Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 26, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:38:46

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #77

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Friday the 26th of February 2021.
	I'm John McCallum, and it's Friday, thank goodness.
	Isn't that nice?
	Got much planned for the weekend?
	I'm just going to clean my floor.
	It's about as exciting as it gets now.
	That's all we can really do because we're still under lockdown, even though all the indications are suggesting that actually lockdowns should have ended.
	Anyway, before we start, we have a gold-tier Zoom call planned for 4pm after the podcast today.
	So if you're a gold member of LotusEaters.com, you can come and join that.
	The link will be in the page.
	So just come on there in about four hours time-ish.
	No, three hours time, sorry.
	And we'll be there to hang out for an hour and just talk about whatever it is you guys want to talk about.
	We also have a very, very interesting article up on the website today from Kodrin Stavi, otherwise known as Romanian TV. On YouTube.
	And he's written a very, very interesting article about a folk tale that encapsulates a conversation between the nobles and the peasants during the time of the French Revolution from a Romanian perspective.
	And in fact, the perspective of the Romanian peasants.
	And this is actually, as he titled it, a perfect response to the Great Reset.
	I won't spoil it because it's a really, really elegant story for what it is.
	And I really enjoyed it.
	But anyway, let's begin with Joe Biden's clown presidency.
	This is something that Ben Shapiro tweeted out, a poll showing the top concerns of Democrats and Republicans.
	And his point was, well, the Republican policy problems, issues that they're concerned about seem to be rooted in direct policy, whereas the Democrat concerns seem to be rooted in the fact that they are...
	Paranoid and fearful of Republicans.
	So for the Republicans, the top policies, top priorities were illegal immigration, lack of support for the police, high taxes, liberal bias in the media, the moral decline of the country, socialism, anti-China, abortion, election fraud, censorship, and finally, anti-Christian discrimination.
	And these are all, as you can see, the red section on this is very or extremely concerned.
	Then the orange, or yellow, sorry, is somewhat concerned, and then the green and beyond is not very concerned or unsure.
	So you can see that these are very high priorities for Republican voters.
	Whereas when we go to the Democrat concerns, I mean, they're the same sorts of level overall, but they're completely different.
	So the primary one, with 92% being somewhat or extremely concerned, are Trump supporters.
	Donald Trump's supporters.
	So roughly over half, probably, of the GOP, and probably about 25% to a third of the country, if we include independents and things like that.
	So it's like...
	That's mad, isn't it?
	Their primary concern are their fellow citizens.
	And the next one is white nationalism at 90%, somewhat or extremely concerned.
	How is this a product of anything other than media, especially as the next one, again, 91% in total, systemic racism?
	This is pure left-wing media activism that has embedded itself into the top concerns of Democrat Party members.
	The next one is then gun violence, unactual policy, healthcare, unactual policy, domestic terrorism, which I assume is presumably connected to the Trump supporters, police brutality, unactual policy, LGBT discrimination, sexism, voter suppression, student debt, and then finally capitalism, with 55% being somewhat concerned or extremely concerned about capitalism.
	So it looks like the Democrats are becoming just an openly socialist party at this point.
	And so this gives us a good indication of the two mindsets, the worldviews that are being espoused by the Republicans and Democrats.
	The Republicans, they are concerned about liberal bias in the media.
	But they are not openly calling the Democrats like internal enemies, enemies of the state.
	And it seems that the Democrats are doing that.
	It seems that the Democrats are saying that the Trump supporters and Republicans are domestic enemies, potential terrorists, and this is the thing we are most afraid of.
	And I don't think this is a coincidence.
	I think this is a notion that has come from the top down.
	I don't think this has come from the grassroots up.
	I think this is something that has been essentially kind of conditioned into them.
	I mean, we've seen it over the last few weeks with the media.
	Yeah.
	In response to January 6th, in which the continuous result of that was that these guys are domestic terrorists.
	We need to re-educate them.
