Ep 244 ｜ YouTube Censors Inconvenient Facts
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
181.10332
Summary
Tara Reid has come forward with new sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden, and the media has been slow to act on them. We also talk about the overpopulation crisis in Bakersfield, California, and why it might not be so bad.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. I hope everyone has had a great week. Today we're
00:00:06.200
going to talk about a few things. We're going to talk a little bit more about Tara Reid,
00:00:10.460
the woman who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault back in 1993. She has recently come forward with
00:00:19.520
those allegations and so we're going to talk a little bit about the media reaction to that or
00:00:24.360
the lack thereof. We are also going to talk about the two doctors out of Bakersfield, California
00:00:30.480
who did a press conference with a local news organization. They looked at data and they said
00:00:37.540
based on this data we don't think that these lockdowns are necessary and in fact they might
00:00:42.740
be doing more harm than good. So we're going to talk about that and the censorship of that video
00:00:46.640
on YouTube. We'll also talk about this myth of overpopulation that seems to be increasingly
00:00:51.720
popular on the left and I'll tell you why that conversation is pertinent and what made me think
00:00:56.760
about it and want to have that conversation. First, let's talk again about Tara Reid and Joe Biden.
00:01:02.680
So Tara Reid, junior staffer for Joe Biden when he was a senator, claims that back in 1993,
00:01:09.980
and what I'm about to say is graphic, so if you have kids in the car you might want to fast forward,
00:01:14.540
she claims that he pushed her up against the wall and he digitally penetrated her and when she was
00:01:20.360
visibly shaken, she says that he said, it's fine, it's fine, you're going to be fine, you're going
00:01:24.800
to be fine. So I don't know if this is true. I have no idea if her story is legitimate or not. I don't
00:01:34.860
know. We do know that she is a Bernie supporter and so some people are saying that maybe this is
00:01:41.400
political. I don't know. What I do know is that right now she has more corroboration and more
00:01:49.560
substantiation for her story than Christine Blasey Ford did. She has friends who said,
00:01:56.800
oh yeah, she told us about this in the 90s when this happened. Her brother says, oh yeah,
00:02:01.320
she told me about this and he says that he stupidly told her not to go forward. Her mom says, yeah,
00:02:08.160
she told me about this and her mom actually called Larry King and told him about it. Of course,
00:02:14.740
didn't say her name and didn't say Joe Biden's name, but said this happened and she had a hard time,
00:02:19.440
knowing what to do because she didn't want to ruin the senator's reputation. She also filed a police
00:02:25.140
report. So based on all of this, she has a lot more credibility right now than Christine Blasey
00:02:31.540
Ford did. And yet the media ran forward with the Christine Blasey Ford story, with the Julie
00:02:35.800
Swetnick story, with the Deborah Ramirez story against Kavanaugh without any substantiation,
00:02:42.840
without any corroboration whatsoever. And even with all of the inherent contradictions within the
00:02:48.440
Christine Blasey Ford story. If you need a refresher on all of that, I talked about Kavanaugh a lot.
00:02:56.060
I mean, that, like I've said, that was a turning point for me when I realized just how ruthless
00:02:59.900
and how cruel people can be in Washington and in the media and in Hollywood, like Alyssa Milano,
00:03:04.960
in ruining someone's life based on unsubstantiated allegations, just because it suits them politically.
00:03:11.200
I mean, that completely opened my eyes to the evil and corruption that exists in all sorts of
00:03:18.440
institutions in America, especially when it comes to politics. So the media ran with that story 100%.
