Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 25, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:38:20

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #76

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Thursday, the 25th of February 2021.
	Joined by Callum, and we're going to be talking about lots of interesting stuff, obviously, because we do every day.
	That's what we do here.
	But before we start, we've got some announcements of things that we have now up on LotusEater.com.
	My favourite writer on the site is definitely Beau Dade, who writes us history articles, because that's my personal fetish.
	And he has produced a brilliant one for us, a Because I was mistakenly comparing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Robespierre, and he emailed me and said, you know what?
	She's not really as competent as Robespierre was.
	She's more like Morat.
	And I was like, oh, that's a good point.
	If we can get the article up, John, that'd be good.
	And yeah, he pointed out that actually, she's actually like an early Morat.
	And I just want to read you a very brief clip, a quote from what he said, because I love the way he writes as well.
	He's got that proper old English historian sort of vibe to him.
	He's like, This narrative is a whisker away from something truly appalling.
	Marat would be proud.
	He's a fantastic writer.
	I love the texture of the language that he's doing.
	And this actually leads us on to the Thick Concepts, because the reason I like Beau's writing so much is that he uses these a lot, because there's a lot of moral judgment in these.
	And I'm working on the Thick Concepts Premium Podcasts.
	So I can teach Callum about judging people by just describing the things they do, because that's important.
	It's a very good linguistic attack on the progressives.
	And they always shrink back as if they've been caught.
	Oh, God, are you saying that I'm being deceitful?
	It's like, well, only when you commit to not telling the truth, as you often do...
	But yeah, so that's in progress.
	But in the meantime, we obviously have loads of other premium podcasts and book club entries that are fantastic.
	And the reason that this premium podcast is important, because I'm building up to the book club for Brave New World, because I'm going to do you the best analysis you've ever seen on this, and it takes some time.
	But we also have new premium content from Helen Dale, which is a...
	An article about a streamer who obviously got into trouble with the woke mob.
	It's annoying that we have to continually cover this as a subject, but it really is happening all the time, and it seems to be important.
	But anyway, these things you can find on lowseas.com, so we will get into what we're here to talk about.
	The BBC, back in August 2020, had a new boss, a one Tim Davey, who was brought in, presumably because the Conservatives were like, wow, the BBC's gone really woke, and we possibly need to do something about this.
	And he started off really strong.
	I was actually quite optimistic.
	He came in planning to tackle perceived left-wing bias in BBC comedy shows with a package of reforms.
	And, of course, this...
	Got the left-wing comedians all up in a tizzy, as you might imagine.
	In fact, James O'Brien's one was the best one.
	What exactly is left-wing or right-wing comedy?
	Shut up, James.
	I appreciate that blatantly racist jokes are still broadly unacceptable on TV, but unless the new BBC chairman is unfairly conflating right-wing with racist, I'm not sure what he's talking about.
	Oh, he's doing that, is he?
	That's not you, James.
	That's not every left-wing comedian who literally treats the Conservative Party as if they're the BNP. No, I can't stand it.
	I can't stand the gaslighting.
	I mean, any joke about what the right-wing believes is always race.
	It's nothing else.
	And it's always, we hate you, as in the right wing want to oppress you.
	And it's like, well, I mean, that's not what they say, if you want to be charitable about it.
	But he looked like he was taking quite a hard tack on this.
	I love the chat.
	Left wing comedy is like comedy, it's just not funny.
	That's what it is.
	There you go, James O'Brien, now you know.
	Yeah, it's just left wing.
	That's it.
	So yeah, he'd come out and said, look, if people aren't happy with this, working at the BBC, they can actually quit.
	So The Sun reported that, he says, I do not want a subscription BBC that serves the few.
	He warned reporters and editors surrounding the office, with people like us who are only interested in political shenanigans, internal dramas, and the latest press flare-up would damage the corporation and lead to its decline.
	Yes, would damage it.
	Would.
	I think we're a bit horses bolted on that one.
	He said, This is dangerous.
	It means we can take our eyes off the key issue of how much value we are delivering to each member of the public and the UK as a whole, and the BBC will renew our commitment to impartiality in a bid to win back the trust of the nation.
	I want a radical shift in our focus from the internal to the external, to focus on those we serve, the public.
	Our research shows that too many perceive us to be shaped by a particular perspective.
	Really?
	Particular.
	Particular.
	You want to name it?
	And they just perceive it.
	It's not that it is.
	They perceive it.
	We urgently need to champion and recommit to impartiality.
	Weird!
	If that's the statement, it's like, well, I mean, the opposite of that would be partiality in a particular direction.
	This unnamed bias that no one wants to talk about.
	And he urged them not to be driven by their own personal agendas and to focus on telling the exciting stories happening across the nation instead.
	Yeah, but that would require them to not be activists and to not, in fact, kind of hate Britain.
	And I think they've pretty much passed that point of no return, aren't they?
	He says, it's about being free from political bias.
	Guided by the pursuit of truth, not a particular agenda.
	Not likely.
	And in a blast at lefty broadcasters which let their views be known, he added, if you want to be an opinionated columnist or partisan campaigner on social media, that's a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC. Totally agree.
	Couldn't agree more.
	Or, or, the alternative, is that I'm not forced to pay for the BBC, and then you can be as partisan as you like, because I'm not paying for it.
	I mean, the ideal situation is we don't have a taxpayer-funded media in the UK. State broadcaster, yeah.
	Yeah, but it's paid for by the people.
	I hate the term state broadcaster because it means the state's funding it.
	No, no, no.
	People are funding it.
	You're stealing our money to fund it.
	But it's also never really going to threaten the status quo.
	Yeah, there's that problem.
	What was I going to say?
	I've lost my train of thought now.
	Oh yeah, but that's the ideal.
	But if we are going to do this, then at least have it so you do actually have people acting in a way that's impartial.
	Yeah, I want to see lefties getting fired left, right, and centre for every goddamn tweet they put out, to be honest.
	Because what would happen to the righties, you know?
	Yeah, exactly.
	I want them to be terrified of using Twitter.
	They're going to be like, what, if I post something about trans rights on Twitter, am I getting fired?
	Yes, you are.
	That's a political opinion.
	You're getting fired.
	That's what I want from the BBC. Nowhere else, obviously.
	You know, it's a free market, private companies.
	Because if you'd done the opposite, what would happen?
	Exactly.
	And so, yeah, that's what I want to see.
	I want to see the people working at the BBC living in fear of being fired for using Twitter.
	They shouldn't be using Twitter.
	No, I really mean it.
	I don't think they should be using Twitter.
	But anyway, so Tim Davy is being viewed as quite a radical boss, really.
	One of the things that he did, from their perspective...
	Excuse me.
	And so, like, this was shown in the fact that he...
	Do you remember when we...
	Last year, they were like, oh, well, we're going to have Royal Britannia at Last Night at the Proms.
	Oh, no, that's racist and imperialist.
	And he was like, no, we are going to have Royal Britannia at Last Night at the Proms.
	And, of course, the woke crowd were...
	Upset, but deal with it.
	And this got him a lot of good press attention.
	And the variety here describe him as a business-savvy alpha male.
	A sports nut and marathoner.
	I was like, okay.
	It's not a leftist.
	Okay, not a leftist.
	Gotcha.
	But that's good.
	And yeah, like I said, he said he was going to sack stars who mouth off on Twitter, on the BBC, and they were not happy about this.
	Gary Lineker felt personally attacked, basically, which is great.
	I'm going to go for the next one, John.
	He said, I'm prepared to take the appropriate disciplinary action all the way up to termination, and he would take people off Twitter if necessary.
	That's good.
	Good, I like it.
	Social media guidelines will make clear where the lines are.
	If someone is the face of the BBC, then entering into party politics seems not the right place to be.
	We will continue to issue the social media guidelines to be clear.
	I would note that Gary Lineker has been very clear in his statements recently, saying, I understand I have responsibilities while working at the BBC.
	Because Gary Lineker went on Twitter and was like, I'm a communist, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	I can't remember exactly what he said.
	But it's some radical left-wing nonsense.
	It's like, Gary, shut up.
	No one wants to hear from a multi-millionaire football personality.
	He happens to be pro-mass open borders.
	Yeah.
	And pro-immigration, pro-refugees, but not in my house.
	I think actually, no, he did agree to take a refugee into his house.
	Did he actually take one?
	Did he actually do it?
	I don't know.
	That's the thing.
	Oh, yeah, I'll definitely do it.
	No, get out.
	But yeah, so he says, I'm the Director General now, so I'm running the show, and in my view, party political statements are not the right thing if they're committing to be an impartial news organization.
	And this went as far as making sure the staff can't go on their pride marches.
	I really enjoyed this, and I totally support it.
	Yes, if you're going to work for the BBC, your political life is over.
	It's over.
	You report on things other people do.
	That's what the BBC is meant to do.
	And if you don't like it, go and get a job at The Guardian, assuming you can.
	Because, you know, how well are they doing?
	Incidentally, we're hiring two new staff on March the 8th, and I'm really excited about it.
	So our news team is expanding, just so you know.
	Also, by the way, if you happen to be a kind of internet policy wonk, and you have the kind of charisma you think it takes to make videos that people enjoy watching, do email us at, what, careers at lotusseaters.com, and send us a video and your CV, because we'd be interested in hiring you too.
	Anyway.
	So yeah, the staff can't join Pride marches, which is excellent.
	He's literally, in case of any presence, their presence is taken as a sign of political bias.
	And so this is any public demonstrations or gathering about controversial issues, but of course...
	Who's gathering and demonstrating about anything that's not a radical left-wing position?
	I think they mentioned here BLM marches are also included.
	And that's absolutely right.
	Because, I mean, just think for a second about the law.
	Like, if this was arguing that homosexuals or black people should be treated the same as anyone else under the law, well, that's already law.
	So they're not arguing for that.
	You don't really have much to campaign on, do you?
	Well, they're not arguing for that, are they?
	I mean, the BLM types are arguing for special privileges, and the pride marches, as far as I can see when they take place, are just absurd.
	Like, they don't look like pride marches of a celebration of being...
	Fetish marches, yeah.
	Exactly.
	It doesn't seem to be a celebration of being a homosexual person, and that's the start of you, and then there's the person bit.
	No, it's the fetish parade, in which the fetish part of your life seems to be...
	Unless being a homosexual literally means wearing bondage gear and peeing on each other.
	Well, that's the most extreme example, but there's a lot of other shades of just, like, why are you doing this?
	Yeah, but why does it get to that most extreme point?
	Exactly, which is the point Douglas Murray makes, which is the difference between gays and queers.
	Queers with a capital Q there, like as a separate kind of person that's political about their homosexuality.
	Yeah.
	But yeah, so anyway, going on to the next one.
	The BBC also have a new chairman, which is a one, Richard Sharp, who's a former Goldman Sachs banker, and he had donated over £400,000 to the Conservatives.
	He was also a councillor for them.
	He was also a councillor for them.
	Which means that you would look at the trajectory in which the BBC is going and think, right, okay, this is going into a sensible conservative place where they are going to try and be impartial.
	They are not going to be promoting radical left-wing policies and agendas.
	And so, great, everything's going well at the BBC.
	And in typical, the most typical conservative fashions, and I love this meme, they say, yeah, I'm a conservative, which is why I'm in favor of unconscious bias training.
	It's that meme that has literally come to life.
	For some reason, I just...
	Why?
	Right?
	So the BBC, the Daily Mail, have reported today.
	Oh, was it?