	We need to realign them.
	We need to deal with them.
	Just endlessly from every single left-wing outlet.
	And then them going for an impeachment, which they then realized they were living on a lie.
	Yeah.
	That's why they weren't able to get the impeachment.
	Yeah.
	And this delusion and radicalisation, as you say, has definitely come down from the very top.
	And it's still there, obviously.
	If we go on to the next one, the US Capitol Police Chief, Pittman, says apparently that militia groups want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible when Biden delivers his State of the Union address in Congress.
	I haven't seen anything on the internet that would indicate that's the case.
	And I would find it hard to believe that this wouldn't be on the internet.
	This sounds like a meme as well.
	It does.
	I bet he's seen a meme and thinks that's a real...
	I guess I'm not in the right groups or something, but I'm in groups across the political spectrum, and I've not seen any of the right-wing groups talking about Joe Biden's State of the Union address, and I've not heard anyone saying, right, we're going to blow it up.
	No one cares about it, that's why.
	Yeah, exactly.
	No one cares about it.
	Who cares what Biden has to say about the State of the Union?
	It's not going well because you're giving it, Joe, okay?
	End of story.
	And so the question is, who is in this far-right group?
	Where did they get their inspiration from?
	So we can play the next clip, John.
	Yes!
	I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
	So what, Madonna's joined the far right?
	What's going on here?
	That was from 2017, admittedly, from the Women's March.
	But I've not heard anyone...
	But that could be the same thing.
	If there was a Republican-minded police chief, he could have said, you know, I've seen evidence of people wanting to blow up the White House.
	I mean, that is at least actual evidence of someone saying it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	What is this guy citing?
	But we've been informed by...
	Well, I mean, A, this explains the continual occupation of the capital from the powers that be.
	Madonna's threats.
	Yeah, A, Madonna's threats, because she decided to join the far right.
	But I mean, it's also like this is indicative of the kind of siege mindset that the Biden administration has when it comes to the rest of the country.
	It explains the continued occupation of the Capitol, which is going to have troops in it apparently until autumn 2021.
	So I guess that they're expecting an uprising or something.
	I mean, I've not seen any indications that an uprising is actually going to happen.
	So, I mean, maybe they know something I don't.
	I guess they must.
	But our roving reporter in the National Guard in the capital, White Hot Peppers, has informed that they have had mock attack drills that feel very realistic and are confusing when happening.
	So I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of glow-in-the-dark event was being geared up, to be honest.
	But obviously I've got no evidence either way.
	Other than what they're doing and what we're being told.
	Anyway, if there's something that screams legitimacy of the government and consent of the government, it's definitely the razor-wire military occupation of the capital.
	So, Joe Biden, in 2020, in February, during the Democrat debates, he was like, as president, he tweeted, I will use military power responsibly and as a last resort.
	We will not go back to the forever wars in the Middle East, which really put my mind at rest.
	And I was as surprised as anyone that it only took five weeks for Joe Biden to begin drone striking Syria.
	Five weeks.
	Not even, actually.
	It'll be five weeks tomorrow.
	Guess it's what we were expecting.
	I mean, everyone knew this was going to happen, right?
	Everyone knew that Joe Biden would return to the neocon agenda that the Democrats and the Republicans had been pushing pre-Trump and was going to continue.
	I mean, so what happened here is that the U.S. carried out airstrikes in eastern Syria against buildings belonging to what the Pentagon said were Iran-backed militias.
	So these would be Shia militias.
	You may recall that Trump killed Soleimani, the general in charge of all the international militia groups across the Middle East.
	You might call them foreign terrorist groups, if you're under US pants.
	You could, yeah.
	Because of recent attacks on American and allied personnel in Iraq.
	He authorised the attacks himself, obviously.
	So, yeah.
	No stimulus.
	You don't get any money from the government.
	You were promised 2,000.
	You're going to get 1,400 at some point.