00:03:25.740
And oh, like I said, I talked about that a lot. Podcast episode, I think it's titled Before Believing
00:03:31.220
Kavanaugh's Accuser. So if you need like a refresher on the facts of that case, you can go back and listen
00:03:36.460
to that. But the media ran with that full speed ahead without really even checking. And even though
00:03:42.120
they knew that it lacked corroboration, they talked about it, they reported on it like it was absolute
00:03:48.960
truth and they hailed Christine Blasey Ford as a hero. And yet when it comes to Tara Reid, who has all
00:03:54.200
of these people saying, oh yeah, I remember her talking about that. Even though there's a lot more
00:03:59.380
corroboration to her story, the New York Times waited 19 days before saying anything about it. And here are
00:04:05.200
some of the headlines that we see when it comes to these allegations, because the Washington Post,
00:04:11.780
CNN, they also waited several days after the New York Times piece, after these allegations originally
00:04:18.480
came out to say anything about it, to report on it at all. There was not that kind of patience,
00:04:23.200
that benefit of the doubt, that really investigative rigor when it came to Kavanaugh. So the Washington
00:04:29.320
Post, here's their headline about it. Trump allies highlight new claims regarding
00:04:34.900
allegations against Biden. So that's the headline. Not a former staffer accuses Biden of sexual assault
00:04:42.760
or Biden accused of sexual assault. Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against
00:04:49.920
Biden. So I don't know how familiar you are with like conservative Twitter and conservative online
00:04:55.600
conversations, but there's this joke. It's a joke, but it's not. It points to something serious.
00:05:01.280
And the joke is conservatives pounce because it, it seems like every time there's a negative story
00:05:07.780
about a Democrat, every time there's a negative story about a liberal, the headline in these left
00:05:13.700
wing media, media outlets like the Washington Post is never what the Democrat did wrong. So say for
00:05:21.100
example, Maxine Waters stole $1 million from her next door neighbor, whatever it is. And conservatives
00:05:30.100
went on Twitter and they say, wow, look, Maxine Waters stole a million dollars from her next door
00:05:36.720
neighbor. That's like, that's pretty bad. The media should probably start reporting on that. Look at this
00:05:41.060
local police report. I can't believe Nancy or Maxine Waters did this. The headline in the Washington
00:05:46.740
Post in this, this is obviously not a real scenario that happens, but the headline in the Washington
00:05:52.240
Post would be conservatives pounce on Maxine Waters based on allegations of theft or whatever it is.
00:06:02.240
The story ends up being conservative reaction, conservatives pouncing rather than what the
00:06:08.920
Democrat actually did wrong. And this headline is a perfect example of that. So the Washington Post
00:06:13.720
reports that Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden before the Washington
00:06:19.400
Post actually reports the allegations against Joe Biden. CNN, one of their headlines was why Biden needs
00:06:26.900
to personally address Tara Reid allegations. Again, the headline, the first headline wasn't that
00:06:33.140
Biden has these allegations or that Tara Reid has come up with a very credible story based on the
00:06:39.840
corroboration that we have right now against Joe Biden. It's that, you know, Biden, he really needs to
00:06:45.920
address this. So already preemptively giving him the benefit of the doubt that they did not afford to
00:06:53.120
Kavanaugh. Ruth Marcus, she wrote an entire book on why Kavanaugh is guilty of the accusations that,
00:06:59.600
like I've said, were uncorroborated, were unsubstantiated, unproven and contradictory.
00:07:05.520
She says that Tara Reid's accusations, which were reported at the time that they happened and told to
00:07:11.520
friends and a mother, she said that they probably didn't happen. So here's what Ruth Marcus says.
00:07:17.220
Oh, by the way, she works for the Washington Post. The likelihood of definitive proof one way or
00:07:23.380
another seems frustratingly low. My gut says, here's what she says, wrote an entire book, this editor for
00:07:30.040
the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus on why Kavanaugh is definitely guilty, wrote an entire book on that.
