Honey Badger Radio

An interesting development | HBR Talk 315

Last week we planned on going to the next 2 items on the timeline this week, but then a couple of days ago, our attention was brought to an article with an we’re not used to seeing from the political perspective of the source, nor from commentators of the writer’s sex. Before we go on along the timeline, we’re going to read through it and discuss what it means to the potential for the MRM to succeed in changing the way selective service is handled.

Duration:: 2h 5m
Broadcast on:: 04 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

Hello and welcome to HBR Talk 315, an interesting develop. I'm your host, Hannah Wallen, here with Nonsense Annihilator, Lauren Brooks, and the personification of Perceptivity Mike Stevenson. And we are going to talk about an article that I found. We were going to talk about some things on the timeline that I've been working on in regard to the history of suffrage and its relationship to the draft. But this article was so interesting that I really felt like we really needed to talk about that. And in fact, I almost preempted everything for discussing the release of Julian Assange, because that has some interesting implications, too. And I'm going to explain that, but I think it's even more important because of the context we're in, how we've been discussing this, and the fact that there is a case going before the Supreme Court, and there is discussion in Congress and everything about this, that we do have to go over this article and add that to the discussion that we've been having about women and suffrage and the draft. So before we get into that, one of my earliest Fred Bill moments was the Julian Assange thing. Because everyone was on his side, every dissident leftist and every dissident rightist was on his side sort of cheering him on as this investigative reporter who was bringing the powers that be to the map, though speak, until he fought with the Clintons. And then all they had to do was go, he raped someone, everyone, oh wow, wow, I do like Julian Assange, but he definitely did rape that woman, and I was like, right, what? And this was back in 2011, 2012, before that whole red pill craze really sat in, and even at that point I was like, wait, what? All it takes is for some Swedish bint to accuse him of rape, and then everyone got, and then everyone changes their tune. They go, oh, well, I'm no longer interested in bringing down the powers that be like ice. So vehemently professed to being interested in now, I'm just like, well, he's been accused of harming a woman, and no one ever falsely accuses anyone of harming a woman. So it was that easy just to flip everyone, not everyone, but a lonely amount of people. Yeah, very alarming. And the flip itself was alarming as well, because it wasn't just, well, he's gone from being good guy to bad guy. He's gone from being a human being with an alienable human rights to you don't deserve due process, because you face an allegation of sexual violence against a woman. So it was quite the serious flip, and it's something that is gendered, it can only be done to a man, because you accuse a woman of harming another woman, and well, now you're in a chick fight, and who do you favor, which chick do you favor? That becomes a very difficult prospect, how to handle that discussion. So it's interesting that not only is he free and people are celebrating, and people have gone back to he was not the bad guy, he was never the bad guy, because it's come out since then, all the information has come out since then, we're not going to go over all of it, but that A, she was coerced into making that allegation, and it was false. And B, it was an allegation of something that we still have debate between people over whether or not that should constitute rape, because we're talking about stealthing, he was accused of stealthing. And what stealthing is, for anybody listening who hasn't heard the term and doesn't know what it is, it's sneakily removing the condom during a sex act, when a woman said that her consent relied on condom use. And it's gendered, it's specifically gendered. If a woman says she is on the pill, she has been taking it properly, and it should be working, when a man says his consent relies on her promise that she is using birth control, and in fact, she hasn't been taking it, or she's done anything to sabotage her own birth control, or she sabotages his birth control. She doesn't get the same accountability level that he gets, he doesn't get the same recourse against her, if she turns up pregnant later on. Even if she admits fully and openly, oh yeah, I wanted a baby, so I did this. She can do that and still not get charged with anything. So it's one area where the accountability gap is particularly stark. Not the only area, obviously, we're going to talk about one tonight, but that's something that I thought was interesting and relevant in regard to that. But the implication that we'll get into with regard to the release of Assange, I'm going to go through and do my little spiel before I say that, because it might actually spark a discussion that's longer than a few minutes. So the idea that he's free now is an optimistic prison of the situation. The first thing that happened was he got out of prison, he was charged, I think, half a million dollars for a charter flight from the UK to, I think, Los Angeles. And he wasn't given the option of flying commercial or flying anything, but this particular flight that he was mandatorily charged half a million dollars. Fortunately, his wife got right on that and started to not go fund me, but a similar thing to get that funded, because if they don't get it funded, I guess they'll throw him in prison again. They're throwing everything they can at him at this point. They're throwing everything, and it's something that they're up against crowd sourcing and crowdfunding, and that's going to be difficult. You can't fight with that, because when you have the public against you, no matter what you do, no matter how many things you throw at the wall, there's more people coming along with magic erasers to get rid of them. But let's move through the spiel first, and then I'll explain what I was. One of the reasons I almost preempted the whole discussion for this. Like I said, we got to do what we got to do. So as always, Honey Badger Radio dishes out a smorgasbord of thought-provoking discussions, and as experiences, both recent and long past have demonstrated that provoked thoughts are fighting back. They've made it clear that for people like us relying on third-party payment platforms like Patreon to fund our work is treading on thin ice, or building our house in the path of a rapidly growing wildfire. In light of this, we strongly encourage our supporters to switch at least their support for us to FeedTheBadger.com, the most stable way to help us out. And if you want to tip us directly, instead of relying on any social media platforms tip jar, the link for that is FeedTheBadger.com/JustTheTip. And as always, the same risk applies to our social media platforms, which I could tell you from personal experience, because yet again, I've been mass false reported by a woman who got mad that she could not use her claim of victimhood as a bludgeon to silence male victims of female sexual violence, and she got all of her friends to mass report me, and I am currently shadow band on Twitter, X, whatever it is. Anyway, so there's that. So we can't count on our social media platforms, which is why you should further provoke the thought police by tracking our thought-provoking discussions on honeybadger brigade.com, which is back up and running, and seems to be working just fine. And there you can find all of our content, as well as a link to FeedTheBadger.com in the dropdown menu at the top of the page, and that's that. And I've discovered that no, I am not talking out of my ass on the blog, which is good because that would really stink. But in any case, now that we have that done and over with, I want to point out, there's some really profound things that have come out of this last week, and the thing with Assange is this. The United States used to be such a powerful entity that they were able to keep an innocent man on ice in in virtual imprisonment and physical imprisonment, basically, for years, for the crime of exposing the war crimes of this country. That is what happened to Assange. He was trapped in an embassy for years, and then he was trapped in prison after that. Not because he committed a crime, not because he was a subject to the United States that did violate U.S. law as a citizen, because he's not, but that he is a foreigner who reported on activities from from this country in a way that exposed our military's war crimes to the world. Any other country would have been destroyed for that politically. Nobody would have condoned that, and nobody should have condoned that. It doesn't matter if we feel like our people or our soldiers or our government or anything was endangered by it, he told on us, right? That was our beef as a country, as a government, because obviously most of the people of the United States did not support the government on this. That's very terrifying that we were able to do that, that our country was able to do that, in the name of people that didn't even agree with the action. That's absolutely terrifying, and now the fact that he is free now, and I realize that free has a little asterisk or in quotes, but it's still a major change, and it indicates that this country does not have the power to just continue covering its ass for doing bad things, and that's important. I've talked about accountability and how women have been spinning their wheels for 200 years because of a lack of accountability, and how lack of accountability has caused women to fail. It's not just a minor factor, you cannot succeed without accountability. You lose everything without accountability, because you can't do the fighting necessary. You can't do the work, the labor necessary to succeed. You can't uphold the standards that are necessary to succeed if you are not accountable, and it doesn't get smaller when you're dealing with an entire nation. It gets bigger. If the United States cannot be accountable to the world for the actions that we take in the world, this country will fall. So it doesn't just represent a success for a songe, and it doesn't just represent a return to sense in terms of what we're doing in his case. It represents a victory for the people of the United States as well, even though it represents a loss for our government, in fact, because it represents a loss for our government. It's absolutely vital that we don't have a nation where the government gets away with doing bad things. That implication is huge, and the other thing is the Biden administration is the one that is really invested in taking this man out. The government that everybody calls the shadow government, which is really just a bureaucracy, there's no shadow there. Everybody can see it. It's clearly visible. We know it's there, so it's not a shadow. They are the ones that wanted to take this man down, because it was the crimes of unelected officials that he exposed in large part, and the danger of an unaccountable bureaucracy in