	But they're definitely going to get their drone strikes.
	Drone strikes are very easy to do.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Stimulus checks that help people out aren't so easy.
	Drone strikes is just touch of a button.
	But on the plus side, it is probable that, as this commentator on Twitter points out, first of all, Biden appointed a woman to command the airstrikes in Syria.
	LAUGHTER And Jem Saki raises some very good points there.
	What a photo.
	How is that, your public photo?
	Why would you put that out?
	Kind of reminds me of the Joker, that lipstick, though.
	Right?
	And the grin.
	And the look.
	She looks mad.
	But Jem Saki raises some good points about this.
	Back in 2017, that is.
	She raises some good points about this.
	Before she becomes involved with the administration.
	Where she tweets out, Also, what is the legal authority for strikes?
	Great question.
	Great question.
	Assad is a brutal dictator, but Syria is a sovereign country.
	Not anymore, I guess.
	This is currently going viral.
	This was picked up this morning by people going, Wait a minute.
	You're not in favour of this, are you?
	And obviously now she's the press secretary, she's just going to be like, I'll circle back to you on that.
	And of course the memes, the memes keep coming.
	It is progressive drone striking, that's what a Trump airstrike looked like, just drone flying along, and this is the Biden one.
	He slash him, hashtag BLM, scrawled on the side of the drone, with build back better on the front of it.
	Presumably that should be bomb back better, I don't know.
	That's a missile, not drone.
	Is that a missile?
	Oh, okay, well there we go.
	It's the same principle.
	Same principle, yeah.
	You know they do actually, because you see people chalking on stuff on their bombs sometimes.
	I bet that someone should do that in the army if they're listening.
	Just do it for a laugh and take a picture.
	This isn't a new phenomenon either.
	We found loads of sling bullets from ancient Greece, which are like sort of oval lead bullets.
	And there are things carved in them, like catch this and things like that.
	It's a very, very old bit of dark humour.
	Hey, look.
	Okay, so we've got the progressive drone strikes of diversity and tolerance, but at least Biden isn't putting kids in cages, unlike that evil orange man Trump.
	Am I right?
	No, I'm wrong.
	Of course I'm wrong.
	Oh, sorry.
	Oh, yeah.
	I forgot.
	The response from the verified checkmarks all over Twitter has been one of absolute subservience.
	What?
	This is insane, right?
	So Amy Siskind with a little...
	Again, it's the flag.
	The rainbow flag in the bio.
	Verify checkmark.
	So different having military action under Biden.
	No middle school level threats on Twitter.
	Trust Biden and his team's competence.
	Yeah, as they carpet bomb Syria with Black Lives Matter bombs.
	Yeah, I do trust him to do that.
	I totally trusted him to do that.
	Have they explained his reasoning for this particular strike as well?
	Because you remember the Trump guys doing it.
	They've blown some air bases in response to threats from Iran.
	There was one air base.
	Yeah, but it was essentially just shut up and sit down after a line of threats.
	Yeah, there was a huge upwelling of pressure and Trump had one quite surgical strike and the whole thing went away.
	So what's led to this one?
	Just F the militias, I guess?
	Yeah, it seems to be.
	Oh, we don't know.
	We don't know yet, because this is breaking news, basically.
	But it seems to just be, I mean, as they say, a response to militia attacks on US forces in Iraq.
	So...
	Okay.
	So let's hope they hit the right building this time, and not like a hospital or something, like they've done many times before.
	This is the thing, it's like...
	It's one thing, like, okay, we found Soleimani, he was in a convoy travelling through the desert, and we bombed his...
	Vehicle.
	Okay, yeah, fair enough.
	Or here's a Syrian military base.
	Let's blow up one of their hangars to be like, shut up.
	Yeah, but here's a building in a city that we have intelligence that suggests that Iranian militias are using, so we're going to bomb the building?
	It's like, I mean, I realise that they deliberately hide themselves in civilian populations to make sure that civilian deaths are one of those things that gives them cover, but...