00:07:35.880
She says, my gut says that what Reid alleges did not happen. Her gut says that. Okay. My head instructs
00:07:44.640
that it is within the realm of possibility and fairness requires acknowledging that. And there's
00:07:49.880
another point to bear in mind. Double standards work in both directions. Those who disbelieved and
00:07:55.120
diminished Christine Blasey Ford face the challenge of explaining why they seem so much more eager to
00:08:01.080
credit Tara Reid's account. Okay. So you're comparing like random people on Twitter. So me,
00:08:07.580
you're comparing podcasters reaction, maybe to Christine, uh, to Christine Blasey Ford to this,
00:08:14.560
uh, journalistic institution that is supposed to remain unbiased and to report the facts, which of
00:08:20.480
course we know the Washington Post does not do that. Neither does the New York times. And so
00:08:24.720
who, like who, uh, what other media outlet, uh, cast doubt on Christine Blasey Ford that is
00:08:33.080
automatically and immediately accepting Tara Reid story. I don't think that actually exists. And
00:08:38.580
for the record, I did not cast doubt on Christine Blasey Ford simply because she was accusing the nominee
00:08:48.000
for the Supreme court, uh, that was nominated by the president that I voted for. That is not why it's
00:08:54.000
because she didn't have any substantiation or corroboration. Like, I don't know how many times
00:08:57.820
I have to say that she asks us, Ruth Marcus, uh, asks us to explain our reasoning. That's our
00:09:03.100
reasoning because there's more corroboration for this story. Like I don't want to, I don't want to
00:09:10.160
set a precedent no matter who it is to just believe accusers, no matter what, based on absolutely
00:09:16.400
nothing. I don't care if someone's accusing a Republican or a Democrat, that's not a precedent.
00:09:21.160
I want to set. I do want people to be innocent until proven guilty. I want there to be due
00:09:26.160
process. I want there to be questioning and I want there to be investigation. That's what
00:09:30.420
journalists are for. But when you have this journalist, when you have this editor for the
00:09:34.960
Washington post that did not afford the same benefit of the doubt and the innocent until proven
00:09:39.500
guilty mentality, when it came to Kavanaugh saying that her gut tells her that it didn't happen
00:09:45.400
based on who knows what, I don't know why her gut is telling her that then yeah, you have
00:09:52.260
a lot of people, uh, questioning whether or not, like not only are we questioning whether
00:09:58.900
or not we're able to trust the media, but also if there isn't some kind of other political
00:10:05.580
motivation behind downplaying these allegations. Um, I don't know. Like I said, if this happened,
00:10:13.060
I don't know. I am willing to say that there should be vetting. There should be questioning,
00:10:17.680
but let's start with Joe Biden. Like he was on the news multiple times over the weekend.
00:10:22.780
Over the past few days, he did not receive one question about it. There were several senators
00:10:26.740
who did not get questioned about it. It's beyond parody. And you wonder if at this point,
00:10:31.340
the media is just accepting, are they just accepting that they're biased? Are they just accepting
00:10:36.440
that they are propaganda arm of the DNC? Or is there something in their head where they're
00:10:41.540
truly convincing themselves that they are unbiased and that they're objective? I don't know. I'm not
00:10:47.140
sure. Okay. Let's move on to this, uh, to this video. So Dr. Dan Erickson, Dr. Artin Masihi,
00:10:56.160
they are two doctors that own, um, I didn't write it down, accelerated urgent care. I think that's
00:11:03.480
what it called, what it's called in Bakersfield, California. Shout out to Bakersfield. I really
00:11:08.320
like Bakersfield, California. There's just a lot of great people. Anyway, they did this press
00:11:13.340
conference with a local news organization and they looked at the data for about an hour. And they
00:11:18.600
said, look, based on this data, we just don't think these lockdowns are necessary. And we actually
00:11:25.220
think they do more harm than good because the cases of abuse have gone up. The cases of child
00:11:30.860
molestation has gone up, have gone up. Um, the, uh, suicide rates have gone up. It's, it's just,
00:11:38.180
it's not good. This is not creating a good situation for people. He also argued that the
00:11:43.000
more people are inside and not interacting with the outside world, their immune system, uh, the,
00:11:50.040
the, the immune system's power to be able to fight off disease and viruses, it lessens. And so
00:11:56.340
he basically said, we don't think that this lockdown is a very good idea. It doesn't make
00:12:01.120
sense economically. And he argues it also doesn't really make sense medically either.
