the lead investigator, paragraph 3, says...
I was told to remove exculpatory information that I had intended to present to the grand jury during my testimony.
At that point, I specifically asked if there would be ramifications, yada, yada, yada.
And where does it say that...
Yeah, here we go.
His presentation of 158 slide PowerPoint presentation, it was reduced to 56 slides.
Now, I'm not an idiot because I can anticipate the argument.
And the argument is going to be, whatever happened before the grand jury is irrelevant because he had his trial.
Do you know what that's like saying...
Well, hold on.
Let's finish this rabbit hole thread here.
Rabbit hole thread.
So I see.
You left out the part where the lead investigator was told to exclude exculpatory evidence.
The affidavit is from August 2021.
True.
The cop Fugit testified the jury heard him and still found Perry guilty.
That's true.
The prosecution asked Fugit if he had been wrong in any of his homicide cases, and Fugit acknowledged that he had, and he's citing an article by CBS, Austin, not Texas, Austin, in which that's true.
And all of that is true.
Here, this is the article.
You can just have a look later.
All of it is true, but the interesting thing is this.
Item three.
Does this go back even further?
No, it doesn't.
Item three is the interesting one.
Because it shows you, on the one hand, what happens when things make it to a jury.
I've always said this in civil litigation.
And in Canada or in Quebec, we don't have jury civil trials.
So you're...
Come on, get over here.
If anything is left in the hands of a judge, and I've always said this to clients and they sometimes don't like hearing it because everybody's case is a slam-dunk surefire case.
Anything left in the hands of a judge, Is 50-50.
Anything left in the hands of a jury is going to be equally roulette to some point.
You don't know the way a jury is going to go.
You can predict it.
And you can predict a way an Austin jury pool is going to go.
Ideally, it would be a jury of your peers.
I would venture a wager of a guess that this jury in law might be a jury of his peers.
In fact, probably not.
You leave something in the hands of a jury.
If it gets to the hands of a jury, you don't know which way it's going to go.
The question here is, should this have even gotten to the hands of a jury?
When you have the prosecution saying, we want to find a way to prosecute.
When you have the investigator or the DA, whatever they are, saying, I want to prosecute this and I want the grand jury.
To just rubber stamp this ham sandwich so we can submit it to a jury and take our chances ratifying our own injustice in front of a jury.
And then we can wash our hands and say, well, the jury bought it.
The jury, for whatever the reasons, went ahead with the conviction of arguably a case that ought never have been tried in the first place.
Rittenhouse should not have been tried in the first place.
And when you have one of the lead investigators saying, we should not be prosecuting this, and his authority saying, Take out those hundred pages of exculpatory evidence and we're going to get this ham sandwich rubber stamped by an Austin grand jury.
I presume it's Austin.
You are just asking to take that chance.
Let's flip the coin.
And appreciate also that a jury, you know, the jury appreciates fact.
The judge appreciates law.
And so when you have...
Oh, we got a troll in the house.
Hold on.
I love it, actually, because it means that someone's actually created a new account.
It's a bot because I've never talked to the Dalai Lama before.
And yeah, I'm going to go ahead and not star that by any means.
I'm going to go ahead and block that user because that's a bot and I don't care about critique.
Bots and spamming is what gets it.
It's arguable that it should have ever gotten to a jury in the first place.
And when you have the prosecution saying, take out the exculpatory evidence just so that we can get this rubber stamped and then submit it to a jury and take our chances there, we're prepared to do that.
Now I know the argument that you do not need to submit exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.
I know that.
The degree to which that's true, I mean, we've seen it now where you get either absolute or qualified immunity if you destroy exculpatory evidence.
What we're talking about right now is ratifying the injustice of the procedure, of the process, so that we can take our chances getting the injustice ratified on final judgment.
And the analogy that I have is with Trump.
Like, if this gets to a jury, it doesn't matter how bogus the charges are, you're dealing with a jury that might be politically motivated.
What district are they in in New York?
They're not in Staten Island.
I forget what district they're in.
But you're not in Staten Island.
And so you get Alvin Bragg, Soros funded, let's just bring a politically motivated indictment against the former president.
Doesn't matter how thin it is, maybe we'll be able to dupe a jury.
Like maybe a jury is just, it's going to be so complicated.
It's like Parkinson's law.
If you don't know what Parkinson's law of mundanity is, at any boardroom meeting at an office, they'll spend...
15 minutes talking about the most complex corporate issues, and they'll spend three hours talking about where to place the water cooler, because things which are easy to understand, everyone has an opinion on, things which are complex, nobody wants to bother to understand.
It's Parkinson's law of mundanity.
Then you've got Parkinson's law of triviality.
Sorry, that's Parkinson's law of triviality.
Then there's another Parkinson's law, which is the time it takes to accomplish a task will expand to fit the time you have.
To accomplish the task.
But you're going to have a jury say, gee, this is falsifying business records.
I don't even know what that is.
Guilty, because we hate this guy.
Sounds good enough.
We don't know what the law ultimately says about all this.
We're only here, did he falsify business records?
Was it an underlying crime of a federal election that we're not even allowed adjudicating upon?
Well, if it gets to jury, don't expect the jury members to ask these questions.
Oh, so that's what's going on there.
Now, so with Mehdi Hassan, he raised three legitimate points.
Now, how did it end?
Hold on a second.
Hold on a second.
How did this end?
Oh, yes.
So then I also said, you know, this is a little bit more of the gish gallop.
We're in a Twitter exchange, so let's throw item after item out.
And people are pointing out that Gish Gallup has to be specious or baseless arguments.
I'll call it the viva fry iteration of the Gish Gallup.
Just throw out too many points to reply to in a tweet, knowing the medium does not allow for it, or in interview format, bombard your interviewee with more than he can respond to in the time allotted.
The idea that even if this homicide detective had been wrong previously on unrelated other issues, We're admitting that this injustice happened.
We are acknowledging, admitting, that this lead investigator was told to remove and had, in fact, had removed from his presentation to the grand jury 100 pages of exculpatory evidence, which might have resulted in this not even being tried before a jury that might have been amenable to punish who they feel to be the bad man with the gun because this time it seems like he had a good guy with the gun.
Or at least a guy who was allowed to have the gun, and him holding the gun in the presence of other people was not an act of provocation like it was in Rittenhouse.