	Yeah, two days ago, actually.
	Did it?
	Yeah, yesterday.
	The BBC has announced a new diversity directive, which will require 95% of staff to complete unconscious bias training, which aims for 80% to declare their social class So it's like, what are you doing?
	This is full-on left-wing propaganda.
	I mean, this has already been rebuked by the national government as checking your racism.
	We'll get to it.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	We'll get to that.
	But, like, this is absurd.
	It's like, how is it that the conservative alpha male comes in and goes, yeah, so, what is it the leftists want?
	That's right, unconscious bias training.
	Yeah, I'm doing that.
	Is that you?
	That's me.
	Sorry, I didn't...
	Very sorry, folks.
	Yeah, I don't normally get phone calls.
	I didn't even realise my phone wasn't on mute.
	You're totally true about the meme, though.
	Like, of course I'm a conservative.
	I'm for leftism.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Get in the bin.
	Yeah, in the bin.
	I just don't get it, right?
	The corporation is also aiming for 50% of LGBT employees to be out at work based on the proportion of people identifying as gay or transgender who state in an annual staff survey that they've revealed their sexuality to the manager.
	Yeah.
	50% of you need to be out, but 50% of you still in the closet, I suppose?
	Who set that target?
	How do you even pick that?
	How do you even decide who's out and who's not?
	Why do you care?
	Sorry, which one of our staff are gay?
	I need to know.
	I'm the conservative in the room.
	I want you to be proud of your being gay.
	Presumably coming to work in the Pride outfits you're not allowed to march down the streets with.
	Let's play video one.
	This is what I imagine this conversation looks like.
	Why are you gay?
	Who says I'm gay?
	You are gay.
	Because it's just like, well, okay, if you say that 50% of the staff need to be out, that means the administration needs to be taking a view on how many people are out and how many are still closeted.
	And Hugo pointed out, well, this could be, maybe they do anonymous surveys and then official surveys or something.
	But I just, I don't know.
	Like, they're literally sitting there going, he's gay and he's gay, but they're not out yet.
	They're going to come out soon.
	Like, What are they doing, man?
	Why are you wasting your time with this, Tim?
	The BBC also says it wants a 50-50 split of male and female staff.
	Oh, yeah, that's very conservative.
	That's meritorious there.
	We're hiring on meritocracy, which is why we're getting the exact number that the leftists want.
	We want equality of outcome.
	Yeah, Diane Abbott's waving her little flag going, yay, feminism.
	And it's like, okay, great.
	The conservatives are like, yeah, buddy.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's what we're for, too.
	They're in the process of launching a staff census, which will, for the first time, capture non-binary and non-conforming identities.
	Very conservative.
	Known as otherwise, look at me.
	The top-to-bottom shake-up will happen under Tim Davey, but will also include training for other areas of allyship.
	A term meaning that a member of a dominant group supports the interests of a marginalized one.
	Tim, do you see what the problem is there?
	Right, Tim?
	You've accepted the Marxist framing that you are part of a dominant group and there are inferior groups that you are oppressing.
	That's not the case.
	That's not a liberal worldview.
	This is the communist worldview and you are forcing it on the BBC staff while through the other side of your mouth going, yeah, but we don't want any woke leftism.
	This is woke leftism, you moron.
	I can't stand it, right?
	So the plan is going to detail proposals to increase entry-level opportunities over recruitment and tackle non-inclusive behaviours amongst its staff.
	Sorry, did someone get misgendered in the tea room?
	Did they?
	It wouldn't even be that.
	Non-inclusive behaviours will be things like, you said, you know, newsman or something like this.
	Yes.
	Therefore it has to go.
	No, it's newsperson.
	We have a blacklist of people we don't allow on the BBC, such as Voldemort.
	But the black part of that's going to go.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's just a list.
	Now, it also includes a significant boost to the number of apprenticeship spots offered each year.
	Davey announced that there would be, in his introductory speech, that in the next three to five years, it would become 50% woman, at least 20% bane, and at least 12% disabled.
	Which sounds really sinister.
	I'm going to stop breaking the legs of my staff.
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	It's only 8% disabled in here, so...
	I suppose he could also start blacking up his stuff.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	I could also do that.
	I suppose he could chop off a few...
	Well, I don't know.
	I mean, is it drawn by lots or what?
	You know, is it people volunteering to become disabled?
	I... So, bad news?
	It's like, can I just quit?
	Too late?
	Like Gary Lineker's like waving his pride flag saying, migrants are welcome.
	And the BBC boss walks in and is like, time to give up the legs too.
	Just according to the BBC, the ambitious plans will make it the most inclusive and diverse workforce in the media sector.
	You know, traditional conservative rhetoric about inclusivity and diversity there.
	God damn it.
	Everything about the I'm a conservative, I'm for trans children meme is totally true.
	It's totally true.
	I'm for legalising paedophilia.
	Of course I'm a conservative.
	What the fuck is wrong with you?
	God, we'll get to that in a minute.
	We must, he says, from top to bottom, represent the audiences we serve.
	We have made some big improvements, but we want and need to go further.
	That's okay.
	Stay on that graph just so people can see as well, John, the one just there.
	Because that's the perfect summation of it.
	But you can see how it's just like we need 12% disabled, 20% browns, 50% women.
	But look at this, right?
	The ONS estimates that the UK population is 4.6% LGBTQ. At the BBC, the 8.9% of our staff have told us they are LGBTQ. So what does that mean?
	That means that a bunch of gays need to get fired for the sake of representation and diversity.
	That's what that means.
	I don't want that.
	I don't want any of this.
	I don't want anyone to get fired because they're gay.
	I don't want to get hired because they're gay or whatever.
	You know, I don't want any legs broken because there aren't enough disabled people at the BBC. But that's what happens when you adopt this goddamn leftist mindset.
	I love how they don't treat that as an issue either.
	Because, of course, when it's gay people who are over-represented, that's fine.
	That's not to be talked about.
	Oh, we won't mention it.
	But if it was straights...
	But that proves that the straights are being under-represented at the BBC. Where's the straight pride parade, goddammit?
	Um...
	Anyway, so the plan is to identify and champion 100 diverse role models as part of a new campaign to attract more ethnic minority job applicants.
	Yes, racial hiring quotas.
	Very conservative.
	Thank you.
	Anne Foster, who leads the BBC's Workforce Diversity and Inclusion team, another conservative initiative probably, I am passionate about working to create a BBC that reflects the diversity of the UK and is somewhere that everyone feels proud to work.
	Gross.
	Every aspect of our plans is shaped by an extensive consultation with staff to ensure that we lay a strong foundation for a modern, transformed BBC. Brilliant.
	A modern, transformed BBC. That's great.
	Hello, everyone thinks the BBC is staffed by wokists.
	Yes, that's right.
	And we polled them to find out what they think we should do.
	And we're going to do it because we're the Conservatives.
	I can't stand it.
	Anyway, obviously, unconscious bias training is nonsense.
	The Cabinet Office said of it, a strong body of evidence has emerged to show that such training has no sustained impact on behaviour and may be counterproductive.
	Instructions to suppress stereotypes may not only activate and reinforce unhelpful stereotypes, but they provoke negative reactions and actually make people exacerbate their biases.
	And we have, of course, reported on this on lowseas.com when we talked about Kemi Badendock, who is probably the best conservative we have so far.
	Who's just come out and been like, no, critical race theory and all of this is an intersectionality in itself, the whole worldview that the Conservatives are now...
	Root and branch.
	All of it.
	Root and branch.
	It comes from critical race theory.
	And it comes from a desire to racialize society, which is precisely the same desire that the Nazi party had in Weimar, Germany.
	So good job.
	That's where we are.
	And good for Badendock because she's just like, look, this government stands unequivocally against critical race theory, despite its promotion across many government ministries and agencies.
	Yeah.
	And now the BBC.
	I'm not critical of her at all.
	No, it's not her fault.
	Like, I messaged her parliamentary constituency, and I just listed some of the, you know, parliamentary accounts for the pushing critical race theory.
	Like, well, look, this all exists.
	And you could sort of get the sense from her response where it's just like, there's just too much.
	There's just so goddamn much.
	I don't even know where she starts, but, you know, best of luck to her getting rid of it.
	What on earth is the rest of the party doing?
	Like, how are they allowing this to go on?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I mean, I believe that she sincerely opposes all of this stuff.
	No doubt.
	But it's everywhere, and the Conservatives don't seem to have any understanding that they are being played by Marxists.
	It's really insufferable.
	So just to summarise that, there's the point there where you want a 12% disabled, 20% browns, 50% womens, and so forth.
	Like, I don't think anyone can put it better than Jordan Peterson, so we're just going to play a perfect clip to explain, in case you're not convinced, why this is garbage, Conservative Party.
	And what are you going to do about the Asians?
	Because they occupy preferential positions as well.
	You know, they're overrepresented in all sorts of professional institutions.
	And the probability is that that's going to increase.
	What are you going to do about that?
	What about the Jews?
	What are you going to do about them?
	Because they're in the same position as the Asians.
	You're going to put quotas on all those people?
	What kind of stupidity is that?
	And then it's worse, too, because let's say you equalize women, just for the sake of argument, across all these different dimensions of society.
	Well, then what are you going to do?
	Are you going to equalize for black women and Latino women and Asian women?
	Are you going to subtype black women?
	Because it's not like they're all the same.
	Are you going to ensure that women from lower classes are represented just as much as women from upper classes?
	And how many generations back are you going to go to check that?
	What about intelligence?
	What about attractiveness?
	How about height?
	How about weight?
	So the problem with the fractionation by group identity is that it's endless.
	There's no way of ensuring equality across groups because there's an infinite number of groups.
	You can fragment group identity all the way down to the level of the individual, which is exactly what you should do, which is what we already did in the West.
	We figured, well, the ultimate diverse population is a population of individuals, so you let the individuals sort it out.
	No, no, we're going to replace that with group.
	Well, what that means for the bloody social activists is that they'll be able to play this game forever because you can continually fractionate group identity ad nauseum, and so the system will never be equal.
	And you can bloody well be sure that as we implement social policy to make sure that all outcomes are equal, that the amount of space that you personally are going to have to maneuver Shrink and shrink and shrink and shrink.
	We've already seen that happen in many societies.
	You'd think we would learn from the 20th century.
	Apparently the Conservative Party can't.
	Yeah.
	I mean, he's totally right, obviously.
	Yeah.
	But yeah, so, good news.
	I look forward to the hype quotas.
	Yeah, well, I look forward to the Conservative Party just taking on the full aspect of leftism, because that seems to be the direction they're going in, and they don't understand why that's bad.
	So...
	Moving on, let's see what the effect of generations and generations of persistent leftism are.
	Because it turns out we actually have results.
	Pink News have reported that apparently more Americans than ever identify as LGBT +, an eye-opening new study, and they posted this to their Facebook page going, yeah, we're taking over.
	I was like, okay.
	Hmm.
	Heard that rhetoric before.
	Hmm.
	But what are you going to do when you're old?
	Let's say you do take over.
	What's the reproductive rate of LGBT people?
	What if 70 or 80% of society decide that actually we're LGBT too?
	And what's the reproductive rate?
	It's going to be a lot lower than the heterosexual percentage of the population.
	And so they're all going to be standing around going, well, hang on a second.
	Where are the young people who are supposed to be paying for my pension?
	There's supposed to be someone taking care of me in this old folks home, but there's no one there to staff it.
	Which is an unsustainable trend.