00:12:07.200
So we knew this was going to be controversial because he draws conclusions from the data that
00:12:12.180
other people that Dr. Fauci, for example, and Dr. Birx did not draw. And there are a lot of people,
00:12:18.000
and it seems to be splitting across partisan lines at this point. There are a lot of people that say,
00:12:22.220
no, we need these lockdowns no matter what, for a really long time, YouTube, they said that they're
00:12:27.820
going to take down videos that are critical of the WHO, or they go against anything that the WHO
00:12:32.700
says. If you need to know how corrupt the WHO is, you can go back and listen to my podcast title,
00:12:40.960
who is who, or who is WHO. I walk through the very tangled web of corruption and misinformation
00:12:47.860
information that the WHO represents. But YouTube said, yeah, we're just going to go ahead and take
00:12:53.380
down any videos that go against what the WHO says or lockdown guidelines or anything like that.
00:12:59.460
So this video, it had millions and millions of views. It was being shared everywhere. A ton of you
00:13:04.000
shared it with me. It was taken down by YouTube. Thankfully, there are other outlets or there are
00:13:11.060
other YouTube accounts that have put it back up. So you can still go watch it at least for now. And I
00:13:17.220
would go watch it if you want to, if you're interested, I watched the whole thing. And I
00:13:20.400
thought that it was very interesting. Now there, there is criticism to this video. So basically
00:13:27.100
they said, look, we've got millions of cases and we have a very small number of deaths. That means
00:13:33.120
the death rate is so low. They said, you know, it's comparable to the flu. And that means that people
00:13:39.100
don't need to be sheltering in place. It's counterproductive. Other people are saying, okay,
00:13:44.340
there's a problem with how they looked at the data. So if you watch YouTube videos or you read
00:13:49.380
any posts that are saying that these doctors got it wrong in general, their, their reasoning for
00:13:54.820
their critique is this, is that you can't say that, Oh, 6% of the people that we have tested are
00:14:01.980
positive because that's what this doctor said. I think he said like 6% of the people we've tested
00:14:06.300
are positive. Therefore, you know, he extrapolated that therefore all of California or 6% of all of
00:14:12.360
California is, is a positive. People are saying you can't do that. You can't extrapolate the data
00:14:17.680
that way. And that criticism I think is fair. Obviously it's more likely that people in the
00:14:22.920
urgent care are going to be positive for Corona virus. In other words, what he's looking at
00:14:27.680
isn't a random sampling. So it can't be extrapolated to the entire state of California
00:14:32.360
to then calculate the death rate. And that's what he did to get that very low death rate of like 0.03%.
00:14:39.480
That is a lot like the flu. And people are saying you can't, you can't do that. That's not really
00:14:44.100
probably the rate of infection in all of California. However, what I would say to those critics is that
00:14:51.320
they are discounting that we actually do know that there are more people who have Corona virus
00:14:56.480
than those who have tested positive because a Americans have been told not to go to urgent care
00:15:03.360
or not to go to the ER, the ER, unless they feel like they can't breathe, like unless they feel like
00:15:08.300
they're dying. So there are definitely lots of people who have had Corona virus, uh, who never
00:15:15.300
got tested and are not being counted in the official number, either in the state of California or in the
00:15:21.500
country as a whole. Uh, we now know that the virus was, uh, known about in China in November, if not
00:15:28.740
earlier, and people were traveling from Wuhan, China to other parts of the country, to other countries,
00:15:34.140
including to the U S all the way through January, which means it's also very likely people had the
00:15:40.760
virus before we even knew what Corona virus was back in December and January. So add that to the
00:15:47.520
number of people who we know for sure have had it, who have tested positive. And maybe, maybe there are
00:15:53.240
people who you could say, okay, maybe there are people who died from it back then who weren't counted
00:15:58.780
as COVID deaths. So you'd have to add those to the death toll too, to get an accurate death rate.