government that he exposed the world to. It's absolutely vital that people are aware of that. This shows that they are scrambling, they may have the power to orchestrate what they want to orchestrate here in the country, but they can't do it to the whole world. They can't keep world support for doing that. Hopefully, that's a crack in their armor. It may not be the biggest, truest, slam dunk kind of victory that we wanted, but it is a step forward, and it is very important to recognize that. Imagine if reporting a crime was illegal. I know that's becoming more and more, less and less difficult to imagine, because criminals are getting away with so much, because they are no longer called crimes, and we're at the point, if you report a crime by a protected group, then you're more likely to get arrested than the person who committed that crime, and you might think that's a new development in the opening window pushing progress of those who called themselves progressive. What happened to Julian Assange happened 14 years ago, and all he did was report a crime, essentially. It's what a reporter is supposed to do, it's what an investigative journalist is supposed to do, report on things, up to and including crimes, up to and including crimes of the American government and its industrial, military complex, and especially of the Clintons. This is how long it has been, effectively illegal to criticize the Clintons, especially in the event that you have receipts, but black pill time folks, gathering around the fire is time for the doctor's black pill course. You might think this will result, now that Assange is back on the case, that this will result in more juicy dirt on the Clintons, but it's pretty unlikely, because he's been locked up for 15 years, most of his contacts have probably disappeared, or being Clintoned, which I'm sure you all understand as a verb at this point, and the man's got to be somewhat deranged from living in what we knew as lockdown, we knew it for a year or so, he was experiencing it for 10 years, and that year was experiencing actual, being locked up in actual prison in Belmarsh, which is fucked up even by English prison standards, and yeah, I would be surprised if he was properly able to function, even as a normal member of public, even as a heart-hitting investigative journalist, it's going to require a great deal of, well, not therapy, but whatever the unfeminised version of therapy is, but either way, he's going to find it more difficult, because I mean, he's going to dive back into, wickedly, I suppose, but the damage has already been done to them, and I'm sure the termites have dined on their infrastructure in the 15-year interim, yeah, there's a reason that this plea deal happened when it did, under Biden of all people, never mind that it didn't happen under Trump's administration, I'm sure if Julian Assange was like a black rapper, he'd have been pardoned by Trump, but alas, he was just the man that got Trump elected, arguably, no, nobody's perfect, folks, we're not here to worship any given candidate, they all seem to have stupid shit they did and important shit that they didn't do, but you ought to find it slightly sus that he was released under the Biden administration, not by the Biden administration, it was by a long and arduous process of people all over all sorts of spheres, sort of demanding that the time to get released, and maybe it's just a coincidence, but I think 14-15 years is about as long as it takes to break a man, I think that's what it is, to break a man and to break all his contacts until the point where he actually does get out of prison, he'll be too broken to do anything, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I don't want to point out, I don't think the Biden administration did this for him, I think that the Biden administration couldn't prevent this from happening, that's the thing that I'm, so what I'm positive about, what I'm optimistic about is, I think it's a good sign, it's a good thing that the Biden administration couldn't prevent this from happening, I don't think the United States is suddenly this great accountable place, but I think that the powers to be here are losing the ability to be unaccountable, and to me that's very important, and it's actually, it's as important as the due process aspect of this, because you can't have due process without government accountability, you just can't, and it's dangerous when you have zero government accountability, so, but we are going to move on to this article, before we get to the article, I want to just run down, you know, this is what we're looking at in terms of the political perspective of the website and the writer, so this website is the Federalist, which is, this publication has been around for quite a bit, and I consider it to be pretty much a conservative publication, and if you look, you know, the headlines kind of give you an idea, they're, they're pro-Second Amendment, they're very much anti-infringement or compromise of the Second Amendment, interpretations that would compromise it or anything, they did, if I remember, I support Trump in both elections, so there's that, and of course they're going to bring up the fentanyl problem here, and we have the, there's a Charlottesville every week, and most Democrats are fine with it, so that's another article that sort of hits the Democrat Party, Republicans keep losing because they're reactive, not proactive, so they want the Republicans to start doing more, taking more action, Alan Bragg loves anti-Semitic writers. I just, that headline, we're going to just say this about this guy, and I'm sure the article makes a case for that, but they, they're not writing that about every prosecutor in, in the country, they're not saying specific things about the social attitudes of every prosecutor in the country based on things that you cannot get away with thinking and believing and, and opinions that you cannot get away with having, just, just the one that went after Trump. So that should give you an idea, if Trump wants to win, he should run with JD Vance, you know, this is, this pretty much a Republican conservative, probably traditionalist conservative type of publication, right? So that's, that's the site, and then we will go to, we have the writer, the writer's name is Joy Pullman, and I know, it's, there's a lot of names like that, name, I mean, I, Hooker is a real name, it's, it's, it's like, you probably have heard of the show TJ Hooker, but I actually, is it someone who makes hooks? There's all sorts of names for tradesmen, who makes specific things. I don't know where it came from. And it factures books. I don't know the, the origins, but I, I do know that, when I worked as a telemarketer years ago, which I did for very short time, and, and then decided that this, that really wasn't for me, it was supposed to be a call center where I answered phones, and provided information, and immediately, once I started working there, it became cold calls, and cold calls are really not my thing. I don't like doing that to people. I don't like it when people do that to me. So I hated that job, and, and I had signed a contract that I had to give them 30 days notice in order to quit. And I didn't know what recourse they might have, or what things they might do if I didn't do that. So I gave them my 30 days notice, and I quiet quit for 29 days. And that was that. So, but I tell you, the, the collapse of the man pulling industry, yeah, there we go. It was, it was the first death knell. So I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll better pull. Especially when it called joy. Do you remember when man pulling involved joy? Those were the days. There we go. Men, women, women, women, women, and old men. But I'll bet, I'll bet that's like from sailing or something. Well, there's you with the logic, making things not smotty. Nope, it's not. It's from, it's railroad. A railroad car affording special comfort is a Pullman. It has sleeping births in it. Those are Pullman cards. So I will bet. This name, this name probably predates that though, because that's like the 1800s. And I'm sure that surname existed prior. They're probably named after that. But, but yeah. Midnight motorcyclists says they preferred hiring hiring women over men for cold calling job. Yes, actually, there was one man and 27 other women in that room with me. And it was, it was chaos. It's, it was the only job I ever had that, that I couldn't find anything about it that I liked. But in any case, so Joy Pullman is the writer here. Oh, I, I, the whole point of that story was that one of the people I, I had on my list one day was their, their name was Hooker. But that wasn't the funniest one. I had another person on my list named Dildo. D-I-L-D-O Dildo. So there you go. So we, we get some weird names here. But Joy Pullman is the executive director of the federal, Federalist. Her new book with a, a regnary is a regnary maybe is false flag why queer politics mean the end of America. She is a happy wife, a mother of six children. Her ebooks include classic books for young children and 101 strategies for living well amid inflation, which everybody needs. Every strategy they can get because we're at, okay, so Richard Beer says George Pullman developed the rail car. So there we go. Pullman did predate that name. I should have known that too. Cause I know I've read that. But who developed George Pullman? His parents. And who developed them? Ah. Her parents. And we're, we're talking fathers here because like we're, we're developing men, right? But yeah, in any case, so this is she's, she's been doing this for 18 years. She has testified between legislature and before legislatures on education policy. I've been on Fox news. And notice they pair her up with Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager. So we are looking at that's traditionalist conservative. It's very much that specific angle, the angle from which we have been hearing absolutely that women are not qualified for the draft. And that it would be a disaster for the country. If women, women entered the military in any great numbers, right? She's, she's talked about homeschooling. She's talked about common core in education, how bad that is and so on. So this is, you know, she has this, this ad for her book here. It says, Joy Pullman brilliantly distills how the radical left to war on family is integral to its effort to destroy America. That quote is from the CEO and co founder of the Federalist. And that's for the why queer politics mean the end of America. She's, this is her latest article, but she's written, you know, about cultural Marxism here. Here is it. I'm like looking, trying to look behind my window at how it shows an OBS. I'm sorry, I keep bouncing up down here. She's written about the, the, this says transgender cult, but I refer to that as trenders because this is something that you didn't see happening very much prior to it becoming a trend. You know, it was, it was something that you really saw a very tiny percentage of the men of the population, even a small percentage of the queer population, that even experienced dysphoria. And among them, there was a minority of them that chose transitioning as their way to deal with it. So for it to have become super common now, and then the D