	I just have to like, because JREG, what JREG calls it, is homo-nationalism.
	So it's like the homo-nationalist state of old people.
	Yeah.
	They'll just die out by the fact that there's no reproduction.
	But on the plus side, at least they can have their pride parades.
	But yeah, anyway, so more Americans than ever.
	So this has gone up to 5.6% of adult Americans identify as this, which has gone up from 4.5% when it was last polled in 2017, and as we saw, it was 4.6% in the UK. So it's reasonably similar, and it's probably fairly similar in this regard over here too.
	It's not that high, to be honest.
	No, it's not.
	It's a totally...
	And that's LGBT plus blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	So any one of these segments is going to be a much smaller percentage as well.
	So we're talking about hardly anyone, right?
	Why these people dominate the news cycle, why they dominate the thinking of the BBC and the Conservative Party and all this, I just don't know.
	I mean...
	How do we get other marginal groups?
	Like, I don't know, like, people who like trainspotting or something.
	You know, can we not have them as a marginalised activist group?
	The Anoraks.
	What happened to the Anorak Lobby?
	I actually know an Anorak.
	My father-in-law's an Anorak.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah.
	It's tragic.
	You ever go and trainspot him with him?
	No, but you can take my son.
	My son likes, like, machines, you know, because he's a boy.
	Well, it's acceptable at his age.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But anyway...
	So yeah, of those who identified as LGBT +, over half identified as bisexual, 24% identified as gay, and 11% as lesbian.
	1 in 10 reported they identified as trans, while 3.3% said they used another term to describe themselves such as queer or same-gender loving.
	So that's Garzy Kozo, who was featured in this report.
	But so out of that, out of the 5%, only 11% of those, 11% of that 5% are trans.
	Sorry, only 10% were trans.
	So the trans population of America is very low.
	Why are we talking about it constantly?
	Is that 0.5?
	I don't know.
	Yeah, one-tenth of 5%.
	So, very, very, very tiny proportion of the population.
	Massively disproportionate influence on public policy and public conversation.
	But this is not evenly split among the age demographics, as you might imagine.
	One in six, which is 16% of Americans born between 1997 and 2002, which is Gen Z, also consider themselves part of the LGBT plus community, with only 9% of millennials, which shocks me as being that low, And yeah,
	so this is something that's being obviously pushed by the Biden administration with the Equality Act, which they want every person to be treated with dignity and respect.
	And this bill represents a critical step towards that, and full equality has been denied to these people, blah, blah, blah.
	We had this with the Equality Act 2010 here, and it's ended in tears.
	Yeah, and so it's not that these people are lacking any kind of rights, obviously.
	What they're lacking is the kind of...
	I don't know.
	I don't even know what they're trying to...
	We lack privileges.
	Yeah, they like privileges, like the ability to adopt, right?
	It's not a right to adopt, it's a privilege to adopt.
	And if you are some sort of degenerate drug addict who's spent the last 20 years on crack and you live in a hovel, then yeah, you can't adopt either.
	You know, it's not because you're gay, it's because you've been irresponsible, and it's a bad environment in which to raise kids.
	And it's not a right, it's a privilege.
	Not that I'm saying that gay people are like that, obviously, but what I'm saying is it's about behaviours.
	But anyway...
	So it seems that more and more young people are becoming LGBT, which means that they're falling under the influence of radical left-wing ideology, and the sort of people who are purveyors of radical left-wing ideology.
	And that brings us on to my favourite segment of today, the kind of people who promote, say, transgenderism.
	Sensible.
	Not transgender acceptance or tolerance.
	No, no, but transgenderism.
	Be transgender.
	You should become it.
	Yes.
	And essentially kind of grooming young people into thinking that it's good to be trans.
	This was something called Assign Male Comics.
	Now, if you follow Online Culture Wars, you may have been familiar with this.
	Because it's this kind of thing.
	Gender doesn't need to be constructed, but its diversity needs to be celebrated.
	This is actually a surprisingly moderate comic, but I couldn't find the actual Facebook page, so I assume that it's been taken down.
	But it's things like this.
	I wasn't born with a girl's body.
	I'm a boy.
	This is my body, so it's a boy's body.
	Boys have all kinds of bodies.
	Yes, and some of them are female bodies, don't you know?
	It's that kind of propaganda.
	But what you'll notice from looking at these...
	I just love the first response there.
	No.
	No.
	But what you'll notice from the images they've been drawing is that all of the people featured in them look fairly young.
	And that's not a coincidence.
	This is drawn by one Sophie Lebel, who now runs a webcomic called Serious Trans Vibes, which is essentially the same thing that I guess they've just rebranded from a signed male.
	But what are they up to now?
	I haven't really seen anything around from them for a while.
	And it turned out that some interesting stuff happened on Twitter.
	Some interesting stuff that...
	Again, more kits.
	Yeah, it's all very young-looking characters in their cartoons.
	Very young.
	Very childlike.
	Almost like they're trying to groom children.
	But anyway, you can remember this was what they used to draw.
	I wasn't born a boy.
	I didn't become a girl.
	It's just that nobody cared to ask me first.
	The only difference with cisgender people is that they agreed with the agenda they're assigned.
	What are they drawing now?
	That's right.
	Pedo shit.
	It seems to be.
	Someone called Juniper has posted, The author of Assign Mail Comics takes photos of other people's children from the internet and uses them as references to draw porn.
	She teaches and mentors children.
	Apparently they're also...
	An elementary school teacher?
	The artist?
	The artist works in a school.
	Apparently so.
	This is what people have been reporting.
	I haven't been able to confirm it.
	So that's not confirmed, but it seems to be something that people who know the artist seem to think.
	And this is being described as, quote, diaper furry fetish art.
	I mean, to be honest, I can't believe I'm going to have to make a defense.
	The defense, the only point I'm going to do here is if they want to draw that in their own time or something, I don't give a toss.
	But the fact that it's referenced from an image of a child is what's wrong with this in my eyes.
	Like, I'm very liberal about whatever nonsense sexual fetish you have, right?
	I mean, there are people who like being defecated on whatever.
	I don't care.
	Like, it's disgusting, but that's their thing.
	But what I'm not okay with, especially them taking an image of a child and then using it for like a template for their sexual fetishes.
	I mean, that's something wrong.
	That's something deeply wrong.
	Yes, effing disgusting is what I would describe that as.
	And so someone who knows them has posted on Twitter a thread that I think we'll just go through because it's very interesting, right?
	So I don't think this is the first one.
	People talking about the woodchippers in chat.
	It's got to be a thumbnail.
	Yeah, let them carry on because just like the helicopter industry, it's going to be booming.
	Yeah, death penalty for pedos.
	I agree.
	I think definitely for a few other things, too, to be honest.
	Conversation for another time, I guess.
	Yeah, it is.
	But anyway, they say here, lesbian Gordon Freeman, who has a picture of Gordon Freeman with the trans icon overlaid over it, tells us, I'm very nervous about retweeting posts about this, because a lot of people are using it as an excuse to be transphobic and transmisogynistic.
	Oh, no.
	Perish the thought.
	No, it's anti-pedoism.
	What else do you think?
	Well, hang on, hang on.
	That sounds very transphobic.
	That's what they're saying!
	That's what they're saying!
	Being anti-pedo is being transphobic.
	Fine.
	That's what they're saying?
	Sure.
	Anyway, assigned male comics, a webcomic with a largely minor fanbase and young fanbase, artist Sophie Lebel has come out as a little...
	I don't know what a little is, but I don't like the sound of it.
	And they give a disclaimer as well.
	I'm going to block TERF's transphobes and people trying to defend her on site.
	But anyway...
	I'm not sure where.
	I think we might come in.
	I don't know if we're TERFs.
	I mean, I assume we're TERFs and transphobes.
	And we're certainly not trying to defend them.
	I mean, we're anti-Peter, so by his admission, we're transphobes.
	Okay, sorry about that, lesbian Gordon Freeman.
	Good point.
	Anyway, for those who don't know, a little is part of a kink dynamic wherein usually one person acts like a small child and the other acts like the child's caregiver.
	Any comment on that, Callum?
	You look pretty disgusted.
	I'm...
	Because I'm also...
	Because I'm a very liberal person about fetishes as well.
	Like, I understand tolerance of nonsense that people want to engage in for sexual pleasure.
	Sure.
	But there is something absurd about this.
	So if someone wants to do it just to be like, oh, I enjoy, I don't know, behaving like that or something.
	A girl might be like, oh, I'm so cute or something like this.
	You know, people dressing up in school uniforms and whatnot.
	You know, that's the, say, moderate position.
	Right.
	Fine.
	In your own home, do whatever nonsense you want.
	But I think when you're using images of children, when you're openly talking like this and making comics of children, maybe working in a school, not confirmed, some questions have to be asked.
	When you have an audience that's maybe largely teenage and younger.
	Yeah, especially when you're trying to indoctrinate them into...
	Leftism, yeah.
	This kink is somewhat notorious in parts of the internet for, among other things, invading and sexualizing spaces made for children and spaces made for people who age regressed due to trauma.
	Like what?
	Read it again if you like.
	This kink is notorious in parts of the internet for invading and sexualizing spaces made for children.
	I'm not very permissive when it comes to this kind of thing.
	I'm just thinking...
	Because that's the thing.
	If you want to do it in your own heart, I don't give a toss.
	But if you want to invade a space for children, you need to go to jail.
	Yeah.
	You need to go to jail.
	As the leading proponent of dadism, I can tell people with authority that this is the opposite of dadism, and dadism rejects this in all forms.
	And...
	Quite strong grounds.
	Like, spaces made for children are not to be sexualised under any circumstances, and I don't know why I have to say that.
	Like, normally, in a rational society, this would just be taken as a given, right?
	Do you think there's a link here?
	Because the idea, like, there's women spaces, invade them.
	But child spaces, I mean, what's the argument for that being sacred from these lunatics?
	Because they're children?
	You pedos?
	But that's the thing.
	I don't think they even recognise age as something that's sacred.
	I wonder if they recognize woodchippers.
	Seriously, I'm not...
	I don't care!
	Anyone who comes in and is like, hey, by the way, I'm an adult and I want to come into this children's space, but also I'm going to have a bit of a kink about this thing.
	No.
	No, you're not.
	And you'll be lucky if I don't punch you for even suggesting the damn thing.
	Sophie Lebel is apparently one of these kinksters, and she has been secretly making content for this kink, and got caught doing this.
	She insists the kink isn't sexual, but of course...
	Liar.
	Yeah, A. Why is it a kink, then?
	Yeah, exactly.
	The word kink means a sexual fetish.
	So, no, obviously.
	Don't lie to my face, obviously, you pedo.
	And she's been tagging her out with the kink tag, which is ABDL, which is Adult Baby Diaper Lover.
	Good God.
	I'm so glad this is not part of my life.
	I'm so glad.
	I just got home to a normal, wholesome family environment, and none of this disgusting sh...
	I hate it.
	I'm trying not to swear, not because we're not on YouTube, but just because I don't want to swear all the time.
	But this is just...
	We are on Facebook, yeah.
	I've still got to say Voldemort, then.
	Can't say his real name.
	I guess we do.
	But anyway, she came out about this on Facebook because people found her baby fur art and recognised her art style.
	And here's the coming out post where you can say, who knew I would end up coming out again at 32?
	People have been correctly clocking...
	You can't come out as a kink.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	Yeah.
	See, this is what's wrong with these people.