Here he was the victim, despite a mob of angry protesters approaching a car, encircling it, slamming on the door, while the guy stands 18 inches from the driver at the driver's seat, apparently, according to the witness testimony, which the jury did not buy, with his gun raised in a menacing position.
Item three is particularly egregious.
If he had been wrong, okay, fine.
In other words, it's true.
He was told to exclude the exculpatory evidence, but let's ignore it.
Then I get accused.
I love this.
I get accused of not knowing who the gish gallop is, but this is another wonderful, wonderful debate tactic.
You don't actually know what the gish gallop is, but congrats on the use of big words.
Thank you.
I've indulged you enough.
You're an attention seeker.
I'm an attention seeker who keeps moving the goalposts.
When he loses the argument, your affidavit was from 2021, your investigator got to testify.
Bye-bye.
This is where Twitter's not good, because we're talking over each other right now.
I agree with all of that.
The argument would be that this should never have gotten to a jury, because there's a decent argument that it ought not have been prosecuted in the first place.
The argument is that once it gets to a jury, oftentimes, facts don't matter.
They've come in with their minds made up.
Motivated reasoning.
Barnes and I have talked about this a lot.
But moving the goalposts, confession through protection.
I'm an attention seeker.
That's what got me a little bit.
If I am an attention seeker, which I'm not, I have a good memory.
I remember Mehdi Hassan, after his intellectually honest takedown of Matt Taibbi, posted this wonderful, nothing attention seeking about this.
As this Taibbi interview clip is about to hit 5 million views, look at all the attention I've got.
Now's a good time as any for two shameless plugs from me.
Watch the Mehdi Hassan show on MSNBC.
No thank you.
Buy my book.
Win every argument.
Mark Twain said you can judge a man by the adjectives he uses to describe others.
Confession through projection.
I'm an attention seeker moving the goalposts when I lose the argument.
He did write a book called Win Every Argument.
And I was thinking about this before I went to bed after this Twitter exchange.
I'm like, can you imagine thinking that it's a good thing to walk around saying, I'm going to win every argument.
Can you imagine winning every argument, whatever that means in your own mind, if it means having learned nothing?
Can you imagine winning every argument and learning nothing?
What could be more meaningless and vapid of an existence?
Congratulations!
Enjoy your trophy!
The purpose of arguments and the purpose of discussions is not to win.
And I dare say, and I will say, it's not even to convince your interlocutor that you're right.
If you get into a discussion where that is the purpose, it's disingenuous and it's fruitless.
In fact...
When I get into discussions, I want to know what the other person has to say.
I like the arguments that Mehdi Hassan...
They're good arguments because they illustrate, as far as I'm concerned, the actual underlying problem.
When you get a conviction from a jury of something that arguably should never have been prosecuted in the first place in what I think is an objectively, ideologically, politically biased venue, when you like the outcome...
It's justice.
When you don't like the outcome, it's systemic racism.
It's something else.
But the idea...
Win every argument.
That's the purpose of life.
It is not the purpose of life, Mehdi.
In fact, it should be this.
How to engage in discussion.
How to understand what the other person is saying, even if it is to ultimately come to the conclusion that person is crazy, that person espouses beliefs that I will never expose.
I'm glad I had the discussion with them because I'm glad I know who to avoid next Christmas.
Okay.
We're going to go on over to Rumble now.
Hold on, let me just see here.
Refresh.
Very nice.
Let me see here.
Oh, we got Rumble rants!
Okay, I'm going to do the Rumble rants on both because that would not be fair.
And then I'm going to...
Oh, the air conditioning just came on.
You guys can't see it, but I'm sweating like a pig.
Pigs don't sweat.
Okay, I'm sweating like a...
Okay, let's just take some of these.
I didn't even see these.
Okay, hold on one second.
Okay, no one in their right mind would think Chris's social media is abhorrent, but leftists aren't in their right mind, pun intended.
They're sterilizing themselves, but in order to keep their cause going there.
That's from GingerNinja1776.
Coming after your kids.
Do not allow your kids to go to any school.
Ginger Ninja, thank you.
Amandine.
Amon's Inn in French, I think, is almond?
Or is it that paste that goes into pastries?
What's it called?
Oh, for goodness sake.
No, it's called Amon's Inn.
Oh, whatever.
If minors who get, quote, gender-affirming care were called transsexuals, then it would become very unpopular.
Transgender is a euphemism for transsexual.
That was a $5.
Amon's Inn, 512, thank you.
63 Telecaster, $21, says lionize the turtle saver.
I'm going to show that video at the end.
Someone's going to tell me, is that an alligator?
Is that a soft-shelled snapping turtle?
Or someone was calling it a spiny-shelled, soft-shelled turtle.
Was I at risk of getting bitten hard if I grabbed it from the back?
That's the question.
MB Dash says, I don't think he was a bot.
You mentioned Dalai Lama in the stream title.
Some of us saw the vid on Twitter.
Oh, we're going to watch that.
They want to criminalize self-defense, essentially, is what DaddyCrab says.
Absolutely.
I mean, that's...
That's the bottom line to it, because it's analogous, but there are material differences to the Kyle Rittenhouse.
I know that I'm inclined, in this case, to think that people who show up to protest with AK-47s are not as spiritually innocent as a Kyle Rittenhouse type who shows up to a protest to keep the peace and protect the business that he was...
Thought he was doing a favor for.
I do agree that when the police are not there themselves to keep the peace, this crap happens.
That being said, material differences.
And we'll see what happens with Greg Abbott's discussion of a pardon.
So everybody, head on over to the Rumbles.
820 some odd people still left here.
I know some people don't.
I don't know.
Some people say they can't get the Rumble.
That's curious to me.
Then go to Locals, because I know you can also watch it on Locals.
You don't have to support.
You can become a member of our wonderful community.
Get the camera down here, here, here.
Let's do it.
We're going to go on over to Rumble and Locals, and then Locals afterwards.
Now, in three, two, one, and we are on Rumble exclusively now.
Now we can talk about things that, you know...
Let me see if one of the videos that I put up on YouTube is still demonetized.
I put up the video about...
I think it was about Riley Gaines.
Demonetized.
For no flipping reason.
It's like...
They don't...
Which one was it?
Yeah, Riley Gaines...
It's because I put the word assaulted in the title.
And I don't care anymore.
You put the word assaulted in the title.
It doesn't matter if you're talking about...
Talking about...
Whatever.
They'll demonetize it, and it's been under review for 24 hours, and I don't care anymore.