transitioning thing happening, there's obviously been a change that has not been healthy for people who have any kind of gender, a typical behavior. And, and there's been other things we could do a whole show about that and probably well at some point. Alright, so this, this woman's perspective, you can see that she is very definitely a traditionalist, conservative woman. She's not that she's not a feminist. She's not part of the men's rights movement. She's not somebody that we're, we've been working with her anything. She's not like none of that. So before we go into the article, I just wanted to make sure that we had the perspective down that we're reading from. So now we'll get into what she has to say. And the article is titled, If They Want to Vote, Women Should Be Subject to the Draft, Yeah. And I, I saw that. And then I saw it was the Federalist, and I was like, Whoa, whoa, this is nice. This is new. We have got to, when I started reading it, it was a little bit not as based all the way through, but it is. You just have to sort of bear with, she makes some very serious points. And so we'll get into that. And, and her statement here, it's not say it's not fair for women to get same privileges as men without also executing the same responsibilities. So it's the same thing that we've been saying for years. It's made it to a mainstream, conservative, traditionalist publication. And this is, this is the political outlook from which several members of Congress, a few years ago, put up a draft, our daughter's bill, specifically to shove in the face of people that expanding selective service to women would mean women going to war, right, that with the idea of fear mongering, so people would oppose it, and they could defeat the bill in Congress at the time to, to extend the draft to women. So they, they have not all flipped necessarily, but they have gone from this unified, oh, you can't draft women, it would be a disaster, and how dare you consider making women go to war, and women need to be protected and so on, to a woman writing this article. She says, this year's reauthorization of the US military spending includes a provision registering women for the draft when they turn 18, same as men. Under the provisions, both sexes will be automatically registered with selective service when they turn 18, rather than having to personally fill out paperwork or face prison time. Now that's been, there's been news media that has said, that's only gonna happen to men and women might be required, and it's under debate, and all this, but this is what she is saying, and she has links to the, the first link goes to a Twitter account, real Patrick Webb, who stated that, and the second one goes to an MSM.com report about automatically registering men. So she may have it wrong, I'm not sure that they're actually considering making it equal in Congress, but in any case, it would be the right thing to do. Even in our highly feminized culture, women do not support being drafted. Yet of course, many support female preferential politics, if it gets them privileges and, and, uh, signatures instead of responsibilities, such as in sports, title nine, and workplaces, right, title eight. Now that's title seven. Um, I don't support drafting women, she says, because I have moral and natural rights objections to women serving in combat positions in the military. Men and women are different, and part of that difference is the female bodies are that female bodies poorly sustained combat level stress, even ripped women are physically inferior to men, and female soldiers are more likely to get and stay injured, damaging their readiness and lethality of their units. This means more US soldiers dead and injured because of sexual politics. This is something that Ryan said previously, you can be in the army without being a soldier, right, all sorts of possessions and not just sexist ones like nurses, you can be technicians or engineers. There's nothing physically stopping women from being technicians and engineers. Maybe, maybe, uh, evolution doesn't stop at the neck and there is, and there is some, some kind of, uh, cerebral difference between men and women that makes women, uh, not just worse soldiers, but worse technicians and engineers. But there's all sorts of administrative positions as well, but, uh, I, I'm not sure it works the same as the Second World War, but all sorts of women did their bit in, in the Second World War. Um, I can't remember what they were, they were all behind the scenes at largely, um, they were, they were the computers of their day as, uh, touring was busy, um, inventing the first mechanical computer move. But before then, computer was, uh, a human, uh, occupation and, and most of the people, uh, occupied as computers, well, well, it's, it's, they're doing the computing and stuff. So I guess that role is not available anymore because we have machines that are really, really quite good at doing the computing, but there's still, there's something that women can do and not necessarily, uh, stereotypical female roles like nurses or whatever. There's, yeah, just a dog's body at a, at a factory or something, you know, I mean, I, I, I will remind everybody, we went over the roles of men, boys and women and girls in the Revolutionary War in the United States. We talked about the fact, just briefly, we talked about men being drafted as soldiers and how the draft worked. And it wasn't quite the same as it is now, right? Um, but, uh, but it was still, it was still, uh, nationwide and it was still conscription. And we also talked about the fact that it included boys. Not just when we say boys, we're not just talking, you know, 16, 17 year old, the fact that, you know, you were considered an adult at a younger age back then. The youngest was seven, seven years old and brought to military service to do a job that involved giving the marching orders to the troops using a musical instrument that would make you a target for the other side to shoot at with muskets, right, and cannons. And then at the same time, boys were also used as messengers. So they would run back and forth between, between camps with intel. And again, this would make them targets for, uh, for the enemy. And among the enemy were people who were more skilled at guerrilla warfare than anyone who had come to America from Europe because they had been doing it for eons, for generations, the Native Americans that were involved in the Revolutionary War on both sides, by the way, they were different tribes on both sides, um, would not have has hesitated to kill a child of the enemy. And so when I talk about women's roles, I want to emphasize they were not as dangerous. They were not as risky, right, for the women. And they did not do the same. They didn't have the same effect in the war as the roles of men and boys. It was men and boys who won the war. And women and girls supported them. That was what they were and was support roles. There were a handful of women who stepped up above and beyond what other women did when circumstances made it necessary for them, like Molly Pitcher. And when, um, when there wasn't a man to do the job, right, and there was a woman there, and if the job wasn't done, then the cause would be lost. But for the most part, what women did was they tended to the men. They took care of the men and they, they were in a care role the whole time. Everything from making sure that the soldiers on the field had water, which was dangerous. They were still going into an area that was under heavy fire, right? But they were not targets. They would have been if they were hit, they would have been hit as collateral damage, right? But bringing water back and forth to canineers. Women were the ones that maintained the uniforms. And were the ones that did the cooking, right? Women were the ones that worked as a support staff for the medical practitioners that treated the soldiers that got injured on the battlefield. And they accompanied the soldiers in the camps. Many of them were accompanying the soldiers in the camps because the soldiers were their husbands or their sons. And so women can do that. And there's no excuse for women to get out of that. And my position on this is not so much that women and men need to do identical things to make it fair, because I don't think it's fair for men to have to sacrifice in order to achieve that. But for women to be able to get by without any equivalent responsibility at all, I think that's bullshit. And I feel I will always feel like a slacker my whole life because of not having that responsibility. So I have a lot of respect for women who have tried to step up and do it just because they did better than I did. So I didn't do that. And granted I might have been more of a liability than a benefit because of my health. But if I had today's brain in my 16 year old body, I would have gone into engineering and tried to figure out ways to make things, to make battle safer for our soldiers or unnecessary altogether. I could have contributed something and it will always haunt me that I didn't. And I don't think that women should get away with ignoring that. I don't think that women should get off scot free from that. I think every woman should be haunted by that. Because our ancestors and our four mothers did better. Even if they didn't do what men did, they still did better than what the generations that came after them did. So that's why this type of article is important to me. So I do agree with her that we shouldn't be putting men and women side by side and front lines and all that. I don't think that that's the right goal. And I don't think that necessarily sticking women in combat roles is what we need to prove first that that's actually going to benefit men and not be a hindrance to them before we before we do that. Because obviously if it's going to make things worse for men, it's not fairness. It's it's frivolity. So her, she says, more us, we don't need more us old soldiers dead and injured because of sexual politics. And then she goes on. On top of all this is the fact of putting women in the military also increases pregnancy and STD rates. When you put men and women together in a situation of high stress, one of the things that human beings do to relieve stress is have sex. So you end up with more promiscuity, especially if they are unsupervised in some moments. And you also end up with other problems. The more women we get in the military, the more false allegations we get against soldiers who women consented to sex with. And then we're later embarrassed by the fact that they engaged in it. We got to take that into account. That can't be allowed to happen. And it also damages unit readiness because pregnant women are lost to their command for a significant time. Units train together and need every member to function at peak. So losing one person affects all the rest, not to mention that it's terrible for the baby and the mother for mom to have to return to full time military duty just weeks after giving birth. Women and combat should only combine in foreign invasion scenarios, not as the routine order of military operation. Women do not make good soldiers and humane, a humane country would never force women into combat duty. Certainly not in wars as stupid as some of the wars that happened. We've been making the case for women being drafted. But I think we would all fall back on the idea that the ideal scenario is no one gets drafted into a war, especially not some stupid foreign war that has nothing to do with the citizens. In question, like I was previously said, if it's an invasion situation, like your actual own home soil is being invaded by ground troops, then you don't even need a draft. If people can see it happening for themselves, then they will sign up. Americans in particular have been redying themselves for this, for centuries. A war has never taken place in America, so I'll accept the civil war. And as they say, if you invade the USA, you'll quickly notice that there's an American behind every place across with a gun. So you won't even need to sign them up to the military. They will defend their province, or whatever village or town they happen to be in. They'll be there with a gun that includes the women. 