	They can't accept that there's a difference between sexuality and a kink.
	A kink is something else.
	Most people around me know I've been involved in little communities for a very long time.
	If I can find one of these communities, how much trouble would I know?
	I'm not suggesting that these people need to be reported to the authorities and their hard drives need to be seized and examined for anything that's on them.
	But I think that if I was going to point to a community that that was something of a concern in, that's probably it, right?
	I mean, that's probably the most likely place where you're going to find that kind of thing.
	And maybe the authorities are interested in that.
	That's all I'm saying.
	But anyway, the reason this matters, right?
	I've put a quote in the chat.
	Any society that fails to protect its children does not deserve to go on.
	Well, it just won't.
	But anyway, so this lesbian Gordon Freeman says, This is pretty upsetting to me personally, as I was a big fan of her content as a young teenager and have friends who are also fans of her content at the same or even a younger age.
	I'm going to take some space and time for self-care, blah, blah, blah.
	Yeah, so that's pretty much it.
	That's pretty much it.
	This person was groomed by this weird, pedo-kink fetishist, and has now discovered that actually they're a totally, totally vile human being, and perhaps there's something about leftist politics that attracts these kind of people.
	Just saying.
	In the same way there's something about the Catholic Church that attracts that sort of behaviour.
	There seems to be something about leftist politics that attracts that sort of behaviour.
	I mean, it's the meme, isn't it?
	Every effing time.
	Yeah.
	And so I thought we'd go to Dr.
	North FC for a diagnosis on that.
	Yeah.
	Turns out it's nonce.
	Assigned nonce.
	Totally agree.
	Thanks, Scrum, for making this, by the way.
	Again, I don't care about her.
	Well, I do care about her, but let's say just generality.
	If someone has weird fetishes, don't care.
	But when you are using images of children, and then that's part of your makeup of your fetish.
	I mean, like that original image there.
	Yeah.
	No.
	Do we need to condemn and be outraged?
	Obviously no.
	Like, what kind of nonce is going to sit there going, well, actually, maybe we need to weigh up, you know?
	But for me, it's the...
	Like, even then, it's not the worst thing in the world.
	Because it's like, look, if it's adults doing something in the privacy of their own homes, I don't care.
	But it's when you're like, hey, we're here to sexualize children's spaces with this kink about pretending to be kids.
	It's like, no, you're not.
	I'm...
	Going to go to jail.
	And again, explicitly, this is not trans acceptance.
	This is not trans tolerance.
	This is transgenderism.
	We want you to be transgender.
	And we're going to strictly advertise our content at children.
	Yes.
	Okay, I don't trust you for a second.
	No.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The self-admitted essentially nonce Has come out and been like, yeah, so, you know, I produce all of this.
	This is why this is also disgusting that this stuff gets promoted in schools and with child carers.
	Yeah.
	Because they'll get sent, you know, equality and diversity inclusion, all this nonsense we talk about.
	This is the worst aspect of it.
	Because it gets sent to schools and they're meant to implement this by law.
	And then you have sick people like that who come in in it.
	And they'll promote this kind of stuff.
	And it will be turning into nonce-ess.
	Cool.
	Yeah, and they can get their way in under the cover of it being, no, but I'm a trans activist.
	I produce child-friendly LGBT cartoons to teach them about acceptance of trans people.
	And yes, they do happen to all be very young-looking children, about six or seven, something like that.
	Yeah, I'm very interested in this field.
	Oh, we really are.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Why?
	I mean, it's just like if a male applies for a primary school position, like anyone who applies for a primary school position gets looked over, and if a male does it, because most nonces are male, they get special looking at it, and that's what I do.
	But this kind of stuff, this is like Jesus smuggling on steroids or something.
	Yeah.
	It's disgusting.
	Yeah, but that's the thing.
	Men get more intense scrutiny, and I think that the LGBT activists probably should in this regard as well.
	Well, the men should get more scrutiny because they do turn out to be more nonces, and these kind of people should get more scrutiny.
	In my opinion, just get rid of all of this.
	There should not be anywhere near schools, as in all of the diversity inclusion stuff, not just this stuff.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	You don't need what is essentially pro-trans propaganda being given to children.
	In fact, I would suggest that's terrible.
	Unless you make them confused about the world and their own lives and the way that they feel.
	At a particularly vulnerable stage in their lives as well.
	And I think obviously that's why people like Sophie do what they do.
	And if I'm wrong, you can sue me, can't you, Sophie?
	Because I don't watch comics, so I don't know if that original image of the dog thing, have we confirmed that that's real or not?
	No, no, that's not from the assigned male comics.
	That's from the secret diaper furry fetish comics.
	She engages her.
	And she came out and admitted it.
	She put a Facebook post up saying, yep.
	Kinks to yourself.
	This isn't hard.
	They're for the bedroom for a reason.
	But even then, it's like, look, if you have a very young audience that you've been grooming into transgenderism, then coming up with little, whatever that's supposed to insinuate...
	It's just like, well, the Venn diagram is really, really aligned at this point.
	It's gross.
	Let's move on.
	Yeah.
	I had a section, didn't I? Sorry, I got a bit mad.
	No, no, I don't blame you.
	It's disgusting.
	It's absolutely disgusting.
	Anyway, lighter note.
	Well, not lighter note.
	It's also a sad story.
	I haven't been following this.
	What good stories have we got, to be honest?
	No, it's not good news.
	What are we cheery?
	Anyway, today, the destruction of the West...
	So, Facebook versus Australia.
	A lot of people have been talking about this, so it's finally ended, so I wanted to cover it.
	I wanted to leave it a little time to gestate.
	So, Australia wants to pass a law which has previously been looked at by the EU and Spain.
	I think they're the only two that have seriously tried this.
	people for using links or snippets right yeah so let's say you've got google news which lists a bunch of news stories according to the user's preference and they don't pay a penny to the the you know the links they use there and i can see an argument from the perspective of the news stories it's like right you don't actually produce anything you just rearrange content there yeah it's not like a google search you are promoting stuff yeah yeah but at the same time the news maker gets a click so So it seems like a good symbiotic relationship.
	I don't know what the problem was there.
	And then you have Facebook.
	With the EU, the problem was the advertising revenue was going exclusively to Silicon Valley, and they wanted Silicon Valley to pay a tax.
	So the European Union and whoever the news organization was could get a cut of their money.
	But Facebook can do the same thing, but news stories.
	And then they have ads around the whole stuff.
	That's how they make the money.
	And the money goes to Silicon Valley.
	And this seems like a very good relationship, a very good situation.
	But apparently not.
	The money instead has to be in the hands of the pockets of international governments like the EU, or it has to be in the pockets of the news organizations because...
	Gibbs.
	That's all I can get out of it.
	And so this happened in Australia.
	The next link is the Australians decided to try and pass a similar law in which if you hosted links to other content, then you would have to pay or make an agreement.
	I think you were mandated by law to make an agreement with the news corporations about this.
	So Google decided, yeah, we'll just do it because, I don't know, they'd given up on this.
	Facebook were like, no, we're leaving.
	We're going to shut down all news in Australia.
	No one's going to be able to share news then.
	Because we're not doing this.
	We're not going to pay for every news link.
	That's not how the internet works.
	And it's horrible, but we have to stand up for Facebook here.
	Yeah, I don't want to have to be on Facebook's side, but yeah, stop being unreasonable.
	The only thing they did wrong here is they did mess up, because of course they did, and they accidentally blocked a bunch of government departments and charities as well, because they're that useless.
	So the next link is just some of the government departments.
	Little blogs like Bureau of Meteorology.
	Just scroll through the images.
	Department of Fire and Emergency Services.
	I've watched a bunch of videos of the Australian politicians whining about this.
	The next link is just some YouTube where I'm just listening to them whine.
	I don't want to go over it because I don't think they're very interesting.
	I think these people are practically puppets.
	I don't think they're anything but men in suits in this story.
	Agreed.
	To explain the position of why I think Facebook is in the right, kill me for saying that, Nick Clegg, of all people, Are you not going to make me support Nick Clegg?
	Yeah, I'm going to make us all support Nick Clegg, because Nick Clegg said something correct once in his life.
	So he's writing on Facebook's behalf, and he's framing this as like, this is the story of what really happened, and I think he's right.
	So he says in here...
	Talking about the fact that an Australian news corporation, so News Corp, for example, Rupert Murdoch, Australian, will say, we want money from you for hosting our links.
	Well, he points out the publishers themselves choose to share their stories on social media or make them publicly available to be shared by others because it's a great value of them to do so.
	That's why they have buttons on their own site encouraging readers to share them.
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, social media is tremendously useful for online news corporations.
	It's like a website that we have of our own.
	We are well aware of the importance of people being able to post our links on social media and share them from our social media accounts, which you should do, by the way.
	But that's also the difference between Google and Facebook, yeah.
	So Google just cucked and went, we're just going to pay.
	Because, I mean, all they actually are doing there on the news side is aggregating news.
	But on Facebook's side, they're like, no, you post it.
	You set up an account, you set up a page and post your content.
	We're just a platform, we're not a publisher.
	And you want us to pay you.
	It's like, that doesn't make any sense.
	Like, you've joined.
	And he points out that Facebook has generated approximately, he says, 5.1 billion free referrals.
	So that's how many clicks these guys are getting for free from being on this platform.
	And it's worth an estimated 407 million Australian dollars.
	So take the numbers with a bit of salt because it's Facebook.
	Sure, but even if it's only half that, It's still very useful for the Australian news industry.
	It's if me, Australian journalist for a second, wanted to get news out there.
	I put it on Facebook.
	Facebook, essentially, as a platform, gives me the ability to get to people.
	And then I get paid in ad revenue from people clicking on the link.
	That's not enough, apparently.
	I need more.
	I need more.
	And the argument here is essentially that online media has destroyed journalism, and therefore that's why they need more.
	But I just hate the fact that I have to now defend Silicon Valley.
	But also, I don't agree.
	I feel like journalism's just gone from this stuffy centralization that it used to be to now being people on social media.
	I mean, the best journalists I know would be people like Andy Ngo on Antifa, for example.
	If I want to know something about them, you go to him.
	It's just some guy on Twitter.
	And it's actually better, I think, than having the five people on Earth who know something about it shoved into newspapers.
	Anyway, so he goes on in here.
	We neither take nor ask for content for which they are asking us to pay for.
	So it's the fact that the stuff they're asking them to pay for, they don't even ask for.
	You post on our site, we didn't.
	And then you're saying, for us posting it, we now want gibs.
	And it doesn't make sense.
	The initial law also said that there was no stipulation as to how much stuff was worth.
	So potentially it could be an unlimited amount.
	So if I was News Corp, I could just be like, give me a trillion dollars.
	I mean, I wouldn't agree to that if I was Facebook and you'd have to go to arbitration.
	But there's no cap.
	There was no guidelines.
	It was just make an agreement.
	Right.
	Facebook would have been forced to pay potentially unlimited amounts of money to multinational media conglomerates without even so much as a guarantee that it would be used to pay for actual journalism, let alone support smaller publishers.
	I mean, there's no guarantee there is such a thing as actual journalism anymore.
	It's like forcing a car company to fund radio stations because people might listen to them when they're in the car and letting the radio stations set the price.
	It's true.
	Yeah.
	It's true.
	This is unjust.
	Although I do kind of find it amusing in here that he tries to defend Facebook's position as well, being like, well, we've already played our Saqqqat.
	We've already paid our Islamic texts to the mainstream media.