But if we're going to show a video of the Dalai Lama asking a child to suck his tongue, I can imagine YouTube.
I mean, you know how I know that it might even be demonetizable on YouTube?
The video clip, the meme clip that I'm going to show you, was restricted.
It came from a movie.
All right, people.
Are we going to talk about the Streisand effect?
Like there has been no...
So this is...
I saw this and I thought it was a joke because I didn't know the Dalai Lama actually had a Twitter handle.
Now, I'm also going to preface this by saying I don't know very much about the Dalai Lama.
I appreciate that he is a religious and spiritual and moral leader to some, or the position that is the Dalai Lama that is filled by a human.
And so I'm going to be sensitive to that.
I've seen some of the stuff that people have been posting around about the Dalai Lama, or about Dalai Lamas, or about whatever.
That's not the purpose of my dissecting this.
I did not know the Dalai Lama had a Twitter feed, a Twitter handle.
I thought it was a parody because in this, You had the Dalai Lama referring to himself in the third person of His Holiness.
Is it going to highlight that?
No, it's not going to, which I also thought that was parody.
Anyhow, I hadn't seen the video until I saw the apology, and that piqued my interest.
This morning, was it this morning?
April 10, 2.27 a.m.
Oh, that's because it was overseas.
Dalai Lama tweets.
It's a screen image.
I don't know why they would have done it this way, but whatever.
A video clip has been circulating that shows a recent meeting when a young boy asked His Holiness the Dalai Lama if he could give him a hug.
His Holiness wishes to apologize to the boy and his family, as well as his many friends across the world, for the hurt his words may have caused.
His Holiness often teases people he meets in an innocent and playful way, even in public and before cameras he regrets the incident.
I didn't know what the incident was.
And I saw this and I thought it was a parody.
And then I saw an article.
Where was it?
Where was it?
Hey!
Oy!
Where is the bloody...
Oh, come on.
Here we go.
No, that wasn't it.
Oh, well, I guess I can find it here.
Don't get the punchline just yet.
This is Nate Brody.
I don't think we need to watch the video.
Dalai Lama apologizes after asking child to, quote, suck my tongue on camera.
TMZ.
TMZ is going to have the video obviously embedded in their article.
Hold on, let's just put that here.
Looking at the same thing?
We are.
Saying sorry after a creepy request.
Ask kids to suck my tongue.
Kaolin Dabin TMZ.
Mute.
Gonna keep this on mute.
Is there...
Okay.
Okay.
So the bottom line, though, the video is, yeah, this kid comes up to talk to him.
He's like, does this, like, thing where the kid asks to hug him.
I think...
Here we go.
Can I hug you?
Can I hug you?
So the kid asks to hug.
It's cute.
Okay, skip it.
Kid comes up.
Okay, come.
Kid comes up.
Here, hold on.
Okay, come.
So he hugs him.
It's nice.
It's cute.
Okay.
Okay, that's weird.
And he does it.
Let me pause this here.
They're wearing face masks around the Dalai Lama who is kissing a stranger child on the lips.
Can we understand we're officially living in crazy town?
This is clown world absurdity.
You better wear your face masks, people in the background, while the Dalai Lama kisses a stranger boy on the lips.
Like, I'm channeling a number of memes here, one of which is Uncle Buck.
That's a stupid thing to be doing during flu season.
Hey, it's a global pandemic.
You better wear a face mask.
Let me go make out with a kid.
I shouldn't say it like that.
Let me go kiss a stranger child on the mouth.
Kids are germ bags in the first place.
They need to be.
It's good for everybody around them.
But they're germ bags.
And now you got face masks.
Hey, kid.
Come give me a little kiss on the lips.
Then it gets.
He did it.
Then it goes.
Heads.
Okay.
It's fine.
Now what's going on here?
I have thoughts.
He doesn't bring it back.
The kid's going in and he does not retract his tongue.
It doesn't happen.
Thank you.
I don't know what's going on in this world.
That's the video.
The apology has probably drawn...
Now, the media is going nuts over this.
And I think rightfully so.
Does any...
I have a...
I haven't been able to watch new movies very often, but they suck in any case.
Does everyone remember this wonderful movie reference?
Suck my tongue.
Suck my tongue.
Face off, people.
One of the best action movies ever made.
Now, I do see what people are saying about the dialogue.
I've read articles.
Maybe it's not sexual, it's just weird.
It's just weird.
But he didn't even pull his tongue back into his mouth when the kid was awkwardly incoming.
The whole thing is...
And I was thinking, jokes aside, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in that it's wildly inappropriate.
And I would chalk it up to senility over malice, but then people make the very decent point that as people get older and their brain starts to disintegrate, they lose the inhibitions to do things which they might have done in real life, actually.
So there might be that aspect to it as well.
Why would that even be the thought of a man losing his mind?
Joe Biden sitting around talking about how kids were playing with the hair on his legs.
But it's weird.
Anyhow, it's weird.
So that's making the rounds.
But all that says, I just immediately flashback to Face Off.
I might have to rewatch that movie.
We found our boxes of DVDs.
I've got, I think, 200 and some odd DVDs.
And we haven't unboxed them since our move.
And kids were going through the garage and finding all sorts of crap like this.
Egg that I stole from my parents.
It's a marble egg.
They found the boxes of DVDs, but we didn't have a DVD player in the house.
And so we got a DVD player.
Now we can watch decent movies because I've got them all on DVD.
All right, what do we move on to next?
Let's just...
A fun one.
I don't think we talked about this yesterday.
Did we talk about this yesterday?
Chat.
I'm going a little senile, and if I don't have a method for remembering, I'm going to not remember.
Did we talk about...
Did I play the clip of the new CMO of Anheuser-Busch?
*laughs*
Okay, no.
No, I didn't.
Okay, well, let's do it right now, then.
Hold on, let me see here.
We're still looking at the same thing, because it's fantastic.
It's fantastic to talk about the company you're working for like this.
It's fantastic to frame your job like this.
I'm a businesswoman.
I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light.
And it was...
I'm going to stop right here.
I used to work at all of the jobs that I've ever worked.
I worked at Sports Expert in Alexis Neon on St. Catherine and Atwater in Montreal.
I worked at Black's Camping Store, for anybody who remembers that.
I worked at La Corde, another rock climbing store.
Where else did I work in retail?
It's a pet peeve of mine when someone says, I. Like, do you have a pair of shoes?
I have a size nine.
No.
For me, it's a pet peeve, and I know good people say I. It's we.