00:16:03.260
But the point is there are very likely he's right. And that there are very likely millions who have
00:16:09.220
had this, who have tested positive and who have recovered and are therefore not contributing, uh,
00:16:15.060
to the official number of those being tested. And so the death rate probably is a lot lower than what is
00:16:22.360
being reported. Plus what the CDC has told us, uh, about people being, uh, asymptomatic that emphasizes
00:16:30.240
the likelihood that far more people have had this, uh, than those who have actually tested positive,
00:16:36.180
because why would you get tested unless you actually felt some sort of, of symptoms? According
00:16:43.860
to a study out of LA reported by ABC news, an estimated 320,000 adults in Los Angeles County may have
00:16:51.520
been infected with coronavirus, according to the preliminary results of the study that suggested
00:16:56.000
the illness is far more widespread than current testing shows. And the death rate is much lower.
00:17:00.260
The study conducted at April 10th through 14th by the County and the University of Southern California
00:17:05.080
estimated that approximately 4.1% of the County's adult population of 8 million has antibodies to the
00:17:11.960
virus. When adjusted for margin of error, the infection rate ranged from 2.8% to 5.6% or about 220,000
00:17:19.800
to 440,000 adults. At the time the testing was conducted, the County reported nearly 8,000 cases,
00:17:26.620
meaning that the actual number was probably 28 to 55 times higher. And the fatality rate was much lower
00:17:33.840
than that based on the number of people tested. So what he's saying is right. And some of the people
00:17:41.080
that other news outlets have put up to say that these two doctors, they're absolutely wrong.
00:17:46.600
They shouldn't be listened to. They have also not presented a good argument. I saw that there is
00:17:52.980
another immunologist that a local news station put up in Bakersfield that said he didn't give any data
00:18:00.780
or facts. He just said, yeah, you know, this, uh, this virus doesn't, it doesn't spare anyone. And it's
00:18:07.300
not something we need to be taking lightly. Well, that's not an argument against what these other
00:18:12.740
Bakersfield doctors said. They didn't say we should take it lightly. They didn't say that we
00:18:17.080
shouldn't abide by any CDC guidelines. He didn't tell people that, Hey, if you're sick, you should
00:18:22.380
just go out and, you know, eat lunch at your favorite restaurant. He didn't say, don't wash your
00:18:26.360
hands or don't wear a mask or anything like that. He just said, maybe the full scale economic shutdown
00:18:32.120
isn't what is, is best for this virus. And is it what is best for people holistically? And yes, other
00:18:39.940
doctors have said, uh, this doctor also said this virus is sparing no one. The doctor who was trying
00:18:45.640
to, uh, contradict what Dr. Erickson said, but this virus is sparing a lot of people. It's sparing
00:18:52.760
probably 99% of people. And every death is tragic. Every death matters, whether they are old, whether they
00:18:59.400
were medically fragile, whether they had underlying conditions, whether they were rich or poor, it
00:19:04.440
doesn't matter. Of course, every death matters. And I still believe that people should do whatever
00:19:09.840
they can to mitigate the risk of spreading the virus. Like I do think that we should still be wise.
00:19:15.720
I do think that people should still socially distance to a degree in Texas. They are actually
00:19:22.020
lifting the stay at home order and they are going to open things back up in stages. Things are going to
00:19:27.420
be, you know, roaring twenties right away, but you can already see that states that are opening up.
00:19:33.780
They're really just responding to not just pressure, but, uh, they're also responding to the fact that a
00:19:40.600
lot of people are just disobeying these orders. A lot of people are saying, Hey, it's warm outside.
00:19:46.120
Like I've got to get some fresh air. I've got to go outside here. I'm going to go crazy people with
00:19:50.140
kids, especially if you live in the city, like you've got to go to a park. Your kids have to exercise.
00:19:54.820
They have to get their energy out. It's good for us to be out in the open, to be in the sun, to get
00:20:01.380
that vitamin D and to just refresh our minds as well. Like we were not made to be isolated at home.
00:20:07.800
That's just not, that's not how human beings thrive or flourish. Like we were made to be in community.
00:20:13.180
And still, I still believe that we should take proper precautions, but I just happen to trust people.
00:20:20.520
Like there's a lot of stupid people out there. Don't get me wrong. Trust me. I know that there
00:20:24.540
are a lot of stupid people out there, but I think for the most part, like people don't want to die
00:20:28.920
from a virus. People don't want to get the virus. People don't want their family to get the virus.