	Don't play into it, I guess.
	Well, if you're going to play this game of like, oh, how horrible it is when Trump does X, Y, and Z, well, his, by comparison, look a lot easier calls to make.
	Yes.
	Yes, they do.
	And, I mean, surely there are other options.
	But anyway...
	Like we were saying, it's not like Biden's going to put kids in cages because we've renamed them to something else.
	As reported on LotusEast.com, we do lots of great news coverage by the way, 200 migrants between the ages of 13 and 17 were moved into the first migrant child holding facility under the Biden presidency.
	It's got a maximum capacity of 700 kids and a big facility.
	And this is kind of against what Biden was saying.
	He, in August 2019, said, close them down.
	We don't need them when discussing border detention facilities.
	He was also critical of the human cost of such facilities and repeatedly emphasized that children are being separated from their parents.
	When the topic was raised in debates.
	And interestingly, it was under Obama that these facilities were first made.
	But you notice the tweet headlines.
	Can we go down a bit on this, John, so we can get the headlines up?
	If you scroll down a bit more, there we go.
	So you can see how the Washington Post has reported this.
	Kids in cages.
	You can tell that's a Trump-era administration headline.
	It's true, Obama built the cages, but Trump's zero-tolerance immigration policy has no precedent.
	And the next one, obviously, first migrant facility for children opens under Biden.
	Embarrassing.
	But I saw the same thing with NowThis.
	I just looked up their tweets, kids in cages, kids in cages, kids in cages.
	And then the most recent one was, Paxi explains why we need a, what was it, a migrant facility.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Now they're migrant facilities.
	It's not kids in cages anymore.
	It is so transparent.
	They were always migrant facilities.
	Yes.
	But that's not the matter.
	The thing is, as soon as they saw someone in a holding...
	It's a way to attack Trump.
	It's a kids in cage.
	It's got to be kids in cage and nothing else.
	It's a way to attack Trump, and it's transparent, and it's interesting how they're not being called concentration camps now.
	Really weird, isn't it?
	I thought these were concentration camps.
	I was reliably informed by AOC that that's what they were.
	But, I mean, I guess that Joe Biden can saunter on down and ask some of the children about their advice on climate change, which appears to be unironically what Biden's administration is actually doing at this point.
	So, apparently, one of Wales' most talented young sports stars has been advising the new US president on halting climate change.
	Right?
	She's 14.
	Now, I don't want to be dismissive or condescending, but what does she actually know about climate change that Joe Biden needs to know?
	Well, that Joe Biden doesn't.
	I mean, like, he's been in government for, what, 50 years?
	At least get someone qualified, like Greta Thunberg.
	But even then, I feel like he could be listening to Greer Thunberg, and anything she says, he would have heard a million times, because these things are just narratives over and over.
	It's not like she's inventing the ideas herself.
	No.
	But this...
	What, is she a ping pong player?
	That's it?
	Table tennis, yeah.
	She's the youngest ever athlete to compete in the Commonwealth Games in 2018, when she was 11.
	And now she has sent her most important message to Biden, that we can all take steps to help the world reach zero carbon emissions.
	How is she an expert on this?
	No, I know what this is.
	Of course you know what this is.
	Greta's turned into an adult.
	Exactly.
	President Biden has put climate change at the top of his agenda on the 22nd of April's Earth Day and will host a summit of world leaders.
	Anna said his new agenda for climate change is bold.
	To achieve zero emissions in America by 2050 is incredible, so he's doing a lot already.
	Yeah, she wrote that, did she?
	Yeah.
	Her words, are they?
	And then everybody clapped.
	And then everybody clapped.
	Unreal.
	Unreal.
	So she's been appointed as a young environmentalist to the UN, and it's like, what on earth are we looking at here?
	Well, A, kid, get away from Biden.
	I wouldn't trust him around you.
