Rebel Roundup： Guests Martina Markota, Sheila Gunn Reid & Ezra Levant
Summary
Rebel Roundup is a weekly show hosted by David Menzies and featuring your favourite rebels. This week, we look back at the fake news story about a white kid in Kentucky who targeted a Native elder, and how the mainstream media covered it up. Plus, Gillette's new anti-toxic masculinity ad campaign, and more!
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Welcome to Rebel Roundup, ladies and gentlemen, and the rest of you, in which we look back at
00:00:04.540
some of the very best commentaries of the week by your favourite rebels. I'm your host, David Menzies.
00:00:10.560
Well, the year is young, but did we just collectively witness the worst example of
00:00:16.480
fake news in 2019? Namely, that story depicting a teenager with a Catholic school in Kentucky
00:00:24.180
being vilified for supposedly disrespecting a native elder. Ezra Levent is loaded for bear
00:00:30.900
regarding the fakery and the fallout. Once upon a time, former Edmonton Journal reporter Paula
00:00:36.920
Simmons was a free press champion. So what happened? Well, she received a Senate appointment from
00:00:43.080
Justin Trudeau, and now it seems that she's taken a vow of silence when it comes to the provincial
00:00:48.280
government in Alberta declaring war on press freedom. Sheila Gunn-Reed shall explain all.
00:00:54.700
And in the department of What Were They Thinking? Martina Marcota will join me to discuss Gillette's
00:01:00.740
new and not so improved ad campaign. You know, the one that suggests that too many men are embracing
00:01:06.100
so-called toxic masculinity, and this is supposed to make guys want to buy Gillette razors and
00:01:13.560
shaving cream. Yikes. And finally, we get your letters every minute of every day, and I'll share
00:01:19.300
some of the letters we received regarding my commentary about the now infamous Tiffany Moore, that
00:01:26.280
freaky femme who freaked out in a GameStop store for being misgendered. Those are your rebels. Now let's round
00:01:42.360
I believe that by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation.
00:01:48.040
I realized everyone had cameras, and that perhaps a group of adults was trying to provoke a group of
00:01:52.840
teenagers into a larger conflict. I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand.
00:01:58.360
It goes on and on, so many details. And you saw the corroborating video for all of it, didn't you?
00:02:07.160
What do you think happened here? Do you think that silent kid was racist? Do you think he was smirking
00:02:14.180
racistly? Do you think he was taunting the man with the drum, threatening him? Do you think these kids
00:02:21.560
did anything more than be a bit boisterous? Would you have been so calm in the face of racial slurs being
00:02:27.400
thrown at you by the black extremists, even against a fellow African-American? Would you have been so calm
00:02:33.240
if someone walked up to you within an inch of your face and banged a drum in your face for five minutes?
00:02:40.360
I would not have been so calm, smiling and praying. You know, this is a version of what they did to
00:02:46.500
Brett Kavanaugh. This is a, this is what they did to an anonymous kid from Kentucky. This is what they'll do to
00:02:51.580
you. And by they, I don't just mean the lying thugs at the Lincoln Memorial. I mean, the lying
00:03:00.000
thugs in the mainstream media, including the lying thugs in our own Canadian media, including and
00:03:10.320
Well, thanks to outrageously disingenuous media coverage, the optics look brutal. A white teenager
00:03:17.460
sporting a red MAGA cap, staring down a native Vietnam veteran, a man who later claimed he felt
00:03:25.060
frightened for his very life after being swarmed. Just one hitch. None of it was true. For it was the
00:03:32.480
Kentucky Catholic school kids, not Nathan Phillips, who were targeted. It was the entourage accompanying
00:03:39.680
Mr. Phillips, who spewed vile racist slurs, not the teenagers. And yet, if you had tuned into CNN or
00:03:48.400
MSNBC or even Justin Trudeau's CBC, the story being reported made it seem that the victims were the
00:03:56.120
perpetrators and vice versa. Just when you thought the mainstream media couldn't go any lower in terms
00:04:03.860
of a biased narrative, we witnessed that. And joining me now with more on this shocking story
00:04:10.580
of media manipulation is our very own Rebel Commander, Ezra LeVant. Welcome to Rebel Rebel.
00:04:16.860
Great. Now, Ezra, here's the deal. Now that it's been revealed that this so-called hounding of Nathan Phillips
00:04:24.740
is a complete and utter hoax, why isn't every single media outlet that reported this false narrative
00:04:33.940
issuing a retraction and an apology? And I'm no lawyer, but I think what was done to these kids
00:04:41.680
was actually actionable. Well, I've seen at least two different prominent American lawyers
00:04:50.420
be retained by either Nick Sandman, the kid involved, or other families of kids. And
00:05:03.140
from what I understand is that they have sent out hundreds of warnings to different people
00:05:10.420
on the internet, even a congresswoman from Minnesota who called them Nazis, who said they were doing things
00:05:17.620
that they clearly weren't, and saying retract or be sued. And I've seen probably a dozen retractions
00:05:24.100
either out of fear of litigation or genuinely contrite that they got it wrong. It is possible to get it wrong.