00:20:34.660
They love their parents and grandparents. They love their babies. They love their, you know,
00:20:39.960
friends who is going through cancer treatment. So I think most people are going to be responsible.
00:20:44.400
And look, you don't have to, even if your state opens up tomorrow, you don't have to go out.
00:20:50.360
Like you can shelter in place for the next two to three years. If you want to, like,
00:20:54.800
if you want to stay in your house until there is a vaccine, there is nothing stopping you from doing
00:20:59.080
that. If you are a business owner and you don't want to open your restaurant, you don't have to open
00:21:04.540
your restaurant. I'm supposing if you're a business owner, if you're a restaurant owner who only wants
00:21:08.560
to let five people at a time, five people in at a time, you can probably do that for the next three
00:21:13.500
years. I mean, I don't know how you're going to survive, but just remember as the media is
00:21:17.760
lambasting all of these more conservative governors that are starting to open up their states
00:21:23.580
strategically and slowly, just understand that that doesn't mean that people that are, people
00:21:31.280
are ordered to go outside. Like you're not ordered to go to the, you know, mall and start making out
00:21:37.920
with someone like you don't have to do that. Um, so also understand though, that the media is going
00:21:44.820
to be exaggerating and reporting on every single case and, uh, every single tragic death of
00:21:53.980
coronavirus that comes out of these states that are, uh, loosing the orders that are loosening the
00:22:00.400
orders. Um, that's just going to happen because they want to prove that people should have stayed
00:22:04.480
inside. Yes. We're going to see the infection rate probably go up, which means there will be
00:22:09.800
a higher number of deaths as things open up. But that is, uh, that's the case. No matter what you
00:22:17.280
do. Yes. When people go outside, they're going to be more car wrecks. There are going to be more cases
00:22:21.760
of the cold. There's going to be a lot more risk. The more people that are on the road, the more people
00:22:26.180
that are outside, the more there are germs, the more there are viruses, the more risks there are of all kinds
00:22:32.260
of risks. Eventually you have to trust people to make responsible decisions. And here's, here's my
00:22:38.480
question. So for the people that are saying, this is so stupid to open back up, like you have to stay
00:22:44.400
locked down for the governor of California, for the mayor of LA to say, Oh no, we're doing this for
00:22:50.780
several more weeks. Like you've got to stay locked down. What exactly are you waiting for? So the curve is
00:22:57.020
already flat. We know that the curve is flat in most places. Are you waiting for it to get down
00:23:02.060
to zero? Because that's just, that's not going to happen. And like I said, people are already
00:23:07.640
disobeying these orders. People in California are going out to the beaches because you've got to get
00:23:11.840
outside. Like this is, was a great social experiment to see how long people are willing to stay inside
00:23:17.640
for risk or perceived risk. But I think people are getting to the end of their rope. I think people
00:23:22.600
are saying, okay, I can't do this anymore, especially when it's warm outside and it feels like summer
00:23:26.600
people want to get back to their lives. And I think people are more and more willing to take on
00:23:30.840
that risk. That doesn't mean that you're irresponsible. That doesn't mean that you
00:23:34.920
don't wash your hands and cover your mouth and don't go outside if you're sick and all of that
00:23:38.420
good stuff. But of course, like people have to live their lives. They have to provide for their
00:23:42.220
families. They have to engage in recreation. They have to do the things that keep human beings alive
00:23:47.580
and sane. And these leaders that are saying, Oh no, shelter in place forever. A lot of them
00:23:52.400
aren't even by abiding by their own guidelines. We saw a mayor de Blasio and his wife.