	We've invested $600 million since 2018 to support the news industry and plan to leave at least $1 billion more in the next three years.
	Weirdly, this seems to have echoes of the Democrats trying to blame the gun manufacturers for gun deaths.
	But it's not their fault.
	No, it isn't.
	It's one of those things where you're just pointing to the wrong person or the wrong group when you're trying to assign blame.
	It's just not appropriate.
	But he knows that he's being come after here by these media conglomerates, the mainstream media.
	And you can see in here he mentions, Last month, Facebook announced deals with The Guardian, Telegraph Media Group, Financial Times, Daily Mail Group, Sky News, and many more.
	All of them left to far-left outlets, in my view, from what I read of their content, whenever they publish it.
	Daily Mail, not so much.
	Oh, no.
	They're a controlled opposition, in my view.
	They'll publish some cool stuff, but when it comes to someone who actually threatens the status quo, shut it down.
	Yeah, the Telegraph's very much the same.
	The Telegraph is very much like, we're conservatives.
	We're for transgender people grooming children.
	It's that kind of content, in my view.
	So that's the controlled opposition.
	So they're literally saying, we promote this, we're giving you money, and you're still coming after us.
	It's like, yeah, because there's no limit.
	They want everything from you.
	What incentive do they have to stop?
	And I feel bad for Facebook, because they've not really done anything wrong here.
	Feeling bad for Facebook.
	Yeah, I know, right?
	After the way they've treated us and our friends.
	Yeah, I know.
	And they gave up on this.
	They've now agreed that they will be dealing with corporations.
	And there's a discussion about who blinked first here, as BBC News are posting it.
	But I don't really think anyone...
	Anyone except from News Corp won out of this.
	I think Facebook lost, but they got a small advantage.
	So the reason they gave up is they got a change in the law.
	So the next link is just a big breakdown of what went on.
	So they negotiated that instead of it being mandatory, it would be voluntary.
	Well, okay.
	Who's going to go for that?
	The media corporations.
	Because they'd all made an agreement.
	It's like, right, if you speak to News Corp and you spoke to MSNBC and the Guardian Group or whatever, you know, the big guys, then it's voluntary.
	You don't have to deal with the little ones.
	You never have to deal with anyone.
	Oh, oh.
	So only the, you know, billion dollar media groups would get these agreements and there'd be a voluntary exchange.
	And yeah, for the smaller guys, Facebook can just turn around and be like, no.
	What are you going to do?
	Sue us?
	How much money have you got?
	Hmm.
	That's what happened.
	So effectively, it's just a tax on big tech, Facebook in this example, to pay, you know, what do we call them?
	Dirty, dirty smear merchants to make more smear merchant pieces.
	So only the megacorporations win, the small businesses lose.
	Yeah, anyone who wants to set up a smaller social media competitor, you're going to run into this problem as soon as they start joining your platform.
	God.
	So it's a barrier to entry for anyone who wants to try and replace Facebook.
	And in the meantime, it helps these billion dollar media corporations.
	Brilliant.
	Although I also love that Facebook decided to release a statistic in regards to this.
	They said that 4% of their content is news.
	So 4% of all postings is news.
	It's very small.
	It's very, very small.
	I'm not saying they should.
	The eye of Sauron of the mainstream media writes endlessly that you're radicalising the youth.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	God, let me radicalise in peace.
	Because that's the thing.
	These guys, we've seen their donation histories.
	They all donate to democratic candidates.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, you're calling us the radicals, right?
	Okay, fine.
	But yeah, one day I think that social media is going to be like, you know what?
	Just enough of this.
	Yeah, and it's hard to blame them.
	I mean, when they're getting literally shaked down by the Australian government, and they've lost here as well, which is another point, because they left Spain.
	They just were like, no, we're out.
	We're not going to do this.
	And then there was a huge fight over the EU. And with this one, they've lost.
	And I see the politicians in the UK and Canada and France are all saying, how dare they pull out the news corporations and we need to go after Facebook.
	We also should pass this law.
	It's like, right.
	So all the mainstream media and all these other countries have just been given a signal.
	Yes, you can shake down Facebook and the government will back you.
	But I just feel so dirty saying that maybe we shouldn't be doing bad things to Facebook.
	Yeah, I mean, Allah willing, they go bankrupt tomorrow because we get to find out that they've been breaking Section 230.
	Or something like that, yeah.
	Not for an unjust reason.
	For being just capitalists, I'm not going to go after them for that.
	That's good.
	I mean, that's why they're worth so much.
	It's just a shame that when they got to that point, they decided to start meddling with everyone's posts.
	Yeah.
	Anyway.
	I don't really have much more to say on that, to be honest.
	No.
	It's another one of those stories where it's just like, well, everyone gets screwed except the billionaires.
	Right.
	Great.
	What was the quote from...
	I can't believe I'm going to quote Jesus.
	It's a weird day, isn't it?
	Yeah, from those who have nothing, everything will be taken, and from those who have everything, everything will be given, or something like that.
	And it's like, well, here we go.
	This is a great example of that kind of timeless wisdom.
	The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
	Anyway, right, so we have some video comments.
	If you'd like to leave us a video comment, you can go to losese.com, sign up as a gold member, and then just record your video comment and send it across.
	Leave it as a message on the podcast page, in fact.
	Also, we're doing the gold-tier hangout tomorrow at 4pm.
	There'll be an article up about it at midnight tonight.
	So 4pm tomorrow, if you're a gold member, we'll be just hanging out here and chatting to you about things you want to talk about and give your opinions on stuff and things like that.
	Also, since everyone's joining us now at this point, just to remind everyone, we're banned from YouTube for seven days, so we're going to be streaming here every day from 1pm.
	If you know anyone who watches the podcast or you think is a subscriber, send them this so that they know.
	Yeah, do let people know.
	But you can at any point go to the podcast page and watch the podcast fresh, because the VOD will be there, so it's all there, so everything's working great.
	We only read the chat live, so...
	Yeah, yeah.
	I just love some of the people who say, like, inshallah, like the Muslim orcs.
	Oh, right.
	Yeah, but this means that if you have any comments you want us to read out, we'll read them out afterwards as well.
	There was something else I was going to say as well, I was supposed to promote, that I forgot.
	Oh yeah, so we were thinking about this, and we actually quite like just streaming to the site, because it gives us a kind of comfort zone, that we don't have to be constantly watching our language, because we could edit it out afterwards.
	Condemn pedophilia without feeling like YouTube's going to ban me for it.
	Yeah, weird, isn't it?
	YouTube, bad for transphobia.
	So what we were thinking with the YouTube channel, we might not actually stream on there again.
	What we might do is just upload the clips as we used to do.
	So people who watch YouTube and want to see the segments for the podcast, they can watch them there or you can watch them here live.
	But anyway, Nicholas says, Hey folks, I was devastated when I heard you guys got a strike.
	Don't worry, we'll be back in a few days.
	The problem with YouTube is it's a great technical site, but the terms of survey...
	Sorry?
	You want to do the videos first?
	Oh yeah, Christ, yeah, okay, sorry.
	They pay for the privilege.
	That's a good one, I forgot.
	Sorry, go on.
	A couple things.
	So, first one, Carl, I sent in some content.
	I know you guys aren't looking.
	You're looking to hire local, etc.
	I would love some feedback on it.
	It'd be wonderful.
	Next one is, one thing I see coming up over and over again is the challenge of education.
	The audience itself has brought it up a number of times.
	Now, I have the same pain point as you guys.
	I am looking to go and further educate myself, but I do not really want to go into the university funnel And basically pay for my own indoctrination and support that value prop either.
	There is an alternative.
	Just came across it through some YouTube networks that I watch.
	The education is free.
	The course material is university grade.
	There is course credit transfer to some universities in the United States.
	And I don't want to mention it specifically here.
	I'll send you guys an email about it if you want to bring it up.
	But what my ask from the Lotus Eaters is what I'm really looking for is a little focus.
	Like we're all looking for it.
	So potentially if you can give your membership, you know, I don't want to say just yet another discord, but very focused area where we can self-organize and engage in the education process that is now available.
	Um, through the private industry and get into their funnel.
	And the, the benefit of that is too, is that, you know, they are training you specifically for what they're looking for.
	And you're now getting, you're getting your education, your certification from these network of companies that are looking for people and they're looking for anti-woke people.
	If we come in as a group that's self-organized and treat it a little bit like school, you know, going through cohorts and stuff, doing a little graduation ceremony, all that stuff has content under the Lotus years would be fantastic.
	So that's what I would really love.
	That's my ask.
	Sorry for being so long.
	Cheers.
	Well, I haven't got any plans or anything like that.
	And at the moment, we're a bit short-staffed, so I don't really want to take on any extra commitments.
	But, I mean, we're only four months into this project so far, so, you know, who knows, in like six months' time or something, when we're much bigger, we have more staff.
	And hopefully, you know, we've got more money to our name.
	We can do things like this and we can organize these things.
	But at the moment, it's not on the horizon, I have to be honest.
	But it's not a bad suggestion.
	I do second the opinion of the chat here, which is that that guy has a golden radio voice.
	He did, yeah.
	You ought to use it more.
	He did.
	I wonder how many cigars he smokes.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Right, do we have another one, John?
	We shall go to the end.
	We shall prosper in Florida.
	We shall swim in seas and oceans.
	With growing confidence we shall breathe fresh air.
	We shall live free on this peninsula, whatever the curse may be.
	We shall walk upon the beaches.
	We shall feed allocators of swampy crowns.
	We shall sing and dance under the lights of our streets.
	We shall not distance when we meet on hills.
	We shall never surrender.
	And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, the tyranny of federal states sees us subjugated and starving because of a disease that came overseas, a disease we could already treat, we endure this struggle until,
	In God's good time, the new world recalls its power and might, steps forth to remember the liberations of old, and in one voice informs this insignificant Joe that he shall just...
	That was amazing.
	That was great.
	Very good.
	I don't think we need to say anything about that.
	Yeah, I know.
	Right, next one, John.
	Yeah.
	It says here Biden has signalled his total allegiance to the Great Reset objectives and his corporate socialist overlords.
	Is this not a sort of flippant statement which will allow people to just disregard what you're saying offhand and will just lead to perhaps people feeling like you're just preaching to the choir?
	I guess it's a question about optics and a worry about how things are interpreted and how the sight looks.
	Possibly.
	It wasn't my piece.
	I didn't write it.
	It was Dr.
	Michael Recklenwald who wrote it.
	And I don't really want to exercise massive editorial control over the professors who write for us.
	Yeah, because I suppose that is an opinion piece as well.
	Yeah, it was his analysis piece, an opinion piece.
	It's not a piece of news.
	Yeah, it's not direct news or anything.
	I'm not saying that that's not a valid critique, obviously.
	But I guess what I'd say is, I don't know, send him a message on Twitter or Facebook or wherever he operates and let him know.
	Because I really don't want to be pruning through and...
	Politically correcting the things that they're saying, because I wanted it to be a free speech platform, obviously.
	So I guess not every article from every guest writer or academic that we get is going to be maybe entirely to your taste.
	But I mean, to be honest with you, I don't really disagree with the statement.
	I mean, he is.
	Build Back Better.
	He uses that phrase.
	One of his websites is buildbackbetter.com.
	This is the Joe Biden agenda.
	So it's hard to...
	It's hard to say that that's even wrong.
	But I guess that's a conversation you could have with Enormi if they brought it up.
