I most recently visited Johnny Harris here May 15, but now, given what happened June 24, we need to consider his June 23 video “Without Roe v Wade, We NEED a Male Birth Control Pill”. (It seems silly that the video is age-restricted.)
(age restricted by YT) Harris video on male birth control
He starts out by explaining how pregnancy can start, with “hormones” sending messages within the female uterus. He then discusses fertilization and implantation, and the early steps of a new human being’s journey. And then he explains how many contraceptives work, including hormone-altering medications.
And toward the end, he gets into the question as to whether men should own up to their share of the inconvenience of birth control meds. After all, they lead to mood swings for women, at least. Maybe visible side effects?
It is women (in the straight world) for whom physical appearance matters. But for men to tolerate a med that might somehow affect the look of their masculinity is unacceptable. So big pharma doesn’t invest much in it.
Men, of course, do choose vasectomies, mostly when married and having already had the desired number or offspring for a lineage. A workplace friend, who had married (after divorce) into an instant family, had one in 1971 (he called it having 'tubes tied') and said the next day (a Tuesday) that it felt like getting kicked in the 'balls'. That goes away.
And there is this bit about 'hormones', which in 1969 in the Army barracks at Fort Eustis, well the special troops (the 'back to the bay' crowd) thought were names or cartoon characters. When I pointed out a bald spot showing on the outside of my shin (at age 25), the reaction was , “You’re losing hormones”.
Harris wears a black beanie this time (not orange). He doesn't need one, but Oh he wants to be compared to Tim Pool.
To move on to another topic, Harris pointed out in a tweet this morning that Sam, from Wendover) had a YouTube video taken down by DMCA after a complaint from Bloomsburg Publishing. The video is How Cyberwarfare Actually Works (19 min). Wendover’s defense is that you cannot copyright facts, only expression (like you can copyright the images in the film, or long passages of text). So it sounds like Fair Use. This sounds like something that a defendant would opt out from the Copyright Claims Board and insist on trial. It sounds like a legitimate Fair Use claim. However broadcasters (those not using paywalls) sometimes provide a notice at the end of a news story" ('this content cannot be rewritten, rebroadcast, or redistributed') which sounds like trying to copyright information which contradicts Fair Use (posting here on June 20).
I watched the film free (you get one “freebie for CM”) on a site called Nebula (it calls itself an 'app', but it seems like another free speech platform like Odysee or Bitchute). It explains how SSL and https encryption has made spying by intercepting difficult, so the ZeroDay attack has become the weapon of choice now. The film gives the history of the Stuxnet worm which apparently the NSA and various contractors developed (Snowden has reported all this) to gradually take down the centrifuge apparatus in Iran (the film shows aerial shots of the plant, and these images would be copyrighted, probably – as well as classified?) A worm (often introduced with a thumb drive) can be passed among computers until it strikes the desired enemy target. In the power grid world, bridging “air gaps” is a security issue (no, there is no way “you” can connect to your power company’s controller from the Internet from your home or office PC or smart phone; they are topologically separated). The film also talks about compromises of health care systems (WannaCry) and of Colonial Pipeline in 2021. Honestly, there was nothing in the film I didn’t already know.
To wrap up the controversy, I’ll embed a 3-minute video called “Hairy SOLO” from the (gay) MEN YT channel, to re-introduce a little cis male pride.
Update: Well, it went private. Let's try an NBC video: "What CISGender Means"(Posted: Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 12:30 PM EDT)