	Have you been sniffed yet?
	B, have you finished school yet?
	If you haven't finished school yet, I think that we can have that as the de facto, you are not an expert on anything.
	It doesn't even have to be climate science, of which I'm sure she's very deeply invested, but she's just not because she hasn't got her GCSEs yet.
	But anyway, we're going to ask this child, but of course not this child.
	This child is another 14-year-old girl, but Biden, I guess, doesn't want to sniff this one.
	This is Maria Shabazz, and nobody cares about her because she was a 14-year-old Catholic schoolgirl who was kidnapped, or at least claims to have been kidnapped at gunpoint by three men in her neighbourhood in the Punjab province of Pakistan.
	The assailants recorded themselves raping her and threatened the public release of the footage, and she says she was forced to marry one of them, a 45-year-old Mohammed Nakish Tariq, and was coerced into signing a statement affirming her conversion to Islam.
	What a bigot.
	Obviously, we're not going to help that girl.
	She's not our problem.
	We want to talk to the environmentalist girls.
	But I mean, what she could do to get the Biden administration's attention is transition.
	Because that's something that apparently the Biden administration cares about.
	So Rachel Levine, Dr.
	Rachel Levine, a trans...
	This is the Benjamin Franklin lookalike, right?
	Yes, that's the best way to describe her, yes.
	Had a bit of a set-to with Rand Paul during her confirmation hearing for the nomination of Assistant Secretary of Health.
	So the obviously sane person and the obviously very physically fit and healthy person, who clearly knows a lot about all of these things, is going to be the person overseeing the health projects of the United States.
	She had a set to in the Senate hearing with Rand Paul, because Rand Paul dared, dared to say things that are actually scientifically accurate, and didn't follow the party line.
	This is what Rand Paul said.
	And he asked Dr.
	Levine if she believed minors are capable of making life-changing decisions, such as changing one's sex.
	And Levine replied, I'll answer that question when you confirm me.
	Yeah.
	Trust me, it's great, but I'll explain why after you give me the job.
	Transitioning three-year-olds, or at least advising a three-year-old that they are the gender.
	Yeah.
	Rampal said, "You're willing to let a minor take things to prevent their puberty and you think they get back?
	You've permanently changed them.
	None of these drugs have been approved for this.
	There are no long-term studies.
	We don't know what happens to them.
	If you've ever been around children, 14-year-olds can't make this decision." Again, the daddest perspective on this, right, because he is a dad, obviously.
	And he's right.
	Completely right.
	And Levine had previously mentioned her, publicly mentioned her support for puberty blockers being used for minors.
	She tweeted out, a new study found that transgender youth with access to puberty blockers have declined in chances of suicide and mental health problems now and in the future.
	The study is important because the first to show this specific association.
	Well, there are other studies that exist, that of course she's not going to reference, that completely support Rand Paul's position, that have come from Britain, from England, because of our...
	We appear to be slightly ahead of the curve than America on this, and so we can go to the next one.
	The Times has put an article, a study has shown that puberty blockers cause irreversible damage to the bone growth and density of children.
	A study followed 44 children aged 12 to 15 who were treated for gender dysphoria at Tavistock.
	By the time the children had finished their stint on puberty blockers at the age of 16, researchers found reduced growth in height and bone strength.
	In both cases, the height and bone strength, there was some growth, but less than would be expected during those years without hormonal suppression, and the authors said that more research was needed to determine whether the impairment was permanent, but do we have any reason to think that it isn't?
	Until recently, puberty blockers were billed as fully reversible treatment that paused the physical transformation of puberty, but the NHS has since updated its guidance to say the long-term impact on brains and bones is unknown.
	And it's important to note that this procedure, when it gets to the end of it, is the same as sterilization, because it involves castration.
	And it's sterilization for both sexes as well.
	So if you continue on to the end step, in which, and in this case, all but one of the participants in the study went on to the next irreversible step towards transition.