	I mean, I agree that it could off-put someone who is against us, but it's just what it is, you know?
	And it is a true statement as well.
	Do we have one more?
	But yeah, was there one more?
	With the emergence of dadism, there has been a lot of discussion as to the identity of its opposition to which it serves as a counterpoint.
	And I'd like to throw my MAGA hat into the ring with what I think is a very natural answer.
	The natural opposition to dadism is infantilism or an expanded form thereof.
	People who desire to be infantilised, to be babied, to have their lives managed by a nanny state, government or authority on their behalves, and to take as little personal responsibility for their lives and actions as is possible.
	I think that this is a way of explaining the opposition not just accurately, but in a way that is also symbolically cohesive, something important for any political or philosophical rhetoric.
	Your thoughts?
	The only real objection I have to that thought is that I don't like the kind of It's bifurcation of all human views into two camps.
	And almost every ideology is guilty of doing this.
	Like, the libertarians were like, ah, dear statists.
	And it's like, who the hell do you think you're talking to?
	Like, no one's like a statist, you know?
	No one says, oh, I'm a statist.
	They'll say, I'm a socialist, or I'm a liberal democrat, or whatever.
	Yeah, no, you're right.
	And you're abstracting a general term that could apply to lots of things that don't apply that thing to themselves.
	So as a descriptive term, like infantilization is a good term, and it is the antithesis of dadism, obviously.
	But I don't think that we should just be like, right, you guys are all the infantilists and we're the non-infantilists, because they don't identify themselves that way.
	And so...
	I don't like the monolithic opposition view like this.
	I think it's not useful.
	It compresses down a lot of information and essentially erases a lot of information about the thing you're talking about.
	Not to say that that wouldn't be the general perception.
	Definitely.
	Doesn't that happen with all ideologies, though, as you've stated?
	Isn't that going to happen to data?
	Well, it's more about what you self-identify as.
	It's about the positive identification with the thing.
	I thought those memes become real as well for a second.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I didn't even think it would.
	It was just a joke.
	But yeah, the thing is, I think we should take people and let them have their most charitable interpretation of what they are.
	Let them self-identify as the thing they are.
	And we can ascribe properties to that if we want.
	And they can answer those charges, say, well, if you're a socialist and you want the government to give everyone everything, aren't you infantilizing them?
	And they can say, yeah, we are, we've got no defense of that, or whatever it is.
	But I don't want to call them the infantilists, because that's not how they're dead for themselves.
	I can see your point, but I think it will end up devolving into that because it does with every ideology.
	I'm not saying it won't.
	I'm sure it does.
	There is a point there.
	Surely it's mummism is meant to be the opponent of datism.
	No, not at all.
	Well, I mean, depends how you're defining it.
	Anyway, Nicholas Malson says...
	Oh, there's one more.
	Right, okay, sorry.
	Have you considered adding more than just light and dark mode for your website?
	And have you considered making the preference tied to your account instead of the information being stored in a cookie, so to speak?
	I don't know anything about tech.
	The reason we have a light and dark mode is because that's all we could muster.
	I don't have time to make, like, you know, seven different modes.
	Sorry, not me, the guy who...
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, at some point...
	By the way, thank you to everyone who's new subscribers because this is giving us security and it's allowing us to expand and hopefully all the premium content is making it worth it.
	But at the moment, no plans, but again, we're still quite in the early stages of the project, so it's certainly something we can consider, because I'm not against the idea.
	Gab's got the same sort of thing, where it's like you've got light, dark, and then a kind of just different colour scheme that you can rotate through, which is fine.
	I wasn't trying to be combative, I was just saying that's why.
	No, no, no, I know.
	Yeah, really it's because, you know, new.
	But at some point in the future, sure.
	I'm hoping that in a couple of years' time we'll have all these good ideas that we'll have been able to implement.
	The whole mumism-infantilism thing is totally true, though.
	It kind of is, right?
	I've been telling you about North Korea.
	I think I can say this because we're off YouTube.
	The North Korean regime, the way the Kims work, is a spoiler for some book clubs at some point, is that essentially the whole preface is that the Korean people are children who need to be taken care of by the Kims, and there's a lot of good historical precedent for this.
	Okay, we can describe that as mummism if you want.
	But that's the thing, yeah.
	It's very infantilistic, the fact that they have to be taken care of, because otherwise they'll be taken advantage of by the Japanese and American imperialists who have invaded our country.
	Yeah.
	I really want Jordan Peterson's opinion on the sort of pathological motherhood aspect, you know, it's like the abusive mother's syndrome sort of thing.
	I'd really love him to look over the North Korean cult.
	I bet you'd find it fascinating.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, Nicholas Malson says, Well, I mean, BitChute's a good alternative to YouTube, I think.
	Yeah, BitChute's been great.
	Yeah, BitChute's been great.
	Sure, there's features that YouTube has that they don't, but if you want an alternative...
	Apparently, BitChute are working on live streaming as we speak, so we will live stream to BitChute as and when it's ready, but at the moment, not many great options, but obviously you've got Odyssey, Rumble Library, and Mines, and various other sites, but it's really about your own personal preference at that point.
	S Gill says, a suggestion due to what happened last podcast, do what Crowder does and towards the end tell people to come here for a regular spicy bonus segment.
	Raise awareness for the site and weans people off the YouTube habit.
	Well, I think we'll probably just broadcast here primarily and not to YouTube and then put the clips up on YouTube and then put a thing at the end saying, hey, if you want to watch the podcast live, come watch it here at 1pm UK time every day.
	You think?
	Yeah, I think that'll work.
	Let us know.
	Leave us a comment on the page.
	Because the alternative is we stream here and we use some re-streaming software so then a copy gets sent to YouTube and we continue doing what we were doing.
	But we were primarily, I think, to YouTube.
	Well, no, we were streaming to...
	So we were using YouTube as the base?
	Yeah.
	Oh, okay.
	So yeah, we were streaming to, yeah.
	I mean, we still are streaming to multiple sites.
	Because that's the thing.
	Like, there is, what is it, two billion people who use YouTube every day?
	Yeah, it's crazy.
	So it's the question of trying to grow the audience that way.
	Is it preferential to use that system to grow the audience?
	Well, you've got to, really.
	Yeah, so is it best that we continue streaming there or not?
	That's the question.
	Well, I like the exclusiveness of not streaming to YouTube.
	I know that we lose our money by doing this, because we don't get super chats and things like this.
	I'm not going to talk about losing audience.
	Is that worth it?
	Well, I think we can still generate audience through the clips, through putting up the clips, and say, if you want to watch the full thing, you can come to lotuses.com, blah, blah, blah.
	And hopefully that will still allow us to grow an audience on YouTube.
	Yeah.
	I'm not necessarily disagreeing either.
	No, no, no.
	And the thing is, I'm not even saying this is set in stone.
	It could be that this is not a viable business model and that we can't do this and we have to continue restreaming to YouTube as well as everywhere else.
	Obviously, we're still going to, no matter what happens, we're going to be broadcasting to lotuses.com every day because that's why we have the site.
	So, you know, no matter what happens, we will be there.
	It's a good point being made in chat.
	We could do what Ben Shapiro does, which is essentially like you stream like the first hour, and the section where we go over the comments and everything, he'll be like, right, if you want to watch more, you've got to come to lowerseaters.com.
	Because with Daily Wire, you've got to pay to see it as well, whereas here it would actually be free.
	But the thing is, they don't do that, though.
	They just cover up the screen and then you can still continue listening.
	I know, it's strange.
	It's really weird.
	I don't get it.
	But is that something we could do?
	We'd be like, right, guys, come on.
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	We'll see.
	We'll try and figure something out.
	I'll read the chat, see what they say.
	Yeah.
	Tyler says, Hi guys, what would you suggest when talking to a typical uncharitable NPC who always take the worst possible interpretation of what you say, especially with all this lockdown nonsense?
	Be sincere.
	If someone's being uncharitable, if you're sincere, it makes them look like a jerk.
	And it's great.
	Just be genuine.
	Just mean what you say.
	Take them at their face value.
	And if you have to stop and reframe what they're trying to frame in you, the frame they're trying to trap you in, then do it.
	Take control of the conversation, basically.
	And just say, well, look, I just don't agree, and I just don't think you're listening to the words I'm using, et cetera, et cetera.
	But just be sincere.
	Be straight up.
	Don't try and use their own tricks against them, because they're not going to work.
	Andy D says, having recently read Rules for Radicals, why are we not holding SJWs to their own standards more?
	And when things get really bad, using the law against them, even if this means filing no-crime hate crime reports about, say, Coke or LinkedIn?
	Yeah, that's a good question.
	I mean, I would suggest that possibly because the left controls most of the institutions in society these days, and so they will see that, like, you know, you're complaining about Coke being anti-white, and they'll say, no, that's not hate crime because it's good to be anti-white.
	And so it won't work.
	I think that relies on the institutions being ethically neutral.
	And they're not.
	They're ethically left-wing.
	And so I don't think it'll work.
	I think they'll just tell you to go away.
	Dylan says, just want to say thanks for the great content.
	Best $6.95 I spend every month.
	Well, thank you very much.
	Now I can even salute with this hand.
	Hey, I'm planning to join the military, says Alex, so I can support the seven kids I want to have.
	I'm wondering if you have any...
	That's a lot, bloody hell.
	If you have any advice on how I can keep my honour intact under a Biden presidency.
	No.
	Don't fire on civilians when the time comes.
	And I think at some point Biden will call upon people to fire on civilians in some capacity.
	So don't, I guess, be a conscientious objector if that's the case.
	And if it comes down to siding with Trump or Biden in a civil war, don't side with Biden.
	And that's just a maxim that all of the military can follow.
	If it comes down to choosing Trump or Biden, don't choose Biden.
	Riss Sims says, Have you been following the Nicola Sturgeon vs Alex Salmond case?
	Hopefully the former and current SNP First Ministers will be the ones to topple the party in the Scottish parliamentary election.
	I haven't been following it, have you?
	Not that as much.
	I don't really understand it.
	Alex Salmon was accused of sexual assault, and apparently Nicola Sturgeon knew and just kept her mouth shut like a good feminist, and therefore they all look corrupt.
	They do.
	Sorry if I've got something wrong there.
	There's a lot of people talking about GME, so I'm going to mention it.
	Yeah, GameStop stonk is up 180% pre-market value.
	Is it?
	And that's a thing.
	This is not financial advice.
	Don't remortgage your house to buy stonks for Christ's sake or anything like that.
	Paper hands John over there.
	Sold off.
	Yeah, for disclosure, this man has, what is it, two stonks?
	Two stonks.
	Diamond hands.
	I haven't sold them off either.
	Are you going to sell?
	No.
	This is not financial advice.
	This is not financial advice.
	But it is moral advice.
	Sam Bao, I think it is, says, I can see amongst my peers, he's 16, a growing trend towards simply identifying as LGBTQ for the associated benefits.
	Well done on the podcast, by the way.
	Been following since 2018.
	Thank you very much, Sam.
	And yeah, I believe that that's the case.
	The thing is, young people are impressionable when the power structures around them are saying, this is a good thing.
	You will gain benefits from doing this thing.
	Well, even if that thing is insane...
	People are going to do it anyway because there are benefits to it.
	You get special treatment for being LGBTQ. Even if that doesn't actually require you to do that much, you know, I can see people being like, right, okay, well, I'll just wear some eyeliner or something and then say I'm LGBT and then they'll just leave me alone or I'll get these benefits and blah, blah, blah.