00:05:33.380
But it's so powerful, the narrative, white kid, a surrogate for Trump because he's wearing a Trump hat,
00:05:42.340
aboriginal man peacefully banging a drum. And you're right, it was all fake. It was like a, it was like actors.
00:05:48.820
I mean, the aboriginal man turns out he was not a Vietnam veteran as he claimed he was.
00:05:55.300
So that's stolen valor. He lied about being taunted by the kids. So he really is an actor. He's a professional activist.
00:06:01.780
This is very important. You mentioned this in your commentary. He seems, Ezra, to pop up in
00:06:09.380
the most volatile situations and making hay of it. Yeah, he was up there at the big anti-pipeline
00:06:16.020
protests in North Dakota. He's done bizarre stunts all around Washington. So he's, he's a professional
00:06:22.100
protester, a dramatic actor who, when, you know, in fact, I know a reporter in Washington who says
00:06:30.260
she sees him everywhere, just perpetual protester. But when the national media saw him for the first
00:06:35.780
time, they took him at face value. So he pulled the wool over people's eyes. In America, their
00:06:39.940
defamation laws are more tilted towards freedom than they are towards protection of reputation.
00:06:46.020
But there's an important caveat in that. If you're a public person, a celebrity, someone who lives and
00:06:54.180
chooses to be in the public eye, a politician, obviously, the threshold to win a defamation case
00:06:59.700
is very high. If you're suing a defamer, you don't just have to prove that they got it wrong.
00:07:06.420
You have to prove that it was malice, that they actually meant to harm you. That's an extremely
00:07:12.260
hard thing to prove. But that standard does not apply to a private person. So if you're a 16 year old
00:07:20.020
boy who's just waiting at the Lincoln Center for his bus back from the March for Life to Kentucky,
00:07:26.500
who does not say one word in public and just smiles the whole time and later says, well, I just
00:07:35.380
didn't want to seem aggressive. I didn't want to seem offensive. I didn't want to escalate in any way.
00:07:40.660
So I just thought smiling. I mean, that's what a 16 year old in an extremely strange, stressful position
00:07:47.060
thought in real time. That is not a public person. And for him to be filmed, named, shamed, maliciously
00:07:55.700
defamed is one of those rare cases in US defamation law where a private citizen will have great power
00:08:04.980
in the courts. I'm not an American lawyer, but I know defamation law as a publisher for many years.
00:08:10.340
And in America, you can say almost anything about a public person. I mean, it's wild. It's
00:08:18.020
the First Amendment for you. You can say anything about Donald Trump, anything about Barack Obama.
00:08:24.100
But a 16 year old schoolboy from Tennessee who did not say a word, you can't go after him in the same
00:08:29.620
way, even if it's scratching your anti-Trump itch. I think there will be, by this time next week,
00:08:36.340
a hundred lawsuits filed. And I say that because I've seen the two lawyers.
00:08:40.820
I hope so. And you know, let's talk about, you know, Mr. Sandman's sins here. He was smirking.
00:08:48.740
Gee, last I checked, I didn't think that was a crime. And more disturbingly, and I was listening
00:08:54.420
to a lot of Canadian radio roundtables, which are, of course, almost 100% co-opted by lefties.
00:09:01.380
And the narrative was this. You know what? You wear a red MAGA hat into the public square.
00:09:06.900
You're just asking for trouble. You're just cruising for a bruising. Almost like this is
00:09:12.180
waving a red flag in front of a bull. And whatever happens to you, you get what you deserve.
00:09:17.300
I'm not making this up, Ezra. That was the narrative. I think this is appalling,
00:09:21.380
especially since what a MAGA hat means to me, it's a statement of patriotism. Make America great again.
00:09:28.340
And it's Donald Trump's slogan. And there's nothing inherently hostile about the words.
00:09:32.980
It's like Obama shirts that said hope on them. You're flying your colors. And we saw a lot of
00:09:39.140
those during Obama's term. We see other political icons on shirts. Che Guevara shirts are popular on
00:09:45.780
campus. You even see Mao Zedong shirts, which are, I think, quite offensive, considering he killed more
00:09:51.780
than 50 million of his own countrymen. Yeah. Like he's the greatest mass murderer
00:09:56.420
of all history. And he murdered his own people. And to put that on a shirt. So we don't believe in
00:10:04.820
attacking, abusing, God forbid, punching, which many celebrities publicly said, punch this kid.
00:10:11.300
Reza Aslan, a CNN commentator, said he's got a punchable face. So if you're a celebrity with a
00:10:16.500
half a million followers on Twitter, and you say, this Nazi's got a punchable face. I don't know
00:10:21.860
exactly. I don't remember exactly what Reza Aslan said. All it takes is one in a thousand people to
00:10:27.220
say, yeah, this guy really is a Nazi. I should probably, like, if you are on Twitter saying,
00:10:31.540
punch him in the face, um, and God forbid someone punches him in the face, I think there is a
00:10:36.980
connection. If you defamed him, lied about what he did, and granted some sort of lie, and one of your
00:10:43.380
followers did it. I mean, you have to be careful about that. But if you're literally exhorting
00:10:48.740
violence against someone, and someone who heard your message did what could be reasonable, I mean,
00:10:54.580
if you're saying punch him, it's reasonable to think that that could lead to someone punching him.