1776. Well, I can't hear myself. We'll commence again. Well, I just come to my house. If anybody invades the United States, they would not find themselves in a very good situation. Yeah, but when it comes to plundering other countries in Eastern Europe in the Middle East, no one should be drafted. There's a reason you have to draft them in the first place, because if you gave them their own option, they would say, "Go fuck yourself in a high hat, brother. We're not interested." Yeah, and that's my take on the draft, is that we really should be abolishing it altogether, because all it does is allow politicians in positions of power with no accountability, who do not have to go themselves and do not have to include their families in the draft to force American citizens to fight foreign wars that do not benefit their families, do not benefit their countries, do not present any reason why Americans should be involved, and do not benefit the soldiers in any way. And they're sent to die, fight and die, or fight and kill other people that they would have no interest in killing, because the government has a goal that doesn't align with the goal of the people. If people supported it, they would sign up to do it. And if they're not signing up to do it, perhaps the government shouldn't be doing it. All right, so there we go. But in a scenario where a foreign power invaded the United States, if they decided they were going to put boots on the ground here, they might discover that women can engage in combat if they're cornered, and a woman can be very scary when she's cornered. All right, I've been in that situation, and I have been the cornered woman who turned out to be very scary. So, you know, even even a person like me with all of my flaws and weaknesses can still do serious damage to another person if attacked. And I would feel really sorry for the person who attacked any of my stronger cousins, really. But in any case, we are coming to the butt. She says, but the people leading our society don't care about any of this. Women have been approved for combat positions in the US military since the Obama administration. And here's where we get to a little bit of the meat, right? Not everything she says here is stuff that I like or agree with. But here she's pointing out, you deal with the situation that is. You fight for the situation you want. You push for the situation you want. You discuss, you theorize, you orchestrate, you engage in activism, whatever. But the situation you deal with in the moment, the situation that you take into account when you are deciding what your actions are going to be. That has to be the situation that you're in. Because if you take action based on the situation that you want without considering and controlling for the situation that you're in, you are going to fall on your face. Like right now. She says, my daughters will be conscientious objectors if they are ever drafted because of our religious and natural rights convictions that men are the God designed protectors of their homes and nation. And it's a violation of nature and its creator for women to be soldiers. Now men have had to do that if they did not, if they had moral objections to going to war since the beginning. And there have been conscientious objectors in every conflict that has had a draft in the United States. During the Vietnam era, conscientious objectors were, basically when you're a conscientious objector, it doesn't mean that you just get to go back home, right? You have to, you still are drafted and you still have to perform service. It's just not military service. So when my parents were at university, where they met together, they volunteered. They were not drafted. Neither one of them was in any, had any relation to the military except that my dad's father was in the military. But they volunteered for a charitable sort of missionary type work where he went to Ypsilanti. In Ypsilanti, there was a mental health institution that was, it's particularly famous actually, that was a residential institution. And you could volunteer to go there and do things like sit with people and play board games with them and provide company for people who were in poor mental health, who were residents there that maybe didn't get a lot of visits from their family and stuff. And the goal was just to provide human contact and be a reason why they don't deteriorate further due to lack of non-medical human contact. And it's a thing that happens in residential facilities that if people are stuck there all the time and they don't go anywhere and they don't come into contact with a lot of other people, there are aspects of your mental health that rely on human contact. And you lose things like your communication abilities and your ability to engage with other people back and forth, your ability to explain your experiences, for instance, to your medical provider. And it's painful, right? You get lonely. And so they were part of that. But the group that they went with was mostly conscientious objectors who were going to do these things because they had to. And the government does things like you have to volunteer for this or it's kind of like the work thing they do for people who are involved with the welfare system where you are on welfare then you have to do some sort of "volunteer work." And a lot of times that involves putting things on a shelf at Goodwill or the Salvation Army or going into food banks and helping to hand out food at food banks and stuff like that. So conscientious objectors don't just get to go home and sit around. They end up doing some sort of service. They just don't go into the military. But she goes on. This is the facts. Her daughters won't go to war. She's saying that right now. That said, drafting women is also absolutely consonant with women voting. This is the first time I've heard a conservative Republican traditionalist woman say that. Maybe Ann Coulter might have said that at some point. I don't think I've heard her say it, but it sounds like something that she might say. But this is the first time I've actually seen it in a major publication and seen it accepted like this. Drafting women is absolutely consonant with women voting. I have to wonder if she's going to therefore conclude that if women don't get drafted they shouldn't vote. And I have to wonder if she's going to take another based step and say nobody should be drafted and nobody should vote. This democracy is a scam and it always has been. I know you all want to save your democracy and you don't mean democracy when you say democracy. You mean the hegemonic rule of the democratic party. But I'm out here saying yeah, nobody should vote. Democracy is a scam. It's done nothing but drag us into centuries of darkness. Nobody should be drafted and nobody should vote. We should be ruled by an absolute king who, and I mean that in every sense of the phrase, an absolute king who maybe even has to lead the army. There you go. Maybe that's one of the requirements of an actual king or maybe even an actual queen. But my thinking on this is nobody should be in charge of other people, not in a government sense. It's one thing for a group of people to say we agree with this individual's philosophies and we think that they're good at calling the shots and we are going to listen when they do. That's pretty much the system we have at Honey Badger Radio. It's a system that we have the Honey Badger Brigade. We're not a... People didn't really get hired. We just kind of joined up. We came toward each other and discovered that we were like-minded in a lot of ways. We don't agree on everything, but we agree on most things and many things. We have great leadership in Allison and we work with Allison because she inspires us to. But all of us could leave at any time if that was not the case. And I think that's why this works because nobody makes us do it. We're doing it because we are inspired to do it. We're doing it because Allison's leadership draws us in and gives us the motivation to do it. And I think that we all kind of feel really strongly about these topics. So much so to the point that we don't really care what you think about us, it's the truth that needs to be spoken about. And I think that's kind of what draws us all here. And it works because, just like you said, we want to be here. We're drawn to this. Exactly. And I think you could have that kind of cohesion up to the size of a city, even a big city, where people would find common inspiration from great leaders. And if a person was required to be a great leader in order to maintain that cohesive community, I don't think that we would have the problems that we have inherent to government today. And I don't think people should be able to vote to take other people's property and then do it, you know, like have an entity do that. That's that's something that it doesn't change the fact that it's theft. It doesn't change the fact that it is immoral and unethical, and that it is a violation of the rights of the individual whose property is being taken. It just increases the number of people who are responsible for that, who are culpable for that. And it makes it harder for the people doing it to see their culpability, recognize the wrongness of the situation and make better choices. So, so there you go. But so I'm not, I'm not in agreement that we need to change, that we there's a better system of government, that if we're going to change, my my thing thinking is that we need to look at how much government we can get rid of. That that'd be my preference, right? And then ultimately, I think the next stage of human evolution is going to be toward a system of no government and people taking more accountability for themselves, and leadership requiring that level of accountability. But in any case, as we go on here, she she continues with this. In the Founders era, every voter was required to join in local and national self-defense. As a big part of the reason, only men voted at the time. And now this is where we're getting into the weeds, because I'm going to point out some things. Everybody believes that. Everybody thinks that only men voted in the early United States. That is not true. We have debunked that in previous episodes of HBR talk, right? There were states where only men voted. There were states where men and women voted. Even in the 13 original