	I can totally see that be the case.
	And that's something that I think the left is very conscious of.
	I think they know that that's the case and I think they create these privileges for that reason.
	Josh says, Regarding the teaching union's discussion from my comment yesterday, I was actively trying to change things.
	I was involved in various parts of the young teachers' groups in my union.
	However, I managed to offend a couple of people at one social once.
	I was pretty much cut out of that part of the union.
	As for the union political donations, they have a dedicated political donation fund, which is Opt Out, which I obviously did.
	I'd love to have a discussion.
	How generous of them, to be honest.
	Yeah, how nice of them, yeah.
	That was unexpected.
	Yeah, I bet you just thought your money was just going to be wasted.
	Well, most of them are, you know.
	Yeah.
	I'd love to have a discussion about the state of education and new news at some point.
	Keep up the good work.
	Well, if you have any insider knowledge that we can report on, you can email tips at logistice.com and hopefully our writing team will pick that up and be able to at least interview you for an article or something like this if you've got some good insider information.
	Crinson Wolf says, I asked this back on Podcast 73.
	As I'm reading Andy Ngo's book Unmasked, which you can...
	It's not even a book club, is it?
	It's just a free...
	Yeah.
	Well, it was the free book club.
	Yeah, the free book club.
	Because Andy came in, so we were like, all right, fair enough.
	So, yeah.
	How would you go about getting people who are BLM slash antifast sympathetic, but are open-minded and not completely lost to read a book such as Unmasked?
	Well, how would you go about it?
	You interviewed him.
	What would you say?
	I suppose.
	I mean, it depends how sympathetic they are.
	If they are to the point where they find themselves agreeing with Antifa, they follow them, this kind of thing, this will have no effect because it's coming from Andy No, so they'll know Andy No and they'll just say it's propaganda, right?
	Yeah.
	So I don't know if it's useful for that.
	You'd have to just instead show them videos of them beating up old women, burning down people's property.
	But if it's someone who just thinks, oh, it just means anti-fascist right, or anything like this, and anything to the right of that, let's say, then I think this is effective because what it is, is it's not Andy Ngo's thoughts on the situation.
	Unmasked is a journalistic piece in which he demonstrates, right, this is what they genuinely believe, here's their inside documents that aren't seen by the public, and here is what they've done in Portland and Seattle.
	Okay, that's what they've done.
	And then anyone reading that with an open mind, at least enough to not be an anti-foss simp, I don't see how they couldn't be convinced that this is a doomed ideology.
	Okay, that was a good answer.
	Michael Cameron says, Hey guys, first-time commenter, been watching Sagan for a few years now, bought a gold to post a video comment, and YouTube did YouTube to you guys.
	I am sad.
	Anyways...
	I have been noticing a lot that Biden's administration has done a lot of stuff in a very short period of time.
	My question is, do you think this is a ploy?
	Everyone knows that the general populace has a very short attention span and forget things fast.
	So do you think they're trying to do as much possible, as quickly as possible, so the populace forgets about all the bad stuff forward from now?
	Yeah, it's truly Machiavellian.
	So Biden's kind of following the procedure that Machiavelli laid out in The Prince about what happens when you conquer a new kingdom, when you take over.
	And what you've got to do is kill a bunch of people really quickly.
	Because the slower you draw this out, the worse the wounds are socially.
	If you do all of the bad stuff really, really quickly, and then do very little for like a couple of years, people forget about the bad stuff.
	You know, it's like, okay, well that wasn't in his character, that was just something he felt he had to do, he didn't want to do it, and it's, you know, okay, but it's gone now, it's stopped, he doesn't do this anymore.
	Well, Machiavelli goes a lot further than that.
	So it's your duty?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But that's, yeah, yeah.
	But that, yes, and in many ways you're absolutely right.
	You could consider it a duty to root out and exterminate the family of the previous ruling prince.
	And in this case, the analogy would be the administration of the previous ruling president.
	And all of the executive orders, and there's been a bunch of stuff that he's done recently that's actually, what was the one the other day about child trafficking or something like that?
	Not the cages.
	Did they legalise it?
	No, no, probably.
	There was something the other day, I can't remember what it was, but there was, like, all the government agencies were like, please don't repeal this executive order, this is a really good one, because it helps us catch child traffickers.
	Oh, it was deporting them or something like that.
	Oh yeah, deporting sex paedophiles and things like that.
	Yeah.
	Biden's like, no.
	But Trump did it, therefore it's got to go.
	Not great.
	I mean, this is actually a good...
	I phoned up Ghislaine Maxwell and she said, don't do it.
	There's actually a good criticism of Trump as well.
	I mean, Comey's the best example here.
	A layover from the Obama administration.
	Yeah, you should have got rid of him.
	As Machiavelli would point out, not only the thing you must do, but the responsible thing to do as an incoming Republican is to destroy everything Democrat, just as they do in response.
	Because they're not going to give you the same type of day.
	And that way you don't get a civil war happening.
	Yeah, you institute stability for your administration.
	Yeah.
	Unfortunately, though, Trump was a moderate centrist, as much as they don't like to admit it.
	Yeah.
	Why didn't he get rid of Comey?
	I don't know.
	Why didn't he get some really radical right-wing judges?
	Why didn't he just destroy Silicon Valley?
	Because F it.
	I mean, yeah, exactly.
	You should have been QAnon judges when Trump was assigning them.
	I'm not even joking.
	If it was, this would have been all different.
	Yeah.
	Could you imagine?
	I would love it.
	I can't stop imagining it.
	Oh my god, that would be so good.
	Exactly.
	It would have been so brilliant.
	Instead, we've got the sort of wet fish like Kavanagh and Coney Barrow.
	Like, we recuse ourselves?
	You recuse yourselves?
	Ridiculous.
	In the face of a satanic international pedo network?
	No, but even, you know, that aside, four years from now, let's say the Democrats pull the same thing where they say this election was run wrong, you suppressed the black vote to win this election and want to challenge it.
	Do you really think the Democratic justices are going to be like, we've recused ourselves?
	Of course not.
	Of course not.
	The Republicans and the Conservatives just keep getting kicked, and I hate it.
	Alex Ogle says, tuned into your discussion yesterday late.
	I think your analysis of socialism is fine, but lacking detail.
	Well, yeah.
	It was a podcast.
	For a real takedown of socialism, read The Socialist Phenomen by Soviet mathematician Igor Sharifovich.
	He dismantles the underpinnings of socialism with precision and evidence in the way that only a Soviet mathematician can.
	I implore everyone to read it.
	His definitions of chileastic from the Greek socialism.
	Oh, right, chileastic, right, yeah.
	And State Socialism to Destroy the Foundations of Socialism is Fabulous.
	Well, I haven't read it.
	I'm not surprised that my analysis of socialism was fine but lacking detail.
	But it sounds like a good recommendation.
	The Socialist Phenomenon.
	John, do us a favour.
	Send us a note on that on Discord.
	Socialist Phenomenon.
	Yeah, I will look that up because it sounds interesting.
	Joseph Woodland.
	I just wanted to say something to be clear for Facebook.
	We're not endorsing the forbidden ideology.
	I'm just going to point out the idea that there's a satanic pedo cult.
	No, no, obviously.
	Jeffrey Epstein scepticism, I think we called it.
	We're not endorsing that, just to be clear.
	But it would be hilarious to imagine if the right honourable baked Alaska was to rise.
	LAUGHTER I'm just thinking in my head, you saw the pictures of when they sat in Nancy Pelosi's chair as well?
	Yeah.
	It's like, oh, they would have been good.
	Yeah.
	Just Trump walks in with them.
	Take your seats.
	Take your seats, folks.
	Yeah.
	On Honey, I Gayed the Kids, I used to be quite an effeminate child, grew up in a separated household with fortnightly visits.
	Which is what probably turned me that way in the first place, mimicking adults around me mostly female.
	I maintain that I would have been encouraged to transition if I was in my early teens today, or perhaps encouraged to try activities I have no interest in.
	What do you think the effect of single motherhood has on the LGBTQ statistics?
	I think it's not so much the single motherhood as the absence of fathers that is having the effect there.
	But I would be surprised if the absence of fathers has no statistical correlation there.
	I mean, I can imagine that studies could be done to check the rates, and probably have been done, to check the rates of LGBTQ identification in families.
	Normal families, a normal nuclear family, and a single mother household.
	And I would predict that the rates would be higher in the single mother household.
	And so yeah.
	Tyler says, Hi Carl, say hi to Dev for me.
	I will do.
	Maybe remind him that the content creator who tries to make two videos publishes none.
	Don't chase two rabbits, Dev, just make videos.
	Yeah, I will.
	I'll message him and tell him that.
	Because that's true.
	He hasn't made a video in ages.
	Don't know why.
	George Happ says, given all the damage the alphabet propaganda is doing, would you think that Russia's law against public displays of something I'm not going to say, like pride parades, is all that bad?
	I mean, yes.
	I do not agree with the Russian standard on this.
	But there is something interesting we found looking at pride parades around the world this morning.
	Yeah.
	as accepted it's totally wholesome because it's gay people not queers it's gay people saying we'd quite like to have the right to marry or we'd quite like to have the right to be tolerated you know you don't have to like us but just tolerate that we exist and that's fine but when it gets to the place where it's completely tolerated and all the rest of it and there's no debate really to be had you find these wacko political types get involved and start turning into fetish pride yeah suddenly it's two guys in leather peeing on each other in the street and Or an old man, you know, holding another man by a chain and is wearing, like, doll clothing.
	It's just like, what is this?
	Why is this existing?
	Keep it in your bedroom, that's the thing.
	Kinks are for your bedroom, not for the streets.
	Is Russia's law that bad?
	Yes.
	Yes, because what they're doing is also inhumane.
	Yeah, obviously, obviously.
	But yeah, no, I don't like them, but I don't think they should be forbidden.
	I think that the certain kind of standard needs to be set.
	Harry Engladev says, how do you even determine the percentage of outed to non-outed gays?
	Yeah, it's a great question, isn't it?
	Like, I don't know.
	Maybe they're going to show them porn and see if they get an erection or something.
	I don't know.
	How do they do it?
	What's your options, Tim Davies?
	Seriously, how can we possibly know if someone's gay without outing themselves?
	It's ridiculous!
	I remember a company wanted to hire people on the basis that they were gay as well.
	It's like, how are you going to do that in the interview?
	Are you going to whip your genitalia out and be like, suck it?
	Is that how this is going to work?
	Just...
	I don't know.
	Lee Burdett says, trying to get gay staff to out themselves at the BBC reminds me of Michael Scott from The Office trying to make his office more inclusive by harassing Oscar about his gayness.
	I mean, literally.
	Yeah, literally.
	I don't see any other analogy.
	Lee Burdett says, trying to get gay staff to out themselves...
	Oh, no, I read that one.
	I was in twice.
	Natalie Collier says, what right does the company have to know my sexuality and decide how to express it?
	Absolutely none.
	Absolutely none at all.
	Like, I've never questioned Callum about being gay.
	You once questioned me about doing Jewish.
	We had that conversation once.
	It's only because of your nose.
	No, I kept saying my rabbi, because I used to be at Jewish society at university, and I just got in the habit of calling him my rabbi.
	Nicole was like, are you Jewish?
	I don't care if you are, but it's not really.
	I'm just going to keep that un-missed.
	He's just Russian and happened to have a rabbi and happened to have a huge nose.
	What's the problem?
	It's all adding up.