00:10:59.700
Yeah. And, and I think that what I'm excited about this kid is this. Let me say two things about the
00:11:04.980
smirk. I watched the full tape. That Indian elder, which is just a fancy way of saying he's
00:11:13.300
an old man. Walked out, I mean, he doesn't have any status in this community. He lives in Ypsilanti,
00:11:18.420
Michigan. He's just a faker. He walked right up to the kid, actually touched him a few times,
00:11:23.220
and was banging a drum this close to his face. Oh, I know. And the kid didn't flinch, didn't blink,
00:11:28.660
didn't break. I wouldn't have had that composure. So if his smile looked like a smirk, try holding a
00:11:33.860
smile for five solid minutes. And you know, it's funny because I was looking at the book, 1984,
00:11:38.500
by Orwell. And they have a word in there called face crime. Face crime. A face crime is related to
00:11:48.740
thought crime. Thought crime is if you have wrong think. Face crime is if you're not looking happy
00:11:56.100
enough when you're supposed to be happy, or sad enough when you're supposed to be sad. If your face
00:12:00.260
betrays an emotion that is deemed incorrect. That is a word in Newspeak, in the book 1984,
00:12:06.740
called face crime. So this kid apparently is guilty of a face crime.
00:12:10.980
You know, it's astonishing because a face crime does exist in places like the People's Democratic
00:12:16.500
Republic of North Korea, where people were ratting out their neighbors for not looking sad enough when
00:12:22.180
Kim Jong-il's father passed away. How sad that it would come to America. But you know,
00:12:28.420
as I want to talk about the media in the aftermath, some have dialed it back, some have taken down
00:12:34.340
their postings. But others are doubling down. And I speak of two days ago in The Guardian,
00:12:41.780
which is the best fish wrap money can buy. Jason Wilson did a column and it was entitled,
00:12:50.020
How Conservative Media Transformed the Covington Catholic Students from Pariahs to Heroes.
00:12:57.780
He's bemoaning that the narrative that was allegedly correct to begin with, due to right-wing pressure,
00:13:06.100
is being flipped, you know, upside down. Yet we know when you watch those tapes, you make mention of
00:13:13.140
the black Israelites saying the most vile, profane, racist slurs imaginable. And that never got coverage
00:13:22.820
in the mainstream media for some reason. What gives? Well, that's the soft bigotry of low expectations.
00:13:27.380
Black activists are allowed to be racist because don't pick on them. I'm not sure if it was the
00:13:33.220
Washington Post, I think it was, that said the real victims here are the media. But you know what?
00:13:41.300
I think that this was such an unfair thing. And so many people saw it and watched it. And it reminded
00:13:49.300
people of the unfair slurs about Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's nominee who's now sitting on the Supreme
00:13:55.220
Court. And it's a reminder of two things. That the left is absolutely vicious and will personally
00:14:01.620
destroy anyone. From the strongest man, Supreme Court Justice of the United States, to a weakest
00:14:08.820
man, a 16-year-old boy. Good point. And that's their tactic now. And that the media
00:14:15.860
are not about actual fact finding, but they are part of this gotcha activist advocacy. And so much
00:14:23.460
of journalism is, would be really what's called political opposition research. So just trying to
00:14:28.420
land a punch on Trump. The reason that MAGA hat, Make America Great Again hat, was what set this off
00:14:35.380
because everyone thought, aha, this is my, finally my sniper shot that's going to get Donald Trump.
00:14:40.500
For two years, for three years, the media has not done journalism in the traditional sense of
00:14:48.980
reporting the facts and maybe commenting on the facts. The media has done, we must find a silver
00:14:55.860
bullet to stop Trump. It's Russia collusion. It's the election was hacked. It's Stormy Daniels.
00:15:02.100
It's the, I mean, it, every day it's some new and they, for, for three years, it's been fake news and
00:15:11.780
all their scoops have turned into nothing. So many retract, and the retractions in the areas are only
00:15:16.180
one way. They got it wrong against Trump's favor. And I, and it was Buck Sexton, um, a radio host who said
00:15:23.860
the other day in Barack Obama's eight years as president. Can anyone name a single time a big
00:15:32.100
media scoop was found to be an error and the scoop was embarrassing to Obama? The media embarrassed
00:15:40.820
Obama with their facts wrong. They never once did it to Obama in eight years and they do it, do it to
00:15:47.060
Trump every week. Every week. That can't be an error. That can't be random. If, if you're throwing darts
00:15:56.340
and if you're throwing a thousand darts and every one of your darts is to the right of the bullseye,
00:16:03.060
that's not, that's not random. That means you're, you're tilting right. If you're a journalist and
00:16:08.260
you're throwing darts at the dartboard and every single time you're off, you're off in one direction,
00:16:13.300
that's not random. Uh, these aren't random mistakes. And when you've never been off with
00:16:18.340
Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or in this country, Justin Trudeau, that is a sign that the media can
00:16:24.260
no longer be trusted. This boy, Nick Sandman and his, and his, uh, peers, I hope they get a lot of
00:16:30.500
money from these people. I understand that Trump has invited them to the White House. That'll hopefully
00:16:34.500
help redeem them. In some eyes, it'll convict them in other eyes. But I, I think that, um,
00:16:43.140
it was just more proof that you cannot believe a single word the media says.