colonies, New Jersey, for instance, women voted, men voted, minorities voted, non-citizens voted in the early part of the country. We talked about that. We talked about how New Jersey ended up changing that and why. And as other territories gained statehood, some of them gained statehood with female voting already part of their state constitutions. So it has not been a consistent thing in the United States that only men voted and women never did. And it has not been it wasn't in the UK either, right? More men voted than women. But at that time, we're talking less than 4% of the population could vote because of the standards that they faced. It wasn't just gender and it wasn't, it was related to conscription, but it wasn't just conscription. You also had to have a position of responsibility. You had to be employed to the degree of having a certain level of income and paying a certain level in taxes. And when women did that, they could vote, even though they didn't meet the conscription requirement, right? They can still vote. It's just that there weren't as many women who achieved that level of community responsibility as there were men. So where she says in the founders area, every voter was required to join in on local national defense. That's one thing. But it wasn't true that only men voted at the time. But she goes on, so no, it wasn't the founders were wicked, sexist, KKK, like you've been told. Voting is not a natural right. That is probably the most based thing that I have heard a conservative say ever. Voting is not a natural right. It is a civil right. I mean, arguably nothing is a natural right, except that which is given to us by nature, which is life. But that's where it gets controversial, is they're going to have to argue with other small ill libertarians about property rights, whether they are natural or civil. I think they're civil, but because property is an abstract invention of human beings. And almost everything we call a right is an abstract invention of human beings. The only exception, being the right to life. And that is involved when it comes to the draft, because when you're drafted, you essentially lose your right to life, but you palm it off to those who feel they have the office to sacrifice your life for someone else's sake, or something else's. And that's that's really what it should come down to. And it would affect this whole discussion about the draft. If anything is a natural right, it is the right to life, and that's taken away by the draft. Yeah. But voting is a civil right. It comes secondary to the natural right to life. And when I talk about rights, I talk about them from the perspective of whether an individual is justified in responding to an action without rage, right? So for instance, the right to be to not be subject to aggression by other people without cause. That's essentially the non-aggression principle. You don't have cause to be outraged if you act aggressively, if you initiate aggression against another person and they defend themselves. So that's what I'm describing when I describe a right to self defense. And I apply that in terms of civil rights where the government should recognize that it is not unethical or morally wrong for someone to respond to harmful aggression against their person, being initiated, you know, again without cause, by defending themselves, even if their defense results and harm to the person that was aggressive against them. And that's that's my point of view in terms of rights. Are you justified? Did you deserve what happened to you? Was the individual responding to something you did or was the individual initiating the wrong doing? And so in my perspective, if we talk about it in terms of property, if a property is occupied, if a property is already in use, that's ownership. And if somebody takes it, that individual has a right to respond by taking it back. And that's the concept of how you have caused a feel about it and what's ethical and moral in regard to your responses and everything. When it comes to practicality, though, demanding that other people respect your rights isn't always practical. And that's where we've gotten into the weeds in the United States is people have determined it to be impractical to defend their property rights to the degree that we have now normalized people voting to take other people's property because they want it, because this person has more than I do, and it's too much. And it doesn't matter how they got it, and it doesn't matter how I didn't get it. I just want it. I'm jealous. I feel deprived, whatever. And therefore, I'm going to go to take it away from them. That's pretty much an extreme version of treating it like it's practical to be a doormat and treating it like it's practical to expect other people to be doormat on your behalf. And it's really been to the detriment of the country. So it doesn't matter. When we talk about the whole property rights thing, it doesn't matter how you feel about whether or not there's a natural moral right to not share things once you have them. It ends up being a matter of or do you have to use aggression to take it? And why isn't the person justified then in using aggression to take it back? Do you have to use aggression in a course of using aggression? Are you depriving them of something that they need, something that's important to them, something that matters to them? And so on. Because when it gets down to it, all of the other things that we consider to be natural rights trace back to that. If you initiate aggression against somebody else who has done nothing to you and is not a threat to you, you don't have any business being outraged if they respond by defending themselves with aggression. That's why I don't like to get into the weeds of this is an individual natural right and this is not an individual natural right? Well, okay. Forget about the specifics of which things are and which things are not. Which things require you to engage in aggression in order to violate them step across that boundary? Those are natural rights. And which things require the labor of others? Yeah, you don't have the right to demand the labor of others. That's aggression too. A lot of the rights that people claim are human rights fundamentally come down to. I have the right to someone else's labor because of whatever reason. Not even if you're sick, you still don't have the right to someone else's labor. Yep, that's right. Hey, people, I'm half tempted, says Pyro Pardis. I'm half tempted to take off my MRA hat and put on my Georgia's hat with his topic. You need an all-purpose hat, just one awesome hat that means all of the things you believe. I have one and you can't have the U-Shaker. It's mine. Mine is a different hat. And somewhere somewhere in this apartment, I have a fancy crocheted hat with frivolous ruffles that don't do anything around the edge that I made. There we go. So that's the hat that I'm putting on. I'm putting on my fancy hat. We are a hat group. And talking with a hat is a hat speech. Yes, yes. We engage in hat speech on a regular basis. But you know, it could be worse. We could be llamas. No, no, no, llamas with hats. Oh, it kills people. So voting is not a natural right. And it's true. Voting is in and of itself an action that you take in interference with the pathway that a group is taking, right? It might not necessarily be considered an act of aggression, but it is an act of assertion. The difference between aggression and assertion is pretty, pretty easy to understand. Aggression is threatening. Assertion is straightforward that you are, you are putting your foot down, but you are not applying any level of force necessarily. Now, assertion can lead to force, right? If someone, for instance, were on my doorstep threatening to come into my home against my will, and I said, no, you can't come in. And I had one of my big fat iron skillets in my hand and held it up menacingly. That's assertion boarding on aggression. Like I haven't said, I'm going to hit you with this pan, but it's assertion bordering on aggression. If they then try to cross the threshold into my house, that's aggression. And if I hit them with the pan, then that becomes battery and that's violent aggression. So there we go. Not saying, by the way, that if you come to my house, I'm going to hit you with a frying pan. It depends on entirely on whether or not you're welcome here. But there you go. And that's if I don't grab the ceramic dragon first. If you come to my house, I'll hit you with a frying pan, either which way, even if you're a lifelong friend of mine, just as part of the hazing ritual. There we go. Like Fight Club, I'll hit you with a frying pan, like 15 times a day for three weeks. How many iron spiders do you have, though? Hey, what? It's a type of frying pan. All right, well, 12. I will administer them all in hazing you like one. Actually, the thing I'm most likely to do with my iron skillet, if you come to my house, is cook you a pizza because they're the best cooking utensil for making a pan pizza. Great big iron skillet. I have a nice big one. So in any case, she says voting is not a natural right is it is a civil right. And remember, we this has been a long time ago, we had this discussion. I can't remember what number HBR talk we talked about civil rights and laid out what a natural a human right is versus what a civil right is. But a civil right is the standard that is set to enumerate the boundary or define the boundary between the authority that your government has and the autonomy that you have as a citizen. Like, that's the spot where it says the government goes no further. And this is where you have authority over the government. That's your civil right. So voting is a civil right, which means people's rights can be protected even if they don't vote. Women didn't need to vote to have their natural rights secured because the laws and institutions of the country protected those rights from the country's creation through the state and national constitutions and other organic laws that superseded all others. Voting was for people with literal skin in the game. So again, this is a position the men's rights movement has had for decades. Voting was for people with literal skin in the game. Those who voted also had to serve on juries, own property, join a local fire brigade. Fire brigades used to be voluntary. You didn't get hired to be a fireman. You didn't have to take a test to become a fireman because we didn't have community purchased fire trucks and community purchased buildings and a whole system of here's how we organize firefighting. You had you had a volunteer group of people that maybe had a vehicle and when it originally started there were not motorized vehicles. It was horse and buggy and we're talking bucket brigades. There were not fire hoses. There were not any of those things. So yeah, you had to be part of the fire brigade. You could be called into action at any time if there was a fire. Be commandeered into a posse at any time. Little Susie went out to gather berries on the edge of the woods and hasn't come home. All of the men in the community have to go out in the woods tonight and look for her. And when we say men of the community it might have been people as young as 13, boys as young as 13, would be out looking for