	You got a problem?
	No, no, not at all.
	Love Israel.
	Legally, I'm not allowed to have a problem.
	No, obviously you don't.
	I like being off YouTube.
	Yeah, me too.
	It's nice to be able to make a joke again, to be honest.
	My God, imagine.
	Oh, God.
	Won't be forever.
	Craig Keller says, Yes, the Conservatives are useless, but we need to stop getting indignant trying to start new populist right-wing parties.
	If you want to change the Conservatives, join the Conservatives and change the culture from within.
	You'll not beat the cathedral from the outside.
	The left understands this very well.
	Why don't we?
	Because if we join the Conservative Party, they'd kick us out.
	That's why.
	I'm a member.
	Well, if I joined, they'd kick me out.
	Yeah, I think you're worse than me.
	Worse?
	Well, you've got articles written about you.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Yeah, so I'd get kicked out.
	And I'm only a member to see what they're doing as well.
	I want to try and raise some of them to be less pathetic.
	Actually, the association I'm in, everyone there was completely based.
	Why are you leftists?
	Why are you leftists?
	Essentially, yeah, that's what every meeting's like.
	But most of them are actually quite based because I live in a Labour hellhole.
	And so they're just like, I don't know, why are we leftists?
	No, no, but in my particular area, because it's a leftist hellhole, anyone who's in the Conservative Party is already based as hell.
	Basically UKIPers.
	Natalie again says, LGBTQ plus people don't have to worry about their reproduction rates and an aging population.
	The government will simply import more people to fill those roles.
	Yeah, but doesn't that bring in additional possible threats?
	Because some of those people might not actually be very accepting of pride parades and things like that.
	I wouldn't feel terribly comfortable about being a 60-70 year old openly gay person and then the nurse comes in and it's Mohammed and he's not very culturally attuned to the LGBT community.
	I missed the initial question I was...
	Well, they're not bothered about an aging reproduction because the government...
	Yeah, exactly, John.
	I'm not saying that.
	We're still on Facebook.
	Yeah.
	But the reproduction rates going down and the aging population going up means that these people aren't going to have anyone to serve them when they need service.
	And they're going to be like, well, let's import people to fill those roles.
	It's like, yeah, but those people might really hate gays.
	Well, it's already happening in the UK. Yes.
	I mean, consistently we see cases of like, oh, this homophobic hate crime has happened, and it's never a native-born Englishman who's grown up in the English culture.
	Yeah.
	You know, or like the son of an immigrant.
	It's always like, you know, the new guys off the boat.
	Yeah, I mean, a few years ago, Pew did polling across the entire Muslim world and found that on average, across the entire Muslim world, 90% of Muslims thought being gay was immoral.
	Hmm.
	Lawrence GT says...
	I look forward to the immigration.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, more immigration.
	Good for leftism.
	Islamo-leftism isn't going to end well.
	Macron's right.
	But apparently Le Pen's are soaring in the polls at the moment.
	Good.
	I imagine that Macron just calling out Islamo-leftism is just basically everyone going, well, Le Pen was right then.
	Yeah.
	Because she was.
	I mean, how else are you meant to interpret that?
	Yeah.
	Just admit Le Pen's position is the correct position.
	And you're the guy who opposed it.
	So, people are identifying as LGBTQ SpaghettiOs more than before.
	But when I was a kid, there was an explosion of emo kids.
	How many of those remained emo kids?
	Let's be honest, this is a trend like any other trend amongst young people.
	Of course, the only difference is the outcome of the trend will inevitably end in lawsuits from cheaply bought irreversible cosmetic surgeries.
	Good luck, young people.
	I'm goddamn glad I wasn't born into your generation.
	Yeah, me too.
	I tell you what, me too, man.
	I am so glad this was not something I had to worry about when I was a kid, because there's no way kids can understand the implications of all of this stuff.
	It's huge.
	I mean, I don't think the adults dealing with it really understand the implications.
	And the fact that we're getting now to the point where it is lawsuits and, like, you know, legal precedent is set, so now you can't give these untested hormones to under-16s and things like this.
	Like, that's a good start.
	I mean, when you were a kid, it was unironic homophobia sort of thing.
	It just didn't come up.
	Just didn't come up.
	Why would we talk about gays?
	Because that's the thing.
	For my lifetime, it's never been a taboo.
	Which is why it's also seemingly absurd when they argue, oh, it's been a taboo and we need to therefore, for our sins, give them privileges.
	I'm like, what are you talking about?
	I grew up in the 90s.
	Nobody cared.
	You'd make jokes, maybe, but it was banter.
	It wasn't genuine hatred that was accepted.
	No, no, no.
	I mean, thinking back to, what was it, like Margaret Thatcher?
	But...
	That's a bit before my time, really, to be honest.
	Because what was it?
	She wanted to pass a law that you couldn't teach children that they were gay, or something like this?
	But to be honest, looking back at it, I'm thinking, wow, it seems to have been a stepping stone, so...
	I don't know.
	I just don't know why it has to come up.
	I don't know why the state should be involved.
	Yeah, I don't.
	We'll go for a couple more and then we'll have to go.
	Simon says, my girlfriend is finishing university this year and is looking at jobs in hospitals in Ontario, Canada.
	While filling out the application, they asked for identity markers.
	If the applicant's self-identities is disabled, they asked if the applicant self-identifies as disabled.
	I was semi-serious when I told her to say that she does.
	They cannot prove otherwise.
	The age of decadence is here and I'd like my taxes back.
	Yeah, well, if there's one thing you ain't getting, it's your taxes back, I'm afraid.
	If there's one thing that's not changing, it's the fact that we're in the decade of decadence.
	It really feels like we're entering into the Weimar period, like this is the beginning of the 30s.
	And that didn't end well.
	It didn't even take very long.
	And I think these things are going to be accelerated because of the internet.
	So...
	Christian says, dadism includes the protection of children.
	Yes, it does.
	In fact, like you say, that's our primary role before anything.
	That's correct.
	We shouldn't waste any time trying to understand these deviants.
	They should be put in jail and separated from normal society for life.
	Well, yeah, the little, like, advocates who are trying to sexualize children's spaces, I could see that being made a crime.
	The hell are you trying to do?
	Yeah, I don't know why it isn't, to be honest.
	Yeah, what are you doing?
	Like, if they want to do that in their own rooms again, I don't care.
	That's not a children's space.
	But if they go into a children's space and try and bring that stuff there, no.
	When lockdown is over, I can't wait to take my kids to soft play, because they're really good fun, right?
	But would you accept the person running soft play?
	If he was wearing a furry suit and a bloody nappy, no!
	That's the thing.
	I would be like, okay, that's...
	Wrong.
	Why are you doing this around kids?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Why are you doing this around kids?
	Because, like, and the thing is, for people who don't have kids, these are totally wholesome places, right?
	Because it's just, you know, parents sat there, like, you know, with their cups of tea or whatever, or the mums sat there with the cups of tea or holding a baby or whatever.
	The kids are running around, screeching and playing with each other, and then the dads have got to, like, go climbing on the climbing frames with the kids.
	Great fun.
	It's really great fun.
	Because, I mean, the climber friends are a bit small anyway, and it's not like you're particularly fit, because, you know, and so you're like, you're a devil!
	Yeah, exactly!
	You're trying to, like, you know...
	But the thing is, your children make you go into these things.
	It says, oh, yeah, I just have to.
	You're making me do it.
	But it's really good fun.
	But it's not in any way sordid or anything like that.
	And the very idea that these deviants would try and make something like that sordid really boils my blood.
	And I... I don't even think about it to ask.
	It's just gross.
	It's just the wrong feeling to have in that environment, and it's wrong.
	I mean, if you took this to normies who know nothing about politics...
	Oh, they'd be like burned.
	They'd call the police and they'd beat them up if they'd try and run, wouldn't they?
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	North FC are right about nonsense, frankly.
	Um...
	Jesus Christ, they are openly talking about child abuse.
	Please forgive me, but today's topic is filming with rage, not intellectual introspection.
	On a more upbeat note, please put Losita's purple wallpaper up for sale.
	It's a lovely, peaceful image.
	Well done.
	I mean, I think we'd give it away for free, wouldn't we?
	Put on some merch.
	There is a merch store we were going to set up yesterday.
	Yeah.
	We found a place.
	I messaged them to ask if they're Patriot.
	I didn't get a response, but it's something we could do in the meantime, you know?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Maybe like wallpapers or something.
	Yeah.
	Um...
	But yeah, sorry about the topics.
	This is why I didn't have too much commentary on the little segment, because I don't want to get angry.
	Because it is angry.
	Angering, sorry.
	I was going to go, but White Hot Peppers has left this message, so I'll read that out, because she's got a white pill.
	Oh no, she needs a white pill.
	Of course.
	We need one.
	Yeah, so do we.
	Turns out, bloody weird pedo fetishists are sexualizing kids' spaces.
	Anyway, I need a white pill, gents.
	I'm so tired of wokeness in the military.
	My contract is up in November and I will not be signing back up.
	Talking to many of the soldiers, they feel the same way.
	They all want the free stuff and benefits you get when you re-enlist.
	For example, if you sign up for six years, you get 20k.
	Four years, you get 10k, you get college paid for, etc.
	I do appreciate the benefits we get as soldiers, but now people are signing up just for the free stuff, not because they want to be in honor or pride in themselves.
	I refuse to be a serf for the state after my contract is up.
	I don't care what they offer me.
	I don't want it.
	The military has been eroding for years now.
	I want to try and help change it for the better, but I'm scared it's too late.
	Everyone has started to hate being in with all the wokeness and pussifying, but will just put up with it and say nothing about it because they don't want to go up against the grain and fear being dishonorably discharged.
	My question for you guys is, how can I as one soldier help build a culture of people that speak up for what they believe in when they have been trained to just obey?
	I'm really worried about the future of our army.
	The morale and culture of being a soldier is being eroded under the boot of wokeism.
	I suppose if, I mean, you've got a few options, I guess, because what you could do is essentially organize some sort of soldiers' union and say, look, you know, we're very proud to be soldiers for the United States, but we reject this kind of culture and we want to have a serious internal dialogue about this.
	In the military?
	In the military, yeah.
	But the thing is that, no, no, well, it might, because this is actually playing into the moral framework of wokeism.
	They agree with this.
	They do this themselves.
	That's what all of these lobby groups are, are essentially unions for identity groups.
	So they can't really resist that without being unreasonable.
	It will look weird from their own perspective if they say no.
	But again, I'm not optimistic.
	I don't think it's...
	I don't know.
	If even the military is going to fall to wokeness, then...
	I don't know.
	It just looks like none of the people in charge have got any balls.
	Because all you have to do to any of this stuff, for any person of any importance who may be watching this, all you have to do is just say no.
	Nothing happens if you just say, sorry, we're not going to do that.
	Thanks for your time.
	Bye.
	Nothing happens.
	You don't lose your business, your employees don't leave, nothing collapses, because these people create nothing, they produce nothing, and they contribute nothing.
	They are a parasitical, ideological class that, like the guild system in medieval England, just want to take your money and preach their prophetic guidance at you.
	And you don't have to do it.
	You just don't have to do it.
	You can just disengage.
	Anyway, thanks for watching, folks.
	We'll be back same time, same place, and we hope we'll see you then.
	And thank you, everyone, for joining.
	And if you want more content from us, you can, of course, become a member on Notices.com, and you can watch all of our premium content and enjoy it, hopefully.

▲