It should be we.
Can you imagine?
She said, when I took over Anheuser-Busch, not when we started working together, not when I got the job to work with Anheuser-Busch, when I took it over.
I'm a businesswoman.
I had a really clear job to do.
When I took over Bud Light.
I had a clear job to do when I took it over.
Possession.
Control.
It was, this brand is in decline.
It's been in decline for a really long time.
How did this job interview go?
Look, Anheuser-Busch, your company's shit.
You're going down the shitter.
And you need to shake shit up or you're going to end up a crappy company that has been.
Anheuser-Busch.
Unless they came to her and they said, look.
Our company's shit.
We're losing sales.
Turn it around.
But can you imagine publicly talking about the company that you're working for like this?
Like, if this were the discussion they had in the hiring process, it certainly should not be the public discussion to say, we have crappy products that nobody seems to like.
So instead of revamping the product, let's just rebrand.
Let's do something kitschy to get some attention instead of improving the actual quality of the product.
I'm thinking now of billions.
I just started watching billions with those little Twinkie things.
Look, we're losing market share.
We need to fix this.
Let me go public and say how badly the company's been doing.
And if we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand, there will be no future for Bud Light.
So I had this super clear mandate.
It's like we need to evolve and elevate this incredibly iconic brand.
And what I brought to that was a belief in...
Okay, what does evolve and elevate mean?
It means inclusivity.
It means shifting the tone.
It means having a campaign that's truly inclusive and feels lighter and brighter and different and appeals to women and to men.
Appeals to women and to men.
And how about if your shtick appeals to neither?
Can you believe it?
She's saying this as though Dylan Mulvaney...
Partnering up with Bud Light appeals to both women and men.
I'll say this with the utmost of respect for anybody who thinks differently.
It appeals to neither.
Who it appeals to are ideologues who think that elevation has something to do with inclusivity and that inclusivity has something to do with biological men taking the roles of women.
of men taking the positions of women.
Presentation is sort of the heart of evolution.
You've got to see people who reflect you in the work.
And we had Oh, it's an old white boy brand.
No!
Bud Light had been the fun Bud...
Maybe that's Budweiser.
It had been something of its own, of an all-inclusive in that, I mean...
I judge people who drink Bud Light in general, but it was all-inclusive because nobody was ever focusing on identity to sell or buy Bud Lights.
It's not inclusive when you make it about identity.
Then it is, by definition, exclusionary.
Fratty, kind of out-of-touch humor, and it was really important that we had another approach.
We'll see how this pans out.
But the wonderful framing of it all.
Hey, let me go and publicly...
Dump on the company that I'm working for.
Let me set up a situation in which I literally cannot lose because the company was in steep decline anyhow.
So if my gag of a thing actually pushes people away and kills the company, it was going to die anyhow.
It's not my fault.
I tried.
If the company is not in decline, as she says, or as they might have said to her when trying to get her eager and excited to work for the company, then she can take credit for it.
And anyhow.
So there's a lot of...
And Tim Pool pointed out, if you're into the whole boycott thing, there's a lot of companies at Anheuser-Busch, a lot of products that they make above and beyond Bud Light.
But I just happen to be a fan of good beer.
The only problem is they're all getting bought up by, like, multinational conglomerates.
We used to have a beer in Quebec called...
It was called Unibrew.
They used to make a beer called Mozet, which meant damned, cursed in French.
Femme du monde, which meant the end of the world.
They had Blaspheme, which is blasphemer.
The entire beer was built around, you know, like unholiness.
And it was like 8% to 12%.
It's good beer.
Don't have too many of them.
It's quite heavy and will leave you feeling bad next morning.
They all get bought out.
And all of these products, you have no idea the overarching company that owns them.
It's not the company that you think it is.
Okay.
Now, let's pull this one up.
This is from the post-millennial.
This one I did not talk about for no other reason.
It just didn't fit into the title.
We talked about it at the beginning, trying to criminalize protest when they don't like it, trying to criminalize free speech, trying to weaponize all language to justify surveillance.
I know there was another terrible incident in the news today, and I don't want to talk about it.
But the FBI that...
Every time something bad happens, it seems to be the recurring mantra.
They were known to FBI.
They were known to authorities.
So while all these things seem to be happening time and time again, while the infiltration of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, while the arguable entrapment, in fact, it wasn't arguable because two of them were acquitted, entrapment of the Gretchen Whitmer kidnappers, while the FBI is involved in all of this, ignoring the stuff that actually ends Tragically and horrifically.
They're now trying to flag.
They're going to go to social media now.
We'd like to see all tweets that have certain terms in it because it's racially motivated violent extremists.
In Canada, you have the government doing this and it's called IMVE.
Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism.
That's what the government wants to be flagging now.
Regulating online.
Criminalizing.
They want to control.
Survey.
Make lists.
Investigate.
Spy on.
They want to focus on people who are engaging in ideological-motivated violent extremism.
What does that include?
Well, according to the FBI, slang terms.
Chad.
I still don't know what Chad means.
Based.
I know what that means.
Red-pilled.
Wow.
They're going to have to pull the matrix from the shells.
It's over to target.
It's over.
Sorry, to target racially motivated violent extremists.
The FBI's domestic terrorism reference guide on involuntary celibate violent extremism offer a threat overview for incels that aims to identify them by slang.
Only a few months after it was revealed that the FBI labeled Catholics who attend Latin...
I wonder how they're doing this.
These slang terms, as seen on social media.
Chad, looks maxing.
I don't even know what that means.
It's over.
That seems like something that's going to catch up a lot of non-relevant stuff.
Roasty, no idea what that means.
Neat, no idea what that means.
Normie, I understand.
Blue pill, yes.
Red pill, yes.
Black pill, yes.
Stacy, no idea.
Based, yes.
LARPing!
Well, the people at Mount Royal who LARP every Sunday, they're going to get caught up in massive surveillance.
This is just massive surveillance.
The FBI defines the key terms along with other terms that are decidedly racist and links the slang terms to these racist ideas.
Using terms like looks-maxing, Chad and Stacey will get you on an FBI list for...
Oh, the threat overview goes on to say that there have been five lethal attacks by those identified by the FBI as belonging to this group since 2014.
While they note that the indicators of this ideology, quote, may comprise constitutionally protected conduct, they list a selection of indicators that, quote, may constitute a basis for reporting or law enforcement action when observed in combination with suspicious criminal or potentially violent activity.