00:23:58.380
Uh, we saw them, I think it was someone reported like 11 miles from their house. They were actually
00:24:04.100
driven to a park where they could go, you know, walk and, uh, and do the things that they want to
00:24:11.540
do. And so they're obviously not taking it as seriously as they expect everyone else to, which
00:24:18.120
is why people, people don't trust them. Like people don't trust the powers that be. And another reason
00:24:24.100
why people have stopped taking this seriously is because it has become so politicized. So when it
00:24:28.920
became obvious via the media and opposing politicians that they were going to try to
00:24:34.440
weaponize the Corona virus, uh, against Trump to try to use this to help Joe Biden or to hurt Donald
00:24:40.980
Trump, then I think people stopped taking it as seriously because it seemed like it was more of
00:24:46.800
not that the virus was a conspiracy, but that the reaction to it was a conspiracy against Donald Trump.
00:24:52.380
But when you politicize something like this and when you make it seem more than it really is,
00:24:58.380
then people are just going to stop listening to you and they're going to do what they are going to
00:25:02.520
do, which is what is happening right now. You can go back and listen to the episode list, uh,
00:25:07.480
little tyrants everywhere. And it talks about some of the crackdowns that are happening in how,
00:25:13.160
uh, different people on different, uh, segments of society. So politicians, journalists,
00:25:18.920
professors are trying to use this to gain more control and power. And when people see that they
00:25:23.460
say, you know what, I don't really want to be a part of this. I'm going to do the things that I
00:25:26.740
want to do. Okay. I want to talk about one more thing. And that is this myth of overpopulation. So,
00:25:33.840
uh, I, there is an Instagram account. I actually forget what it was called. Is it architect to digest?
00:25:39.420
Is that something, is that like an outlet that, that people read? Well, there's the Instagram
00:25:44.320
account that shows people's houses. It's famous people's houses and like how their houses are
00:25:48.980
designed. And there's this couple of James and Kimberly Vanderbeek, and he was on Dawson's Creek.
00:25:55.500
He was also recently on dancing with the sharks. He's done a lot of other things too. And they have
00:26:00.420
five beautiful kids. Like they're just such a precious family. They've got four, four girls and
00:26:08.400
one boy. I don't really know. I don't follow them that closely, but I saw this story because I follow
00:26:13.180
her actually. So she is, she doesn't listen to this podcast. She is super new age, super into like
00:26:19.700
witchcraft and things like that. And so we are definitely not on the same page worldview wise,
00:26:24.760
but she has a lot of good advice for moms and like, she's very organic and things like that.
00:26:30.420
And their family's just precious. So I do follow her and I saw that they were featured on this
00:26:35.360
Instagram account and it was a precious picture of all seven of them. And I went to the comments.
00:26:41.020
I don't even know why I just did. I went through the comments and a huge number of the comments,
00:26:46.240
uh, were about how many kids they have and how irresponsible it is for them to have that many
00:26:52.140
kids and how she looks really tired and she looks like she's super over it. And how, how could you have
00:26:58.880
this many kids in this kind of climate? Well, also she shared on social media that she recently
00:27:04.440
miscarried pretty late in her pregnancy with their sixth child, which is absolutely tragic.
00:27:08.460
So obviously they're happy with the number of kids they have. They're even willing to have
00:27:12.460
more kids than they have. And so all of these people who simultaneously scream my body, my choice,
00:27:18.360
her body, her choice, you can do what you want with the baby in your womb are also saying that,
00:27:23.420
well, you can't have more kids than we, whatever, whoever they are, uh, the, the climate activists
00:27:29.980
of the world. You can have more kids than we say is responsible. These are the same kind of people,
00:27:35.160
by the way, who are constantly telling Christians and conservatives that we're judgmental, that we
00:27:40.780
care too much about what they do with their lives. Now they're prying into one of the most personal
00:27:45.660
decisions that a family can ever make. How many kids that you're going to have? And they're saying,
00:27:51.260
oh, you're irresponsible for that. First of all, what they're saying is a myth. There is not an
00:27:56.800
overpopulation problem. So they see these climate activists, they say, okay, we've got a finite
00:28:02.420
amount of resources in the world. And since 1980, uh, we have increased our population by 3 billion.