little. Susie might be 15 and boys as young as 13 would be out looking for her. And if Susie got attacked and mauled a death by a bear there might be a 13 year old boy finding a mauled corpse. That's fine. That's one attack you unless you fuck with them. So don't worry about it. Yeah, I did tell everybody right that everybody always knows the story of me wrestling Caesar the wrestling bear back in college. But I think I did tell everybody I recently came across an article about that bear that in 2010, he mauled one of his handlers to death young men who there wasn't a conflict moment going on he was feeding donuts. So he was just it was just a the type of moment you would have with an animal that you're taking care of. And the bear for some reason unknown snapped and mauled a guided death. So yeah, that's the idea that bears are predictable and safe. It's really stupid. But and by the way, I'm going to plug something that I'm working on. I'm about three quarters of the way through the images on a video as long as Canva Pro works the way I think it works. I should have one done in the next couple of days. So you should be looking for a video that will be titled we have to talk about the bear from me. I know it's it's a little after the fact, but it's something that had to be done and it took me longer to get it done took me an extra month to get it done because I got about halfway through the process and I realized that I needed to actually add some some muscle to the arguments that I was making. So I did that and so I'm almost finished with it now. In a video, it's like a solar eclipse. It doesn't happen often. It only happens when it absolutely has to and cannot be avoided. Yeah, it happened a lot more often when I wasn't working so much, but I love working so I'm not going to complain. But yeah, so voting wasn't just something that people, you know, some people had a right to do and some people didn't and there was no reason. We've been going over this for months, but it's great to see this woman saying this because again, this is not the attitude that we've consistently seen from from trad cons in general and in particular trad con women. Voting rights, she said, did not vest at simply staying alive for 18 years. They were earned through securing the community against violence by not infrequently risking the voters own life. Oh, and I'm skipped and joined the militia any time it was required, which was often and that's true. In early America, there were all kinds of things the militia was used for. It wasn't just if British soldiers showed up and it wasn't even just if there was a conflict between citizens of the the new United States and citizens of the tribes that were in conflict with the with the country. I mean, there was also other stuff and it was similar to the use of a posse. So there you go. In addition, voting was considered a household act. This is something that people don't remember either. Your vote covered your whole family as heads of their households. The fathers usually exercise that privilege, but so did widows who were heads of their households. It's a bit like voting for your favorite contestant and fake brother in any given reality TV show and I say reality with big old inverted corners. You know, any given phone number can only vote for any given person once. It's so it's very to family to see. Not that that's how it works with big brother. It was whichever teenage girl got there first and voted on their family's behalf, which the general loser they would vote to win a game show. And this this sounds reductive in so many ways, but I'm just trying to help you imagine the idea of a family decision because it's so alien to the current generation and indeed the past couple of generations with any reference frame other than the likes of big brother. The idea that the family would have a vote that the family as a family would have a say in anything, but it was it was very much the case for a great deal of human history for as long as there has been such a acknowledgement of a family, which was quite a long time. In prehistoric times, there was no such thing as the family. In the modern day communist nightmare, the powers that be are pushing for a situation in which there's no such thing as a family. But for for all of time before that, people respected the idea that families could come together on a single decision such as a vote or a or a remove in a direction of improving the community and in some in some coherent way. I would say in prehistoric times, there was probably still family cohesion where if you had two people had had babies together, they probably stayed together and remained in the same like they they would live together and they would raise the children together. They didn't have a legal concept of family. It just was a thing that you did. It wasn't you didn't you don't need a government to tell you that that you're a unit of residence and a unit of bonds that don't exist between you and people who are not related to you. It's something that is naturally occurring and it's sort of a given. It's not something that you wouldn't just know. It's yet another thing against government to me. I don't think government should define what a family is. But yeah, so she she goes on with it describing it as a household act as heads of their households. The fathers usually exercise that privilege but so did widows who were heads of their households. So she did acknowledge some female voting. Women voted through the representation of their husband's brothers and sons just like their husband's brothers and sons were in turn represented by those they elected to the state and national legislators and executives and women in terms of women having that representation through their husband's and father's feminists will talk as if you know a man could just ignore what his his wife said and still have a livable environment at home. But I want to remind you that when voting first came around one of the things that we've discussed in previous episodes was the secret ballot is a development of later times right at more recent history. When voting was new and clear up into the at least the 18th and 19th centuries voting was not done by secret ballot. It was done right out in public in front of a crowd of people who could see how you voted because of the method by which the vote was done. So men wouldn't rely on their wife not knowing how they voted because their wife would necessarily know their life their wife might be there when they voted. Women often engaged in the practice of looking on which meant that they attended the vote and they could see not only how their husband voted but how their neighbors voted and how other members of the community outside their neighborhood voted. So people would know for instance let's say the the city of Townsville decided they were going they were going to vote on whether or not to put a fountain in the city park and maybe they have to remove a play area in the park. Maybe that there was a nice big field that the kids were using to to play some kind of game and the city decided they wanted a pretty fountain there and you know one side of the city was full of people that had a lot of money and and their kids could play on their properties and the other side of the city was full of people that lived in apartments and their kids needed a park to play in and you find out that all of the rich people voted for the fountain and all of the poor people voted against it you might find that there would be conflict over that after the election regardless of who won and people would judge based on income and everything where today we would all go show up at the polling place and nobody would see how you voted not only are you not voting by a method that is easy to spot people are not allowed to go and try to examine it. So nobody knows who specifically voted for what unless you answer questions in an interview afterward right and and so that would change the nature of how people respond to the result. And there's probably a city named townsville somewhere in the United States too. Pyro a partist says unknowingly naming an Australian city townsville. I don't know if you're familiar with cartoons from from the US but there's a cartoon called power puff girls that's where they lived was in the city of townsville but but yeah so women women voted through the representation of their husbands and they knew how their husbands voted. It wasn't just something where they discussed it and then they had to trust him to go do what he said he was going to do and they would never have any way of confirming it. That she says is how republican government works which when she's saying republican government she's not saying government by the republican party but a representative republic through representation not direct democracy. The founders new direct democracy usually really means mob government and they didn't want that because it breeds chaos and state sponsored looting through wealth redistribution which um representative government has led to as well it just happened a lot more slowly. I think fully half or more of the federal budget is used for welfare now. Engaged in either paying out to people or paying for the bureaucracy that is in place to pay out to people. You really think about it it's it's um most of the government is involved in in social services. So not imposing voting duties on women was humane because it's inhumane to ask a nursing mother to serve on jury duty when her baby doesn't take a bottle. A position I've been in twice. It's inhumane to ask a young woman to carry a rucksack that crumbles her knee joint at twice the rate of a man's. It's inhumane for a woman to give birth and then leave her baby for full-time physical labor just a few weeks later. So this is that last statement I think comes from a position of privilege because uh I know a lot of women who've had to do that they just didn't go back to the military. They went to work at a gas station or in a nursing home or a grocery store at a restaurant. Maternity leave is for people with money because it's not paid and it shouldn't be. Nobody owes you money for having a baby. Like that's something that a lot of women do not understand. Nobody owes you a dime just because you have made a helpless person dependent on you. That was your choice. Like does the army have um mandates for for women to um to take any kind of birth control? Like you have to put a coil up up his neck to join the army? No okay that that that would be problematic. So in the situation you are it's a simple case of just don't fuck people. No I I get that that's easier for women than it is for men because men can just fuck women and not be biologically compromised as a result of that but the rule is still the same just don't fuck people. I I I guess nobody follows that rule and when women don't follow that rule they get pregnant and they don't follow that rule they just happen to get Vietnamese prostitute pregnant but that's a way in which men and women are different. Can we go ahead and put this forward as as a piece of evidence in the argument as to why it might be ethical to treat men and women differently when it comes to important things like being in the army. And at that point we acknowledge that men and women