I'll give everybody the link to this, and I'm going to post this on...
I hope I didn't just shut down the stream.
Okay, I'm still there.
Here, let me go post this all here.
You can all go read that one.
I mean, people are willingly ushering in a Chinese-style surveillance state for their own protection.
And the amazing thing is, as far as I can recollect, The last number of lethal incidents that actually occurred, the perpetrators were known to FBI.
And I think they were known to the FBI for more material reasons than having used certain terminology in online tweets or social media posts.
This is...
It all happens at once.
This is online surveillance of discourse that's going to lead to investigations, NSA-type surveillance.
It's going to end up ultimately leading to digital currency that might be predicated on good social credit.
You use the term black pill, you might not be able to acquire that purchase that you're looking into.
And people don't appreciate the risk.
The real rock says, I told you all these pills were bad.
People do not appreciate what they are ushering in.
And you don't get it back once it's taken back from you.
Now, I've got to be careful.
I'm always careful with what I say, but my goodness, they've done it in Canada.
And they've used it to demonize people, to then publicly lambaste them as being a part of ideologically motivated extremism.
Diagalon, for example.
They've taken a meme.
They've taken an online community of Jeremy McKenzie, and they've demonized everyone and anyone who had anything to do with it through the networking that people used for support during COVID to demonize them in front of the government.
And now, lo and behold, get out.
Lo and behold, one of them ends up getting debanked, deplatformed, then prosecuted.
And they've been defamed in the public eye where people think of them as violent extremists, despite the fact that they've actually done nothing, violent or extremist.
But alas.
Okay, hold on.
Let me just get rid of this out here.
We don't need this anymore.
We saw that already.
Now we're going to get to the good stuff here.
Riley Gaines.
There's so much to this story that is so wildly offensive.
Riley Gaines is a competitive swimmer, a woman.
Riley Gaines had to compete competitively with Leah Thomas, a man who until recently competed in men's sports, was very average at best, to put it mildly, and then is allowed to compete in the NCAA.
Swimming competition in the female category where Thomas...
Maybe it's not dominance.
We don't want to throw in subjective terminology.
Wherein Thomas takes the positions that would have otherwise gone to women.
I just gave Anna Kasparian a bit of a hard time on Twitter for using the term biological women because to talk about biological women suggests that there's another type of woman that's not biological.
So Riley Gaines went to San Francisco State University to talk about the experience.
She was in front of Congress talking about how she was forced, and other women were forced, to undress in a locker room with Thomas, who is intact.
Thomas has a penis.
Women were forced into a changing room to change in front of Thomas, who donned his penis in front of women in the changing room.
And how long ago was hashtag MeToo?
Can you imagine, like, once upon a time, Louis C.K. was cancelled for whipping out his penis by all accounts consensually.
I mean, I think it was consensual.
It was dirty, but to each their own.
He made jokes about whipping out his penis and asking to play with himself in front of other people who maybe they were uncomfortable and said yes when they didn't mean to.
He was cancelled for what I think, if my memory serves correctly, Was consensual, pulling out his wee-wee and doing things with it in front of people?
Cancel for that.
Because once upon a time, when liberals, Democrats, progressives, thought the progressive thing of the day, the progress of the era was, yeah, you know, exposing male genitalia to females is sexual harassment.
It's a form of some form of assault.
And everyone who's done it should be canceled.
Louis C.K., well, Harvey Weinstein was next level.
We went from...
Pulling out your penis and exposing it to women, even if they are consenting, is a cancelable offense to women.
You're going to look at that man's exposed penis because that man says they identify as a woman, and if you have a problem with that, no more me too, hashtag me too for you.
It's hashtag you're a bigot if you don't want to change in the locker room with an intact male with a penis.
The world has gone...
Bat shit.
I'm sorry to swear, people.
The world has gone bat shit crazy.
And it's an interesting thing about progressivism.
I was having the discussion with someone about a week ago, and I never even thought of the words.
Progressivism, it's always about progress.
It's always about moving.
It's always about finding something new.
Whereas conservatism, being conservative, means conserving certain principles.
So in a way, there's like this diametric opposite where you can't be a conservative.
You can't stick to anything as fundamental core principles if you consider yourself to be progressive.
And so even what were your core principles five, seven, ten years ago, hashtag me too, don't show your penis to women if they don't want to see it, used to be the moral thing of the day, but there is no anchored principles in progressivism.
And so that, what would have been an anchored principle, has now...
We've evolved from that.
Now it's progressive to force women to stare at the penis of a man.
There will be no end to the progressivism because it always moves on from the last step.
Because the last step was not an anchor.
It was a rung of a ladder.
A rung of a ladder to the roof of insanity.
So Riley Gaines goes to a school and starts talking about her experience.
San Francisco State University.
After the speech, she gets mobbed.
And I'll say, this was the part where they're talking about keeping her hostage.
I'll get to that in a second.
She gets mobbed by protesters.
Peaceful, loving, progressive, peace and love, inclusive, except if you defer on ideology.
And I'll say this now and then you can watch it.
There is nothing on earth.
There's nothing on earth, even the most obscene injustices, that could explain away this type of behavior, normalize this type of behavior, or legitimize this type of behavior.
This type of behavior is clinical, it's pathological, and it's beyond a certain legal threshold.
The greatest atrocities of all time would not justify this type of madness.
As a response.
Even if someone responded like this to the greatest atrocity in the history of humankind, most people would look at them and say that person is unhinged, unwell, period.
This is what Riley faced.
Riley, who I don't know how tall she is.
She's muscular.
She's a woman getting berated after having been physically assaulted by a man who I understand was in a dress.
A woman physically assaulted by a man and now being berated, mobbed, and harassed.
At San Francisco State University.
And if you think this is bad, don't worry.
It gets worse.
This is institutional.
And I'm saying that pun intended.
This is an institution at San Francisco State University.
It's institutional.
This is another angle.
This is another angle.
This one goes on a little further.
This one goes on a little further.
Job well done, people.
And then when Riley is holed up in a classroom with police protection for three hours, apparently she missed her flight.
So whoever said this got their wish.
Listen to this.
I'll say it louder just in case you can't hear it.
Make her lose her flight.
Tell her to pay us.
Tell her to pay us and we'll let her go.
She's holed up in a room with police protection because this mob, which now they're quiet, but we saw what they were like before, has holed her up in a room in a classroom for three hours.