00:16:48.260
Well, you know, as we have to wrap it here, your commentary was great. What so saddened me about
00:16:52.340
this, you know, Trump's a big boy. This is a 16 year old kid that did nothing wrong and was vilified
00:16:59.620
in, let's face it, it was a hoax. And if there's anyone in the mainstream media watching this,
00:17:04.500
and I know some of you do, if you wonder why you get labeled with the term fake news,
00:17:11.140
well, for 2019, this, my friends, is exhibit A. Keep it here. More of Rubble Roundup to come right after this.
00:17:18.260
Paula Simons posed her article by saying, and I quote,
00:17:28.980
Today, though, we're also faced with community activists and lobby groups who want the government
00:17:35.540
to tell journalists how and what to write to conform to their social values, whether the issue
00:17:42.260
is how we report on suicide or school test results or domestic homicides. But any suggestion
00:17:49.540
that a government should encourage or direct reporters to report in a certain way,
00:17:55.300
starts us down a perilous path. Anyone unhappy with our coverage has the right to complain,
00:18:00.980
to lobby us to change, but demanding the government get involved, that summons the ghost
00:18:07.620
of Eberhardt's press act from the grave. But since writing that, Simons has taken a partisan appointment
00:18:15.380
with Trudeau's liberals to the Senate, approving liberal laws and endorsing liberal policies. Now,
00:18:21.620
despite her claims to be independent, she's still an independent liberal partisan appointee. Despite
00:18:28.980
Simons' past protestations about having the government not become involved in the free press,
00:18:35.140
she now sits as an independent Senate liberal appointed by the same prime minister who is
00:18:41.860
giving $600 million in a media bailout to outlets based on what liberal appointees to a panel decide
00:18:49.220
is quality journalism. Once upon a time, well, about 10 seconds before her Senate appointment,
00:18:56.100
actually, former Edmonton Journal reporter Paula Simons was a champion when it came to those stories
00:19:03.380
involving freedom of the press. But those days are apparently a distant memory because as Notley's
00:19:10.020
NDP government tries to maliciously put the rebel out of business, Miss Simons appears to have taken
00:19:16.900
a vow of silence. Isn't it funny what a cushy appointment, a six-figure salary and a gold-plated
00:19:24.500
pension will do when it comes to somebody suddenly deciding to park their principles?
00:19:30.660
And with more on this story is the host of the gun show, Sheila Gunn-Reed. Welcome to Rebel Roundup, my friend.
00:19:39.380
Always, always a pleasure, Sheila. So, Sheila, it sure didn't take long for Paula to, what's the saying, go native?
00:19:47.940
Yeah, she was sure assimilated quickly into the Liberal Party, or at least the Liberal Party ethos,
00:19:56.740
despite her claims that she's a independent, nonpartisan member of the Trudeau Senate appointments.
00:20:05.700
You know, and I mean, what makes this perversely ironic to me, Sheila, as you noted in your superb
00:20:11.540
commentary, is that she used to be with the Edmonton Journal, and the Edmonton Journal dines out
00:20:17.460
on its Pulitzer Prize that it justifiably won way back in 1938, I believe, when it went up
00:20:24.100
against the provincial government of the day in terms of that government curtailing press freedom,
00:20:31.460
demanding that the paper hand over sources, demanding that it print official government
00:20:36.340
rebuttals to stories and so on. So, the Edmonton Journal justifiably from that time period,
00:20:45.380
they dine out on this, like I said, but here we are in 2019, as various newspapers are going to go
00:20:52.180
on to the government teat at the tune of $595 million. Golly, it's amazing what that sum will do
00:21:00.420
to one's media ethics, isn't it, Sheila? Yeah, and I think there's a real irony here that Paula Simons
00:21:08.020
herself was the author that wrote the article that commemorated the 80th anniversary of the
00:21:15.460
Edmonton Journal winning that battle against the Aberhart government here in Alberta, yet she's notably
00:21:23.540
silent except for saying something like, oh, I find the rebels' lawyer very interesting. Yeah,
00:21:29.620
well, fine. Fred Kozak is interesting, but what do you think about the censorship from the government
00:21:34.580
that you have so vehemently and passionately written about in the past? I mean, the things that are
00:21:39.940
happening to us are some of the same penalties that journalists here in Alberta faced 80 years ago
00:21:47.300
under what was colloquially known as the Press Act. It was escalating fines, court injunctions to stop
00:21:54.980
publications. I mean, none of us are going to get locked up, but back then they were even locking
00:22:00.340
up journalists using an act of the legislature to do it, which I would draw a similarity to us in the
00:22:07.940
fact that they would do this sort of stuff without a trial, without a participation from the accused,
00:22:13.300
which is exactly what's happening to us. And the best Paula Simons, the author of that passionate article
00:22:18.420
can muster is, well, Fred Kozak is an interesting guy and let's see what shakes out of the trees.