are different biologically different and the biological sex is a thing. Well we we can express this to a point uh the point where the rubber meets the road is is how many insane trans activists have been put in charge of the army. Yep well yeah you've seen you've seen the state of thing. Sure yeah I unfortunately yeah um if you you all want to know what I think in terms of women and reproductive rights and reproductive behavior and everything uh go to Paul Elam's youtube channel after you've watched this and um find a video called ICMI 20 colon hannah wallin dash reproductive rights and the opponent accountability gap um what I had to say in that video is is um pretty much my whole outlook on this and I I'm embarrassed for women in regard to how women have responded to advancements in our ability to control our reproductive functions because men have put a lot of effort into giving us all of the aces in the deck and we have completely floundered right we wasted them so and I can't say other women wasted them we I did I did too right that's something I'm guilty of so I have my my position on this comes from recognizing my own wrongdoing and how it has affected the people who I love the most in the whole world and what I wish I had done differently for their benefit and uh looking at how other women growing up are put in the same position where they end up being the bad guy in that situation and then they have to watch how it affects the people they love and the worst part about it is that society lies to women about this and makes them feel like they're helpless and and not responsible for the situation so they don't even have the control mentally to say I'm not going to let this happen to my family I'm not going to make this happen to my family I'm going to protect my family I'm going to make things better for my family they don't get to achieve that right that's a horrible thing to do to people it's a horrible thing to do to their family and it's a horrible thing to do to them so uh so yeah I want people to see that and um respond to it it's it's from three years ago but I you know I I stand by all my own videos and this one this was my speech to to ICMI 2020 so the one good thing about um the lockdown was that I was able to actually speak at ICMI I might have a heart attack and die if you put me on the stage but I can make a video so um I have I have to get over the stage fright it's it's there's no cause for it like I'm not actually afraid of a thing it's just there it just I just have the panic attacks when I get up on on stage in front of people I actually am seed something at ICMI 19 and the whole time I don't think my heartbeat got below 150 which is like it felt like it was trying to escape so but anyway um so there there's my take on it I definitely look at that video remember it's Paul Elam's channel and uh it's um it's something that that I think if people understood what I am trying to get across about reproductive accountability everybody's lives would be better and the people whose lives would improve the most in terms of um the outcomes from from that would be children when do we do but when are we gonna drop children hey well that's already been done what wait what well the revolutionary war we started out drafting children we don't do it now well in my opinion like I legally we don't draft children but in my opinion if I I have a met an 18 year old that I don't think of as a child you know I understand there has to be a point in time when we decide people are adults and they can vote and all that but it it has never seemed right to me that at that age people are going to war and it's it's not just wrong that it's only happening to to boys right it's wrong that it's happening we can start with not infantilizing so many people because I'm not sure it's normal for 18 year olds to be considered children I mean it is when it's politically expedient particularly when it comes to referring to college age women as children so that you can claim that whoever raped them was a child right sorry it starts with this no that's where my take on it comes from um if we first the we first the point where we have the oldest children in the world like someone could be 18 years old breaking 21 years old and still not be allowed to to drink alcohol or shoot a gun or whatever it is in whatever country you're in yeah whereas for most of human history people were adults by the age of 14 now that's not necessarily right either um here's here's the thing my my take on this partly comes from the fact that your brain is still developing it still has some of its plasticity at 18 your brain is still not fully grown at 18 and that's both sexes so there are levels of competency that you will develop for the next few years that to me are pre adulthood um differences and and that to me that that indicates that it's too young to be sending people into military service I that's just my I I don't expect other people to agree with me on that but that's my personal opinion like there are things I when I was uh 18 that the way that I handled them just a few years later I could look back and say why didn't I think of this why didn't I think of that well the reason partly was because I lack the maturity and so uh there's some sense there's some common sense in fact for certain limitations extending clear on up to the age of 25 and I would say nobody should be pushed into military service prior to that trained sure you can train 18 year olds you could train 16 year olds and there's nothing wrong with training people that young in fact it might help with their brain development but to send a a person into combat that is at like a senior in high school I think that's crazy but we do it and during the revolutionary war like I said there were soldiers as young as seven years old they didn't carry muskets and shoot people they might have carried muskets actually some of them but they didn't they weren't combat soldiers they were they were targets but um they were not combat soldiers they were playing marching orders or carrying messages and things like that but they were conscripted if not by their communities then by their their parents so she goes on it's um let's see so I stopped at the full-time physical labor thing because that that is a class division right there it's inhumane to place a young woman in a foxhole with a young man four days where they defecate and bake in the sun and are susceptible to barbarians who routinely rape female captives this is something else at the class division I think more women in the lower income echelons are aware that male captives also get raped than any other and and murdered I don't know I don't know if that counts for anything that yeah if you if you're female you might get raped and then murdered if your male you might get murdered well if you're male you won't get raped and then murdered or raped and then murdered now but you'll get murdered in a much more brutal way and raped in much more brutal way let's face it yeah and and uh you're more likely to get murdered whereas a female captive is more likely to survive right not asking young childbearing age women to assume the physical defense responsibilities required to earn voting privileges was not sexism it was magnan and magnan enemy uh magnan and i'm not even going to try um i'm i'm terrible at pronouncing certain words i don't do bad with cinnamon but that one gets me every time and things are interchangeable you you could just say magnum to me and people would know that yours tried to say it was phenomenal but yes men men have been magnanimous toward women for centuries and women have been accusing men of oppressing them the whole time but american women have rejected this magnanimity for about a century those speaking for them have demanded that our government make women do everything men do uh you should should hear me try to pronounce a particular type of sauce i sound worse than Yosemite Sam um well this is a package deal it's not fair for women to get the same privileges as men without also executing the same responsibilities if women want to vote and be treated in every way by our government as if they are actually men that includes being subject to the draft if you don't like it ladies how about start embracing your womanhood instead of continuing to insist everyone treat you like men amen amen sister afleda so i you know i'm i'm excited about this and i'm also skeptical like i have my i'm not going to say that i think this woman is lying but or anything like that because i don't i think this is is definitely her perspective and she is she's right you know women need to shit or get off the pot either you do what men do to earn the rights that men have or you accept that you have fewer rights right coverture wasn't a means of oppressing women it was a means of shielding women from the harsh realities that men have to deal with every day as as a function and a side effect of their accountability man's responsible for the financial welfare of his family the legal status of his family the legal structure of his family and the legal relationship between his family and the state and he has always been responsible as long as a state has existed as long as there have been types of government they have held men and only men accountable for that relationship and that status and that that existence right if a man's family starves he's a deadbeat right it's not he's not a victim of starvation he failed that's the the way that men are treated and if a man is starving people don't help him they assume that if they try to help him whatever is causing him to starve whatever failure on his part is causing him him to starve he will engage in that failure and he will use the resources that they give him to engage in it that's that's why when men need help they don't get help because it's assumed that if they need help it's because they failed at something due to a character flaw or a bad behavioral pattern and any help that is given is just going to fall into that same hole that's what men have been dealing with throughout history it's men who have had to take risks for their families it's men it's the man who's expected to go and confront an intruder it's the man who is expected to go out and earn the resources for the family it's the man who is expected to maintain boundaries between his family and the next family right women are the ones that maintain the connection between their family and the next family but it's the man who says you know yes but you don't live at my house so when it gets dark out it's time for you to go home all right it's the man who says i'm sorry we can't donate to your cause we don't have enough money to to buy our dinner and and he if he has to say that he has to say it with his head down because he's admitting he didn't bring it in enough resources women have never had that responsibility women have never been the ones who get looked at as failures under that circumstance only men and it's only been men who have had to worry that if their country isn't strong enough and another country comes in and takes over their country that their family is going to be harmed by foreigners that have a different way of life than their own it's only men who have to worry that they won't be able to protect their