She probably got paid for this shit so we can get paid for it too.
On the public campus that we appeased.
So what's the end goal here?
We're all operating so what's next?
I'd like to, please.
What's the end goal here?
I can't speak to all of you when we're over talking to each other.
Don't let her home.
Peace and love and tolerance.
Diversity.
of everything except thought so what we want to do is maintain what we're doing right now and Bear in mind, this is after Riley has been physically assaulted.
Now, by the way, some people are saying this is kidnapping.
Let's do false imprisonment.
False imprisonment, everyone should appreciate the distinction between kidnapping and false imprisonment.
Kidnapping is taking someone away, forcing them to come with you, forcing them to displace.
False imprisonment is keeping someone in place.
Similar, one is a little worse than another, typically.
The term false imprisonment means forcibly, by threat or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will.
That's from Florida.
That's what false imprisonment is, people.
By threat or force, confining somebody.
Riley wasn't kidnapped, but I would think it's not a wild opinion to take that she was forcibly confined and that this was...
Jeez, I just forgot the term now.
False imprisonment.
Make her pay.
It's almost like a hostage situation from people who...
She had just been physically assaulted.
Chased into a room.
She missed her flight.
That's what happened.
That's what happened in reality.
What happened according to San Francisco State University?
It was just a beautiful, peaceful thing.
David Lamas?
Oh, that's how...
Well, see that?
David Lamas.
How funny is it?
These coincidences.
David Lamas, TPUSA, Turning Point USA, college field representative for the Bay Area.
My views are my own.
Click the link below for TPUSA events because I think she was at a TPUSA event.
This is what the San Francisco State University had to say.
Dear SF State community, San Francisco State community.
Today, San Francisco State finds itself again at the center of a national discussion regarding freedom of speech and expression.
Let me begin by saying clearly, you know what's going to happen here?
Let me be clear.
The trans community is welcome and belongs at San Francisco State University.
Whoever said otherwise?
Whoever said otherwise?
Where has there ever been a movement to exclude people who say that they're trans from university?
Where?
Maybe I missed it and there has been a rhino, Republican, conservative, bigoted movement to ban trans individuals from you.
Where has it happened?
Let me be clear.
The trans community is welcome and belongs as whoever said anything otherwise.
Further, our community fiercely believes in unity, connection, care, and compassion.
And we value different ideas even when they are not our own.
Oh.
San Francisco State is regularly noted as one of the most diverse campuses in the United States.
Diverse of everything except for thought.
This is what makes...
I'll go faster.
This is what makes us gators.
This is what makes us great.
Diversity promotes critical discussions.
Oh yeah, that was a real critical discussion there.
New understandings and enriches the academic experience.
I would never send a kid to San Francisco State University.
I would never visit it.
And I would be very, very suspicious of anybody graduating from San Francisco State University based on what I've seen there and based on this response here.
But we may find ourselves exposed to divergent views and even views we find personally abhorrent.
These encounters have sometimes led to discord, anger, confrontation.
How about physical assault on a woman?
San Francisco State University all of a sudden doesn't give a sweet bugger all about women's rights.
We must meet this moment and unite with a shared value of learning.
Thank you to our students who participated peacefully in Thursday's evening events.
I mean, are they thanking the ones who protested peacefully?
In comparison to the ones who physically assaulted and forcibly confined Riley Gaines?
Is it a comparative thing?
Or are they trying to make up reality out of whole cloth that it was a peaceful protest?
Me thinks it's the latter, San Francisco State University.
It took tremendous bravery to stand in a challenging space and beat a young woman.
It took tremendous bravery.
Whoever assaulted Riley Gaines, good for you.
Hashtag her too.
I am proud of the moments where we listened and asked insightful questions.
Did they see the video?
I am also proud of the moments when our students demonstrated the value of free speech and the right.
This is an alternate universe.
This is Orwellian rewriting history that never happened, hoping that the history will be deleted because some people have been deleting that history, and hoping that the rest of their followers, their blind, ideological, ignorant followers, will not go and see what actually happened.
And those who do know what happened?
Might just say, good, she got what she deserves.
She's like, don't come here with that TPUSA stuff.
These issues do not go away and these values are very much at our core.
This feels difficult because it is difficult as you reflect, process, and begin to heal.
Are you talking to Riley here?
Please remember that there are people, resources, and services available and ready to receive our Gator community, including faculty, staff members, coaches, and mentors who are here to support.
They're talking as though the students were the victims of this.
They're talking as if Riley Gaines came in there and physically assaulted the trans community.
The students need the therapy.
It's crazy.
I mean, it's crazy.
But hold on, because it gets even worse than that.
So that was the video we've seen.
Now we see SFSU rewriting the present in real time as though it was...
A peaceful protest.
They thanked their students for listening thoughtfully, valuing free speech, beating a woman, falsely imprisoning her in a classroom for three hours, making her miss her flight, basically holding her hostage.
It took courage to do that, guys.
And I memorialized...
Oh, no, that's right, that's right.
Then this guy who...
I need a screenshot.
I need a screenshot of the screenshots.
Hold on.
I actually know that.
Hold on.
I have the screenshot somewhere.
Not that one.
Not this one.
Yeah, this is it right here.
This guy, Tom Temprano, who had something to do with the university.
I forget what it is, but he put out a tweet that said, so proud of the students at my alma mater, SFSU.
I'm disgusted.
This is after the incident, as far as I understand.
I'm disgusted that a virulently transphobic person like Riley Gaines would be welcomed by anyone at state, but I'm sure her crowd is nothing compared to the actual crowd of students who support trans athletes.
Go Gators.
This is a grown white man telling a woman she needs to look at a man's penis in the locker room and compete against a man.
Otherwise, she's a bigot transphobe.
Can we understand this absolute madness?
This is...
Institutionalized misogyny.
They want to talk about the patriarchy?
The people want to talk about the patriarchy, about men dominating women, telling them what they can and can't do.
This is a grown man telling a woman she's a bigot and a transphobe because she doesn't want to be in the locker room with another man's penis.
She doesn't want to compete in a sport against a biological male, despite whatever medications that person is taking, to reduce the advantage procured to them by their biological manness.
It's like, oh, well, he's...
He's taking medication to counter the biological advantage that men have over women.
And this guy's lecturing Leah Thomas that she's the big...
And he's so proud of what happened.
He's so proud that a mob physically assaulted a woman.
Chased her into a room and had none of her bigotry.
And then one ended up happening.