00:22:23.380
Like, come on, lady. And Sheila, what does that mean, calling Mr. Kozak an interesting guy? I mean,
00:22:30.980
that's about as neutral a statement as you could possibly make. That's taking neither one side or the
00:22:37.780
other. No, that's exactly what's happening here. I mean, it's pretty easy for someone who is truly
00:22:44.420
principled and against censorship. Someone I thought the Republicans used to be to say,
00:22:50.660
yeah, that's censorship and that's not cool, especially when it's coming from the government
00:22:54.420
and a newly created bureaucrat whose sole role is to censor political enemies. You'd think that
00:23:00.180
that would be a pretty safe bet for anybody to say, but more specifically a former journalist,
00:23:07.140
but she's just not willing to say that. But when you look at her track record with regard to
00:23:11.940
press freedom and government meddling in the press since she's been assimilated by the Borg,
00:23:19.300
I hope you like that sci-fi reference, David. But, you know, like she, she said, oh, I'm against
00:23:26.260
the media bailout because she tweeted about being against it. But did she really pick up the phone
00:23:31.060
and call the PMO? Because she could probably do that and say, I'm against the media bailout of $600
00:23:37.940
million. She, you know, she hasn't really said anything about that publicly except for the odd
00:23:44.020
tweet here and there. And that's just, um, that's just a cop out. Well, you know, to paraphrase another
00:23:48.900
sci-fi saying we're going to prove that resistance is not futile, Sheila, when it comes to this. And by the
00:23:54.740
way, can you very quickly recap, uh, the news that broke late last week, Sheila, in terms of
00:24:00.980
the Alberta Notley government essentially declaring war on us in such a way that evokes a combination of
00:24:09.300
1984 with the star chamber? Yeah. I mean, we've sort of had an inkling that this was in the works
00:24:17.860
since November of 2017. That's when we first got our, we first got a warning letter from the Alberta
00:24:24.980
government from the elections. Uh, I think at that time it was elections, Alberta. And they sent us a
00:24:31.220
letter saying, we have a complaint against you that you're in contravention of elections law.
00:24:35.300
Our lawyer, Fred Kozak, apparently an interesting fella, sent them a letter back. We never heard from
00:24:39.540
them again. And then just, uh, recently since, uh, Kian's big, beautiful fire, David Egan billboard went
00:24:49.220
up, um, on a very busy highway in Alberta, we received a complaint, or at least we heard that the, uh,
00:24:57.780
elections commissioner, this newly created bureaucrat, uh, mercenary, um, had received a complaint. Um,
00:25:05.220
we never got a chance to respond to the complaint. We've never even seen the complaint to say what we
00:25:11.060
aren't complying with, but not only that, we don't need to comply with elections laws because we're
00:25:16.260
journalists, not third party advertisers. We're not advertising for any political party. So these
00:25:20.500
laws don't even apply to us. Um, they find us, um, $5,500 basically for illegal criticism of the
00:25:30.180
government as journalists. And because of that, and because we've never even had a chance to see the
00:25:34.980
complaint, we're challenging it. We're not paying this. Um, and we won't comply with elections laws
00:25:41.460
because we are not third party advertisers. We don't have to stop our criticism of the government.
00:25:48.340
Um, and we don't have to report to the government, how much we spend on things. These just aren't
00:25:51.860
things that apply to us. It is just strong arming, heavy handed censorship leveled at us from the
00:25:58.420
government. And, uh, that's how we ran a foul of not least government. And, uh, that's, uh, something
00:26:04.420
that we're just not going to, uh, lay down and die over because the fines can escalate.
00:26:09.300
They can even get injunctions against us to stop us from publishing.
00:26:12.260
And two things, we could put our head down and submit a check for $5,500,
00:26:16.820
but us fighting it, it's going to add a multiple of at least 20 to that figure, I should think,
00:26:23.700
uh, by using Mr. Kozak. And secondly, Sheila, this is, the parallels are uncanny
00:26:30.980
about what's happening to us and what happened to the Edmonton Journal in the 1930s. And yet,
00:26:36.420
once again, the one person out there who should be blowing a whistle and calling a foul
00:26:43.380
is, as you say in your commentary, hiding under a blanket somewhere in Ottawa.
00:26:47.140
Yeah. I mean, but like you pointed out in the same way that the $600 million media bailout is
00:26:55.700
buying favorable coverage for Justin Trudeau from the mainstream media, uh, patronage appointment
00:27:01.700
to the Senate is buying a lot of silence from a woman who I used to think was a very principled
00:27:07.220
freedom fighter. Although we disagreed on a lot of things. Um, I always thought that she was a woman
00:27:13.140
of principle, but now that she's been snatched up and stuffed into the Senate, um, her principles
00:27:19.140
have gone away. And you know, Sheila, one last question, cause we have to wrap soon, but, um,
00:27:25.220
here's the deal. It's not just her. It's that even other media outlets, even media outlets that hate
00:27:31.860
the rebel should be coming to bat for us based on the principle alone. You know, I've had this
00:27:37.220
conversation with Ezra before when he was the publisher of the Western standard and he had,
00:27:41.940
he was the only courageous person in Canada to publish the Muhammad, the Danish Muhammad cartoon.