00:28:11.700
And eventually we're going to run out of resources because we have too many people,
00:28:15.860
but that is a faulty mindset. That is when you view people as liabilities rather than assets and
00:28:22.280
environmentalists always have not always, but leftist environmentalists almost always have
00:28:28.260
an anti-human point of view. They see us as the problem. They see us at war with the earth rather
00:28:35.400
than what most people really are. Sure. There's irresponsible people that maybe irresponsibly drain
00:28:41.880
resources, but most people are assets. So most people actually contribute to the good of the world
00:28:49.460
around them either economically or actually caring for the earth. Even having a family is a way that
00:28:56.620
you help humanity as a way that you help the earth. Now we talked about on Monday, we talked about the,
00:29:02.520
the truths and the falsehoods in climate change and climate activism and how, uh, how we should look
00:29:10.500
at climate change from a biblical perspective. Uh, but there are a lot of myths surrounding climate change
00:29:16.120
that say, okay, if you have babies, if you have more babies, then that's irresponsible. And your
00:29:21.560
carbon footprint is going to be huge. But the reality is that's just not true because human beings
00:29:26.460
contribute more than they actually take away because extreme poverty also since 1980 has been cut in half.
00:29:33.840
And so if it were true that we had a finite amount of resources, uh, and if it were true that human
00:29:41.000
beings are taken away from these resources to the point to where we're not going to have any anymore,
00:29:46.360
and the word, the world is just going to get worse and worse, then that wouldn't be the case. As the
00:29:51.800
population has increased by 3 billion since 1980, extreme poverty, you would think with our very finite
00:29:58.760
resources would have increased along with that, but it hasn't. It has actually gone down by half.
00:30:04.840
So it is a myth and it's more of an anti-human, anti-baby, anti-natalist worldview than it has to
00:30:13.400
do with climate change because all of these people aren't living their lives. All of these people
00:30:19.640
have their phones, they're on social media, all of these things, uh, all of these things also
00:30:25.000
contribute to their carbon footprint. And I guarantee you all of these people use paper towels and paper
00:30:31.400
plates and probably go to the grocery store and get their plastic bags. And they're willing to use
00:30:35.720
the paper masks for their face during coronavirus and the latex gloves and all of that. But they're
00:30:40.360
really worried about one family who has the means to raise these kids having a few too many kids.
00:30:46.280
It's just so interesting how much they want to pride people's lives while simultaneously saying
00:30:51.000
that, you know, live and let live and just be tolerant and her body, her choice. There's always that kind of
00:30:55.800
hypocrisy, but really underneath it all, it is an anti-life worldview. It is an anti-compassion,
00:31:02.440
anti-love worldview is an anti-natalist worldview. And this is the godless mindset,
00:31:07.960
the hatred of babies, the hatred of children, the hatred of procreation is a godless mindset.
00:31:15.240
It's a satanic mindset actually. Um, because it is everything that goes against what God,
00:31:22.760
the giver of life says is good and right and true. And it's just sad. Like this is increasing on the
00:31:29.080
left. It's increasing among, uh, amongst climate activists. And this is why I say, by the way,
00:31:34.520
I'm always very skeptical of any organization that is already caused that is run by someone
00:31:42.840
whose main concern is overpopulation, especially in, in atheist. And it's almost always atheists that
00:31:49.400
are concerned with overpopulation. Um, but I don't trust that organization, especially if that
00:31:54.440
organization is built to help people. I'm sorry. I just don't trust you because if you think there
00:32:00.840
are too many people already, why do I think that you are going to do something to preserve my life
00:32:05.640
for the life of my family? No, thanks. So I just wanted to talk about that. It's, it's crazy. And I'm so
00:32:11.320
glad that she was, you know, happy to show her family because her family really is precious. And for all the
00:32:16.600
people saying that she doesn't look happy, she, you should actually go to her, you should go to
00:32:21.320
her profile because she absolutely, it seems like loves her children and loves her family.
00:32:26.040
And it's just sad how quick people are to judge, uh, other people's choices and even their appearances
00:32:32.920
based on all that they don't know. Okay. That's all I have for you today. I will be back here on Friday.
00:32:38.920
We are going to talk about out of shadows. I promise you that. Okay. I'll see you then.