I put out a number of tweets.
I said, you're proud of this.
And I memorialized that video and tweeted it.
Seems that he deleted his...
He actually deleted his Twitter account.
He's so proud.
What bothers me about this is that nobody should ever harass, threaten, or do anything bad because...
In as much as at the beginning of this video, screaming in the hallway like a frothing lunatic is not the way to make a point and it's not the way you should do things.
Harassing, intimidating, threatening people because they've done something terrible also is not the thing to do because it actually will allow the victimizer to pretend to be the victim.
This guy deleted his account.
I have no idea why.
I can suspect why.
Probably was not getting the most friendly replies for him saying, so proud of SFU for beating a woman.
It should happen more often.
He deleted his Twitter account.
So, that's it.
The internet is forever, however.
Anna Kasparian.
This one.
Is classic.
So again, we go down the Twitter rabbit hole because I get a tweet from Anna Kasparin that says, LOL, the meltdowns over wanting to be referred to as a woman rather than a, quote, birthing person is pretty wild.
I'll never apologize for that except as biological woman who has had a fucking lifetime of being told I'm less than.
I'm a woman.
No apologies.
Now I said as a joke, a tongue-in-cheek joke, you might want to drop the biological woman because that...
Suggests that there's another type of woman above and beyond biology.
So I read this thing from Anna Kasparian.
Then you've got to go and see the original tweet.
There's irony in here.
You can't make it up if you wanted to make up a sequel to Idiocracy.
This is Olayemi Olurin, movement lawyer, political commentator, subscribed to Olurinati on YouTube and Substack.
I guess this was during one of their live streams.
You made, listen to this, this is Ola talking to Anna.
You made transphobic statements, and we spent an hour of our show defending you from allegations of being a TERF, trans-exclusionary radical feminist.
A woman that doesn't want to be in a locker room with a penis is a TERF.
Rather than addressing the substantive problems with your comment, I said it felt like they were coddling you.
I stand by that.
If you think that makes me a hater, knock yourself out, Miss Mamas.
Okay, listen to this.
To mention those without having to classify it as, you know, but you shouldn't get mad at her for this because of her history.
No, I mean, no one's mad at her for her history.
I think it makes sense if you want her to change her mind and to understand what she did wrong.
Because if it's just, without that context...
Hold on, hold on.
Can we appreciate there seem to be four men lecturing a woman on what she has to say and what she has to believe as relates to her own identity?
Is there not a bit of irony here?
First of all, the guy on the top, they look like the same person, Matt Binder and David Dole.
They look identical.
I heard that you do include that context because it's...
She has to understand that these disagreements are coming from an honest place, and we're not just doing it for clicks, right?
That's not the same, though.
I have to say it.
Oh, my God.
I have to say it.
I like Anna, but I feel a little bit like this is the Coddle the White Lady Hour.
Coddle the White Lady Hour.
This is a discussion lambasting Anna Kasparian over objecting to the term birthing person for woman, and...
Ole, in full lack of self-awareness and says, this is all about coddling the white lady hour.
I think you meant the white birthing person hour.
Ole.
I feel a little bit like this is the coddle the white lady hour.
And you know why?
There is no coherency, no consistency, no principles, no morals, no values.
It is about...
I've been, there's people who think it's just about fundamentally destabilizing society, undermining the core pillars of society to make people, I mean, oh, coddle the white lady hour in the context of a discussion that was calling her a turf for objecting to the term birthing person for woman.
Set aside the racist part of this, the coddling the white woman hour.
Anna Kasparian is Armenian.
I think Armenian is...
White.
I think it's technically called white.
Caucasian.
But imagine now.
The revolution devours its own.
That was it.
So Anna Kasparian is now.
Anna Kasparian is now.
Public enemy number one for some.
Even among the left.
Because the revolution devours its own.
Because there are no principles.
It is an ever moving through the endless abyss.
And if you're not prepared to continue moving endlessly and aimlessly, you will become the enemy.
Dude, we're doing good here.
I don't think I can play...
I'm not sure that I...
I'm going to play this.
Has everyone seen the video?
I don't want to upset anybody, actually.
Has everyone seen the video of a...
A homeless, apparently a drug addict, giving birth on the streets of San Francisco.
Is it San Francisco or San Diego?
I don't know if I...
In the ordinary run of things, San Francisco, it would be the most beautiful, wondrous thing.
I'll get a little upset, actually, if I talk about this.
It would be and should be the most beautiful, wondrous event in one's life.
If nobody's ever witnessed childbirth...
I would suggest first listening to the chapter in Russell Brand's book on recovery about the beauty of childbirth and what an absolute surreal experience it is.
um um Okay, I'm not going to play it, everybody.
I'll actually not play it.
I'll just describe it.
Some people are saying, I forget it was a Joe Rogan podcast.
Maybe we're in the apocalypse already.
It's hard to watch this and not think we're in some form of a hell.
Childbirth is the most beautiful thing on earth.
It's the most surreal thing on earth.
It's dirty.
It smells funny.
I mean, it's like you abandon all...
What's the word I'm looking for?
You abandon not all shame, but what is the word I'm looking for?
I don't want to say it wrong.
You can no longer...
You can no longer hold to these standards of cleanliness, of shame, of exposure.
You're not just going to be naked.
You are going to be turned into something unrecognizable.
You're going to do things which, under the ordinary circumstances, would be the most mortifying, embarrassing things, like pooping yourself.
And you're doing it because you're pushing new life out into this universe.
She won't get mad because this is true of every woman who gives birth.
Vaginally, it's not quite the same C-section, but you poop.
A human being is coming through a narrow canal that's so narrow that it puts pressure on your bowels and pushes poop out involuntarily.
The doctors come, they sweep it into the garbage that's at the end of the bed, and they keep doing what they're doing.
And a human being is coming out of another human being.
And there's a moment in time, if the pregnancy goes the way it should, touch wood, poo-poo, that there's a point in time where there's a human head protruding from a woman's vagina, and you literally have, because I mean, the visuals in my head, it'll be in your head for the rest of your life.
It's a thing of beauty.
Two arms, two legs, a head here, and a head there.
And it looks science fiction.
You watch Total Recall, and you see Kawato after this.
You're like, yeah, that's nothing, man.
I've seen a woman give birth to a baby.
It's supposed to be the most beautiful moment on earth.
Pain, triumph, sweat, tears, blood, everything.