family from that or that they will be called upon to protect their family from that at the cost of their own lives because when that happens women join the dominant culture they just morph into members of that culture and they go along with those rules and they change the way they live and they they take their children with them if the culture allows the boy children to live right and civilization has been built on that and to protect women from having to face those standards from having to uphold that relationship between their household and the government and to defend their families against the harsh realities of the world men took legal responsibility for women so that if a woman committed a crime her husband went to jail she didn't if a woman caused a debt to be incurred by her household her husband had to pay it she didn't and our society took care of widows and children and single mothers throughout history as best it could in any given time it may not have always been great but it was better than what was done for men and then women in the in the 19th and 20th centuries decided to whine about being oppressed and they came out and demanded that all of the rights the civil rights that men had in order to facilitate their ability to live up to all of the obligations they had that women should have those two and all of the restrictions that women faced in order to prevent them from interfering with men's ability to meet their obligations to women those should be erased but men should still have those obligations and our civilization is falling apart because of it like it's dying western civilization is dying and it's it's screaming on the way out you can hear it all day every day the death cries of modern civilization are horrifying and pathetic at the same time and women don't even realize they're strangling it either we have to step up and face the same level of obligation that men have or step back and go back to the restrictions of coverture because you can't have rights without responsibilities you can't have autonomy if you don't have accountability it doesn't exist that way it's like trying to have it's trying to have a lake without water autonomy is predicated on accountability what women have i don't know even what to call it it's privileges and even a good enough word for it because it's not even a good thing for women this has only happened because we have this um we have this system of of uh of mass broadcast communication we have this godhead and it is effectively a godhead tell you women from on high that that they are victims and have always been victims and no matter what happens they will always be victims of men and men are predators and have always been predators and always be what this will be predators and the only reason this nightmare is able to continue is because so many people are hooked into to this propaganda machine that keeps feeding them these lies these fundamental lies they keep getting distracted by all the smaller lies and and they're arguing about how how liey those lies are but they're all still convinced of the overarching lie that the women are victims and men are predators and they always have been and that this is how human race is defined that women are victims of men and men are predators of women and that's all there is it's at one of my street and that's all it will ever be and if we didn't have this machine pumping this narrative into everyone's heads then things would go back to normal i mean people are always always talking about okay what what's going to be what's going to be the inflection point what's going to be the point everyone snaps and women stop being quite so self-indulgent well it's not going to happen as long as long as this nonsense is being is being being done to every television and entry all over the world in fact um women won't revert back to their natural roles as long as they have access to this psycho box in the corner of the living room that's constantly telling them they're victims and and and and that they are victims of men and a lot of people have tried to draw up some kind of doomsday scenario the point of which women will snap out of this and honestly it's not going to be until there is no more tv broadcast it won't happen until there is nothing but static being being being into your televisions um because as long as women are given this uh this broadcast assurance that they are the victims and the men are the bad guys they're going to keep doing this like i've often said it's you know women aren't the enemy the uh the serpent is the enemy and the serpent is the media and the government and and the constant lies that they're beaming into everyone and we like we like to think there's going to be a reckoning but um the reckoning is going to be horrible because it's not going to happen until women are no longer able to access this uh this tower of lies to which they've been subjected over the last hundred years of uh of broadcast media people often blame the internet for how wrong everything is going but good god y'all the internet is the only escape from this nonsense this is happening because of broadcast media well not just because the broadcast media is happening i was going to say it's happening because of communism feminism predates radio yeah it does but um the uh the the convergence of of communism and all its various identitarian arms and the advent of broadcast media i think that was uh that was the hotbox that was the perfect storm the real problem is that um when authoritarians have a hammerhold a chokehold on mass communications mass communication has existed for well well before we've had broadcast before we had broadcast we had the printing press before we had the printing press we had scribes there's always been some form of mass mass communication the only thing that has changed is that it's gotten more rapid and more widely available so uh as as mass communication becomes more widely available and the availability of information and being able to research and judge for yourself is more widely available better decisions are made overall by the the greater part of the community um not just men but women as well but when authoritarians get a chokehold on uh the availability of information and the availability and accessibility of mass communication they are able to control narratives and stupid people and selfish people will not question that and then you end up with very bad mass decision making and that's what's happened in the last couple hundred years probably the best argument out there for freedom of speech and freedom of information so if you want the best decisions from it from people that that make decisions collectively voting is the ultimate form of collectivism right because you're making decisions collectively and then you're abiding by the decision even if you disagree with it um but uh if we're gonna have a system like that the only way that it can work without oppressing people is for information of all kinds to be freely available and for communication of all kinds to be freely available so that people can make arguments and hash out ideas and nobody gets to tell other people what to think without being questioned and challenged and unfortunately that's not where we are right now and in fact uh the powers that be the authoritarians in multiple countries with the support of stupid people are trying to put a chokehold on the internet so that you can't find information and you can't communicate your questions and challenges to narratives that are being used to determine how people are going to vote very scary time in my opinion yes so but i'm still very encouraged even just to see one woman in the conservative spectrum a woman who is not just you know some chick that got on social media like me and started saying things and people started listening but somebody who is in an establishment publication who is central to that establishment publication saying this that's encouraging uh and and um i don't want to make anything bigger out of it than it is because it is still just one woman but uh it is very refreshing to see this so with with that i don't know if you have anything else to add i think we get all right then um i i didn't see any super chats i didn't see any uh rumble rants but i i don't have any super chows on this either so we don't have anything that we need to read off i don't even see um one from merit is g this time around and it's probably because we did we switched back and forth this happened the last time we switched tuesday for thursday but uh i'm not going to be here on thursday so in order to have both shows we switch so we'll we'll i won't see you on thursday um but i will see you next tuesday and it'll be back to the new show on tuesday and and hbr talk on thursday but uh yeah i don't see any superchows um richard beer says superchows but there aren't any showing in the superchow channel then uh flip out of there and come back just to be sure nope no superchows so it's the last thing i see is from the great indoors uh which uh brian already read but i it's punched some slave owners in the face and then flambe them with your raven moon dragon now i have to go find that show and watch it to see what that was about because that's great but with that thanks to everybody for listening to this um i'm uh i'm grateful that you all listen to me go over this article and i hope you guys got out of it what i got out of it and and um i'm interested to see if this influences other traditionalist conservative women and uh what what may or may not happen in the future um as a result of any influence like does this mean are are we seeing the beginning of the tide turning or do you think this is going to be a fart in the skillet um merit is jesus uh she did send uh superchow it'll come through later well that's i wanted to come through now so i can hit it on the show well thank you meredith gi i know you probably said something along the lines of um what you you usually say honey for the badgers and stuff uh but uh oh i'm looking at scrolling up and i don't know if we read this last time or not um last tuesday we got a uh one from from dane conscription is a violation of a basic human right that being a full body violation an attack on men's bodily autonomy and that's a very salient point we taught we hear about bodily autonomy from women all the time when they're talking about wanting to kill their babies but that argument goes out the window when we start talking about conscription all of a sudden they they are no longer bodily autonomy is no longer a sacred right it's it's just something that we're supposed to do for women right but in any case thanks everybody for listening and uh thanks everybody who works in the background make hbr talk happen and thanks guys for talking about this article with me good night all mystery sale they jc penne a presura te la tien de quéves a domingo para lintre que de kupon is doravos mintra zudin putrias aurettrinta quaranta wastas in cuinta porciento extra y sera super suertudo podrias atene la furta jackpot y aurettas a centa dola de cento comprades a centomas jc penne valle la pena entre que de kupon isa la tien la para majores a dice ochuanas kupon balido de luna cuatro de estan selexia amestiros apiens plusonas de teis la tiena