00:27:47.540
Um, you had journalists and various media outlets, um, come to bat for his Western standard,
00:27:53.860
even though they appalled it as much, almost as much as they appalled the rebel. I, today,
00:27:59.140
if we were to do that, if there was a Western standard that would do that, I, I know Ezra feels that
00:28:03.940
there would be zero support. Isn't it shocking that in the space of less than 15 years,
00:28:10.260
things have gotten so partisan, so personal that journalistic ethics and principles,
00:28:17.380
they just go out the door now, don't they, Sheila? I think it happened a lot faster than that. I
00:28:22.420
happened, I think it happened in a lot smaller timeframe. If you look at how journalists reacted
00:28:27.380
when Rachel Notley both kicked me out of the legislature and banned all of us from being
00:28:34.820
recognized as journalists by the government, the backlash at Rachel Notley was nearly immediate.
00:28:40.740
It was international and growing. My haters and enemies were even saying that, you know,
00:28:47.620
like this was a bad thing. It's bad for press freedom. It was totalitarian. It was authoritarian.
00:28:52.980
That was two years ago. Two years ago, there were still enough journalists standing on the side of
00:28:59.780
freedom to speak up. I can't really see anybody coming to our defense. I see a few op-eds, but those are
00:29:11.940
from other groups that were themselves fined, like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I don't see any
00:29:17.620
journalists really running to our defense right now. And I think that might be a harbinger of what we're
00:29:24.660
going to see on their editorial pages as we head into the election. If we can run afoul for an
00:29:30.980
editorial opinion, I think they're going to tamper their coverage so that they don't.
00:29:37.620
Couldn't agree more, Sheila. And you know, folks, if you want to support us, because we are not on any
00:29:42.980
kind of government payroll, please visit StandWithTheRebel.com. Make any kind of donation you can.
00:29:49.940
Fighting for freedom does not come cheap. Sheila Gunn-Reed, thank you so much for weighing in on
00:29:55.380
this and another superb commentary by you. Thank you, my friend. Great, David. Thank you so much,
00:30:00.420
and have a really great weekend. You got it. And folks, keep it here. More of Rebel Roundup to come
00:30:04.900
right after this. And this is why the Gillette ad is an interesting example. They act as if there is
00:30:17.700
some wild, wild west of interaction between men and women. Instead of implying that all men are bad,
00:30:24.820
they could simply encourage respect with others through our already developed system of social
00:30:29.140
cohesion that they are so eager to destroy. I think etiquette is important for all people.
00:30:34.260
They are not rules. They are not forceful. But when one does know how to treat others around
00:30:39.060
them with respect, it goes a long way. And it is not forgotten. It can make someone's day.
00:30:45.060
The difference is that politeness is merely formal. Political correctness requires that you
00:30:49.940
internalize the lie. Politeness is telling an ugly woman that she is attractive. Political
00:30:54.580
correctness is encouraging her to try for a modeling job and then picketing the modeling agency if they
00:30:59.620
don't hire her. It is all well and good to be polite in social situations. But when discussing
00:31:05.060
actual policies, politeness must not get in the way of clear thinking. And this is an important
00:31:11.220
distinction to make. Etiquette offers the ability to be honest. And political correctness forces you
00:31:18.180
to lie. Well, they say there's no such thing as bad publicity. But is that really the case?
00:31:25.220
I'll bet you a dollar that Procter and Gamble is suffering from buyer's remorse right now thanks
00:31:30.100
to the sort of publicity they're receiving for the new Gillette ad campaign. Gone and forgotten is the
00:31:36.580
Gillette tagline of olden days. You know, be the best a man can get. Because now, whether it was
00:31:43.220
intentional or not, the new Gillette ad campaign seems to imply that too many men inherently embody
00:31:50.580
so-called toxic masculinity. And wow, what a fantastic way for a company to endear itself
00:31:58.820
to its target market. And with more on the Gillette marketing misstep, I am joined now by Martina
00:32:05.300
Mercota in London. Welcome to Rebel Roundup, Martina. Thanks for having me. Always a pleasure,
00:32:10.740
my friend. Now, Martina, as you state in your commentary, this Gillette ad campaign is more
00:32:16.500
than merely an attack on men. It is also an attack on the very concept of etiquette.
00:32:22.580
What exactly brought you to this conclusion? Well, I'm a big fan of etiquette, the Emily Post guy
00:32:30.180
to etiquette. And I've done some videos before on the topic. And when the Gillette ad thing came out,
00:32:36.420
I was like, yeah, you know, I get everyone's point. It is the way it was. It's an attack on men,
00:32:42.820
sure. And I didn't think I had anything more to add. But the more I thought about it, I said,
00:32:46.900
wait a minute, you know what, they're missing something. And this is what I noticed what they
00:32:51.780
do a lot when they reboot old movies or TV shows and things like that. They're getting rid of the old
00:33:00.020
to implant a new form of ideology that they want to implant within those shows and things. You know,
00:33:07.540
with definitions, they remake definitions, racism is now a whole new thing involving institutionalism
00:33:13.380
and whatever. So I was like, this is another thing because I when I used to have lefty friends,
00:33:20.260
they really hated etiquette. And they thought it was old fashioned. I mean, this is something that
00:33:24.420
feminism has been fighting against is etiquette. They say we we don't need a man to open our doors.
00:33:31.780
We can open doors ourselves. You know, they they really have been pushing to get rid of etiquette.