	So it's not something that is just simply reversible.
	There are what appear to be permanent problems.
	It's just tolerance.
	Sterilizing children is tolerance.
	Stunting their growth, deforming their bones, and probably having further problems later on, like increased cancer risk and other things.
	It's all for tolerance.
	Totally reversible.
	Or at least that's what the lying expert said.
	Now, one of the things I love about this is this is Graham Leinen, who was a radical SJW a few years back, and then the question of trans women being women was raised, and Graham Leinen was like, well, come on.
	There's something essential about being a woman, isn't there?
	It's biological, isn't it?
	And they were all like, nope, you're a TERF now, Graham!
	And obviously the Father Ted, because he's the author of Father Ted.
	You know, I hear you're a TERF now, Father.
	All those jokes.
	And so Graham Linen had been fighting like a very one-sided battle, really, because no one was on his side because he's a prat.
	And this is kind of a nice way of proving him right.
	Because if we can go through the article a bit, John, because he's got loads of great screenshots of just all these verified checkmarks using the term fully reversible puberty blockers, as if they know what they're talking about.
	Fully reversible.
	Again, reversible, reversible.
	They're hardly experimental.
	No, these are all liars.
	All liars.
	Every single one of these people is an insane ideologue who has lied about the effect of these drugs, these hormones, for political reasons.
	They have...
	It's undoubtedly themselves been the contributing factor to the sort of grooming process that gets young people to go into this sort of path of their life and end up in a position where they have permanent changes to their body that are irreversible, or at least The indications appear that these things are going to be irreversible.
	All of these people are liars.
	All of these people have some responsibility to this.
	And anyway, finally, women are also out of women's sports.
	Biden's made sure that this, he's had enough.
	He doesn't want these, well, I guess we'll call them just transphobes in women's sports.
	Because there are a load of TERFs in women's sports saying, well, look, there seems to be...
	Natural physical advantages that, you know, men have over women.
	It seems to be biological.
	And Biden's like, shut up, transphobe!
	The stunning and brave victory of that six foot six athlete, that woman, that's just as verifiable.
	But his Department of Justice has decided to withdraw the support of a lawsuit that has been...
	We covered this a while ago.
	That was pushed by three high school female athletes that would block biological males, brackets transgender females, from competing in girls' sports in Connecticut.
	Bill Barr supported the lawsuit before he was retired as Attorney General because he said that the law allowing this does violate Title IX protections in place.
	The girls and their mothers, I mean, literally are saying, well, look...
	We're not going to win any awards now because the boys can just join the girls' sports, and that is exactly what's happened.
	So hang on, they were trying to apply for the team and they didn't get it?
	No, no, it's not they didn't get on the team, it's just that they can't win.
	Because the transgender males to females, who have also joined the team because of the very progressive way that we're looking at the definition of what a woman is now, have been breaking records.
	It's not just that they're winning, it's that they're making it so that no other woman could ever approach their level of physical excellence.
	In 2018, the two transgender competitors literally set records for the 100 and 200 metre runs.
	I'm just getting in my head the term ubermensch and untermensch here.
	Are the trans women or women types going to start claiming that trans women are the superior women?
	Just work harder.
	That's the superior form of woman, whereas these other women complaining are just inferior and can't help it.
	Just work harder.
	Just run faster.
	Just break those records that literally it seems to be physically impossible for natural-born women to achieve.
	That's all you have to do.
	And it's not like they can just transition the other way and expect to beat the men on their terms either.
	So yeah, essentially it is just Joe Biden is just like, yep, the end of women's sports.
	I'm okay with that.
	Not my problem.
	I'm signing another drone strike now.
	It's insane.
	It's absolutely insane.
	Joe Biden's presidency is so far absolute clown world.
	Everything about it is inverted.
	All of the values are inverted.
	No, it's good to drone strike Syria with BLM bombs.
	Also, it's fine if men are winning women's sports.
	It's all fine.