The video, which I'm not showing you, you can go to Alex Stein's Twitter feed, and it's made the news, is what appears to be, they're referring to as a crackhead, a drug addict delivering a baby on the streets of San Francisco.
And you have people video recording it, and I don't fault anybody for video recording it.
A, for evidence so that nobody gets accused of anything, and B, it's not clear what else you can do.
People say, you know, get in there and help the woman give birth.
I'm not a germaphobe.
I am a germaphobe.
And there's serious considerations that you have to have when delivering a child.
Cleanliness.
You don't want to hurt the baby.
You don't know if the woman has diseases.
You don't know if the person...
Touching them.
There can be nothing more apocalyptic, Sodom and Gomorrah, and God has come down and turned people to salt, a state of hell, than a drug addict delivering a child on the sidewalks of San Francisco.
Hell on earth.
And that is reality for some people.
And that's reality in progressive towns.
I'm closing it.
It's reality in progressive towns where they've legalized drugs, decriminalized shoplifting, decriminalized homelessness.
And that's not to say that they should be criminalized in and of themselves.
They have created this hell.
And I read an article the other day suggesting that they've created a hell.
Why aren't they giving bus tickets for people to leave like they used to?
Because the people are so addicted to drugs, they go into withdrawal before they can even get home.
Hell on earth.
In the name of progress.
Anyway, I'm sorry.
I hope I didn't get everyone too dark there.
And then looking at that baby.
I'm sorry, I almost forgot the crux of the hell on earth.
Looking at that baby, what chance on earth does that baby have?
Even when people say they have bad parents, even to have parents who are there but maybe wildly imperfect, What on earth is going to happen to this baby?
What chance on earth does this baby have?
This baby is being born from a drug addict.
What health issues is this baby going to have?
What trauma?
What spiritual lasting trauma does this experience of coming into life have on a baby like that?
I don't know.
I like to think you remember nothing.
But there's a part of me that says, my goodness, some part of your chemical, organic being has to remember how you were brought into this earth.
And what chance does this baby have once it's brought into this earth?
An endless cycle.
An endless cycle of madness.
Okay, now I'm angry, I'm upset, and I'm going to go with something that's going to at least make us a little less unhappy, maybe a little more...
It's not schadenfreude, it's just frickin' irony.
NPR apparently is not tweeting from their official NPR Twitter handle anymore.
Out of protest to the fact that they've been labeled state-affiliated.
Now let me see if this is actually true.
NPR, let's see when the last time they tweeted was.
April 4th.
April 4th.
The story looks like it's checking out.
They haven't posted in a while.
Oh my goodness.
Because they don't like the censorship.
They don't like the label.
State-affiliated.
I don't know the degree to which they are state-affiliated, if it's a fraction of a percent or if it's a more substantial percent or if it's a historical state affiliation.
I don't know.
They don't like it.
You know what's really funny?
Once upon a time, they were reveling in the fact that Trump and others were deplatformed.
Kicked off Facebook and Twitter, far-right groups lose online cloud.
This is NPR.
I think the greatest part was in the end here of the article where it said, that's made extremists less visible.
They love it.
It's great.
Boot them from the platforms.
Don't label their handles.
Don't deface their handles the way some of our videos are defaced on Facebook, YouTube with banners.
To learn more about COVID, go to CDC.
To learn more about January 6th, go to Wikipedia.
That type of graffiti, NPR is cool with.
De-platforming, NPR cool with.
Label NPR.
No, no, no, no.
That's an outrage.
That's made extremists less visible on the national stage, but no less of a threat, according to Candace Rondeau of the think tank New America, who has been studying Parler's role in the capital attack.
You have to go to almost every...
Putting together that picture will be challenging for researchers, whatever.
Just the beautiful irony.
They reveled when their ideological adversaries were deplatformed.
They have to suffer the humiliation of a label themselves.
That's a bridge too far.
Now, I think there was something else here.
Okay, that was the guy who nuked his Twitter account.
That's it, people.
I think we've done it.
Okay, there was an article about the Texas homicide.
Yeah, I'll share this so everybody can read it.
This was the article about the affidavit back in 2021 where...
The lead investigator said he was being told to hide exculpatory evidence if you just want to go read it.
There's some rumble rants.
I'll get those in a second, as in right now.
And then we're going to end this and go to locals for the after party and until I get in trouble with the missus.
I saw a one-eyed alligator yesterday.
It was amazing.
Okay, I put the link to locals in there.
We're going to go over to locals, answer some of the locals' tips.
And I'll save one topic for there.
What's the topic that I'm going to save for there?
Hold on.
Oh, yes!
Tiffany Dover is dead.
The woman there, Brandy Brozkova, what was her name?
Who did the five-part miniseries, Tiffany Dover is dead.
Present.
Apparently is doing an interview with Tiffany Dover.
We're going to save this.
So what was her name?
My name is Brandy Zadrozny.
Brandy Zadrozny.
Apparently, she's done a video interview and has photographs of Tiffany Dover.
She keeps reveling in how this conspiracy theory won't die.
She's not letting it die, Brandisa Drozny.
And if she thought that her five-part miniseries quelled anything as opposed to revive them, I don't think she thought that, and I think she knew damn well it didn't.
So let's go to the Rumble Rants for one second, and then we're going to talk about that and other stuff.
On Locals Exclusive.
Here we go.
Boom, shakalaka.
S. Myers, 20. You got the whale symbol.
That means she's a monthly sub on Rumble.
Thank you very much.
Vivi, can you tell me about Robert's rules of order in Canada versus the US?
Is it all the same?
Ooh, I couldn't tell you about it without having to look it up.
I think they are the same.
Because I thought they were international.
Or basically like...
I thought they were basically the same across the board, but I don't know.
I'd have to look that up.
Thank you very much for the support.
Oh, and apparently if you give like a $5 tip, it like signs you up for a month of membership.
You get the, they call it a subscriber badge, a supporter badge, a supporter badge.
MB- $1 says this man, that is a man, 99%.
Hold on, I don't know.
I don't know who you're talking about.
Daddy Crab says they want to criminalize self-defense essentially.
Yeah, we've got that.
And then M- $1, we got all these.
Subscribers?
No, supporter badges.
Thank you very much.
All right, people.
Has anything new happened on Twitter since we've been live?
Let me see here.
No, looks like we're good.
Ooh, I might have an interesting interview coming up.
All right, everybody, thank you.
I might try to go back and see the one-eyed alligator today.