00:33:36.660
But now they're having this weird way of trying to implant a new form of social cohesion. But we
00:33:44.260
already have one that works. Why are they redoing it? So that's my kind of concept. I was like, wait a
00:33:49.140
minute. This makes sense with etiquette. They're trying to read. What is it called read? Not
00:33:54.020
rebrand. You know, reprogram. They're trying to reprogram that how men should be acting. But we
00:34:00.980
already have a system of respect for women. Well, you know, and I'm with you there,
00:34:05.300
Martina. I'm old school. I guess I'm old fashioned, as the case may be. I'm big on etiquette. I like to
00:34:10.660
hold the door open for a lady. And I've never had the lecture. It's always appreciated. So I just wonder
00:34:16.820
who this lunatic fringe is of feminists that don't want that courtesy done. But going back to the ad
00:34:22.580
campaign, I think what ruffles my feathers, especially since I'm a guy who shaves, is first
00:34:30.500
of all, some corporation with the ostensible policy goal of having an uptick this financial quarter,
00:34:38.980
using the idea of masculinity as being a bad thing. And I say masculinity because I'm not falling into the
00:34:46.580
trap of toxic masculinity. I think, Martina, toxic masculinity is a code word to attack masculinity
00:34:55.220
classic, if you will. And I'm sick and tired of this because the women in my life have always
00:35:01.140
appreciated masculine men. What's your take on this as a woman? Yeah, absolutely. And I mean,
00:35:07.300
well, what you said was was accurate. Like, who are these people that don't want this?
00:35:11.620
And it is a very, very few minority. And that's what we've seen. We've seen
00:35:15.300
the few loud minority make it make a big stink about stuff when it doesn't really represent
00:35:21.620
the majority. And women definitely do appreciate a masculine man. I mean, who wouldn't? Who wouldn't
00:35:30.740
want that? And it should be noted to Martina, as much as masculinity, it's kind of fashionable
00:35:40.020
to frown upon it when it comes to the heavy lifting. And I know in the army and the police
00:35:46.660
force, in the fire service, there are women in those roles. But for the most part, these are still
00:35:52.180
guy things. So if we're in a conflict, if there is a police situation, if there is a fire, it is guys
00:35:59.460
putting their lives on the line. And I don't think the critics on the left at that point have any problem
00:36:05.860
when it comes to being saved by this so-called man embracing toxic masculinity.
00:36:11.700
Yeah. And I think that that's what the ad did wrong. And what they could have,
00:36:17.380
they could have approached the ad in that way where, you know, and in my video,
00:36:20.820
I bring up Desmond Doss and all sorts of virtuous men that really put their life on the line. They're
00:36:27.860
virtuous for women and children and society in general. And I think that would have been really
00:36:33.140
powerful for Gillette to go in that direction, to show virtuous men being as manly as possible for
00:36:40.580
women, for children. And that would have resonated with everyone, I think. That really would have done
00:36:45.860
better advertising than targeting them as innately bad. Because I don't think that's true. I think men
00:36:52.980
I agree. And, you know, Martine, in the Department of Full Disclosure,
00:36:57.460
I use the Gillette Fusion, or I should say used, past tense, because I'm not going to support this
00:37:04.340
company anymore. But, and the reason I use it is that despite the cost and they're not cheap,
00:37:11.780
those are, in my estimation, the best razors on the market. So I'm in this dilemma now of do I avoid
00:37:19.700
the advertising campaign, which I think is appalling, and choose their razors based on merit? Or do I now
00:37:26.580
go to, say, Schick, and maybe their blades are just as good now? It's been a long time since I've used
00:37:30.980
that to make a point. And I guess in the bigger picture is this, Martine, when the financials start
00:37:37.700
to roll in for Gillette, do you think, because that's what it's all about, it's the bottom line,
00:37:42.980
do you think this ad campaign is going to affect sales in a positive or a negative way?
00:37:49.540
Yeah, I mean, it always is about the money. And I think that's what the attempt is with
00:37:54.340
trying to pander to stuff. They think that's what the mainstream wants, and they're going to pander
00:37:59.300
to it. And that's where the money should go. But once they see, you know what they say, they say,
00:38:04.260
get woke, go broke. I mean, they've been seeing time and time again that these kinds of things
00:38:09.540
don't work. So I don't, I think it'll work against what they intended. And they'll probably back off a
00:38:18.900
little bit. I think that's the general direction with a lot of these advertising. They think it's a good
00:38:22.980
idea. They think this is what society wants to see. But once they go broke, they're just like,
00:38:27.540
oh, shoot, it's all about the money in the end. Well, and you know, on that note, maybe the fact
00:38:32.420
is, Martine, I know a huge selling brand for Gillette is the Venus product for ladies, but I'm not sure how
00:38:40.100
many feminists shave their legs. So maybe that's a nice starter. But overall, as an exit question,
00:38:47.860
Martina, all the feedback I've seen by those I respect in the media that weigh in on such issues,
00:38:55.780
my friends, my colleagues, my family members who are male, it's been absolutely negative.
00:39:01.140
Do you see Gillette doing some kind of a, you know, retreat to save face somehow?
00:39:07.380
Or are they just going pedal to the metal that this is what they're all about, preaching to their male
00:39:13.140
customers that, you know, you're kind of piggish and we don't like that?
00:39:18.980
Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting question. I don't know. I think that they might just keep going
00:39:26.340
with it because God knows who they have up in their boards and whoever's pulling these strings. So they
00:39:31.940
might just go, oh, okay, there was some backlash for that. Maybe that's good PR. You know what they
00:39:36.660
say about PR. I don't know. But maybe they're just like, oh, okay. And then they'll just kind of do
00:39:41.460
their normal commercials again. But if they backtrack even more and then say the other side,
00:39:47.540
go, oops, sorry, we were wrong. You know, that small minority, they're super loud and angry. So
00:39:52.900
it'll tick them off all over again. So it'll be this weird back and forth that they really take hard
00:39:58.500
lines. Hey, and maybe for me and thousands of men like me that are saying goodbye to Gillette,
00:40:03.860
maybe when we go and buy the alternative like Schick, maybe Gillette's done us a favor. Maybe they've
00:40:09.780
so upped their game that even my beloved Fusion is now second best. So I'll have to send a thank
00:40:15.620
you note for Gillette for that. In any event, Martina, thank you so much for weighing in on this
00:40:21.220
topic. Thanks for having me. You got it. And that was Martina Mercota in London. Keep it
00:40:26.660
here, folks. More of Rebel Roundup to come right after this.
00:40:37.140
Here he is in his own words. What's really sad is it's bringing so many bigots out of woodwork.
00:40:42.660
But Moore, a local emcee and rapper, isn't letting the memes get to her. She's using her newfound viral
00:40:48.340
fame to raise awareness about the transgender community. And she even wrote a song to get her
00:40:52.820
message out there. We're humans just like you. We're people just like you. We have kids. We have
00:40:58.660
parents. We have brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins. We're just trying to live.
00:41:05.540
As for how Moore handled the situation inside the store with that expletive-filled outburst?
00:41:10.020
Yeah, I could have reacted a whole lot better. But you know what? I look back at it. If I could,
00:41:15.300
I wouldn't change a single thing. I would do it 100,000 times again. I would kick over that display
00:41:20.020
100,000 times again because my actions were justified. I mean, it was blatant and malicious hate.
00:41:25.620
So, what lessons did we learn from the latest transsexual media darling, the oh-so-angelic
00:41:32.580
Tiffany Moore? Well, for starters, ZZ is completely unapologetic when it comes to
00:41:39.460
committing vandalism. And for someone clamoring for empathy and understanding,
00:41:44.900
he or she shows a complete lack of empathy and understanding for the young employee
00:41:50.500
at the GameStop store who was clearly not looking for a confrontation. And this guy gal has no regrets
00:41:58.260
about the incident. Tiffany says he'd still yell profanity and carry out acts of vandalism and
00:42:04.100
try to engage in a physical confrontation with someone about half his size 100,000 times over again.
00:42:11.860
Because at the end of the day, Herman Munster in a miniskirt isn't the problem.
00:42:16.260
Rather, society is. In any event, here's what some of you had to say about this latest episode of
00:42:27.220
It's a bloke and he's the size of a rugger player. Unfortunately, he has the mind of an immature
00:42:34.260
idiot. Well, you're correct, Stella. Hey, if a man is going to go through life pretending he's a chick,
00:42:39.700
maybe he should, I don't know, consider acting ladylike. And call me a sexist if you must,
00:42:46.260
but being a lady doesn't mean kicking over display cases and grunting and swearing and asking a clerk
00:42:53.860
if they want to take it outside. Alexandria Hardy writes,
00:42:58.980
Oh, wow. You really nailed it, Alexandria. Funny how the usual suspects on the left
00:43:07.860
are not all over this brute for this particular brand of truly toxic masculinity. Or is toxic
00:43:16.660
masculinity okay in the eyes of the progressives if a she-male is misgendered? Gee, has anyone written
00:43:24.900
a rule book on all this new age etiquette stuff yet? I sure need it.
00:43:31.460
It's clear in the interview that he is mentally unstable. He needs a psychiatrist, not a dress.
00:43:39.700
Yep, that's how we did it in the good old days. Psychiatric care would benefit the person suffering
00:43:46.020
from mental illness while keeping society at large safe. But insanity is becoming increasingly
00:43:53.140
normalized now. I guess it's all part of that diversity is our strength shtick.
00:44:01.540
Was that Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs?
00:44:05.460
No, Mr. Adam Bick, I don't recall Buffalo Bill being quite that creepy.
00:44:15.060
Somewhere a football team is missing their linebacker. Hey, no kidding. And based on last week's AFC
00:44:21.300
conference final, I think that team might be the Kansas City Chiefs.
00:44:32.100
I wouldn't have an ounce of sympathy for this lunatic.
00:44:38.580
I'd be telling him to get out and never come back or the police would be called.
00:44:45.780
Well, well said, Chibi. And so much for the worst phrase ever coined in the history of retail.
00:44:56.900
Well, that wraps up another edition of Rebel Roundup. Thanks so much for joining us.
00:45:01.300
See you next week. And hey folks, never forget, without risk, there can be no glory. Good night.