	I mean, it's not like we didn't see this coming either, but what's embarrassing is like the Biden voters posting their L's online account.
	Yes.
	Just documenting how many Biden voters were so stupid that they thought this wouldn't happen.
	Yeah.
	It's just like, how could you fool with such obvious nonsense?
	Yeah.
	Again, just total inversion of values.
	Everything that was good is now bad.
	Everything that was bad is now good.
	That's the Biden presidency.
	It's hideous.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, I want to talk about BLM in the UK and around the world and how their claims are just bunk.
	So I'm not going to go into individual cases that they keep trying to cite that are also bunk, but that's a story for another time.
	I wanted to talk about some of the data, because we just got a data dump from the Office of National Statistics in this country.
	And it's quite revealing.
	So first thing here, we spoke about previously, is the narrative for BLM UK.
	So this is separate from the US for a moment.
	So talking about how many people die in police custody in England and Wales.
	And this is the BBC, an organization that has been very favorable to BLM, tried to give them good coverage.
	Oh yes.
	Undue good coverage as well.
	And in here, they have to admit, of the deaths in the last 10 years, 141 were white, 13 were black.
	So that's more than 10 to what?
	That's 1.3 per year.
	Right.
	What was it in the US? 13 a year, something like that?
	27.
	27.
	Whereas in the UK, it is 1.3 per year.
	Of all black people, and there are over a million in London alone.
	So it's like, well, that's not an epidemic.
	That's not even a story.
	Well, I mean, what is a story?
	Why are the police killing 141 white people?
	Because that's the point.
	If you scroll down some more to the graph under this one, you'll see that we have under this one, so there's a graph showing the deaths in custody versus arrests, so not just general population, but of the criminal population.
	And you can see here that blacks are underrepresented in the deaths of people who go into custody, and whites are overrepresented here.
	Yeah.
	And the thing is, I bet if we were to break this down along class lines, this isn't middle class sort of, you know, office managers being killed in police custody, is it?
	It's going to be working class people.
	Probably, yeah.
	But again, I mean, let's just take this as saying it's margin of error.
	Let's just be very charitable and say this is all margin of error.
	Well, in which case, there definitely is just no claim to say that this is disproportionate or a big issue or epidemic or anything like this.
	Only the rhetoric you get coming out of these types.
	And this is no surprise.
	Why would you be surprised by this, especially in the UK? I mean, our police force.
	Very progressive.
	The police of diversity, tolerance, and faith.
	Yeah.
	Like, if we could just get some of the images up.
	So, like, the first image was the police response in London to the BLM riots, in which they turned up, there was some protesting, and then it devolved into violence.
	Yeah.
	The police officer's response was to give up all bipartisan policing and start kneeling in front of the protesters.
	And give up moral authority as well.
	Yeah.
	I mean, we literally kneel to random protesters.
	You could not see them do this ever to any other group.
	And this was during a lockdown as well, so these people shouldn't have even been here.
	Yeah, there's the other complexity, which is all the condemnation about, you know, Piers Corbin going out, and he got...
	No one got fined here.
	No one got fined here, to my knowledge.
	And then the next one I wanted to show was something we covered before, is like, well, also in the law, this is a poster we've shown before, where they're standing in front of a van with a screen that says, being offensive is an offence, because we have speech codes in this country.
	Yes, we do.
	That determine what and what you are not allowed to say, and they will send you to jail and arrest you for saying bad things that are grossly offensive, which only ever go one way.
	We did a great article about this on the site, I think it was Josh who did it, about how the police apologised for this and saying, oh, sorry, that was wrong.
	But the thing is, that's not wrong.
	That is how the world is.
	That is how our country is.
	They're right.
	There was a lot of online backlash from conservatives, and then they issued a false statement saying, oh, no, no, we misinterpreted the law.
	They didn't.
	Well, why did you make it then?
	What law were you referencing?
	And we know what law they were referencing.
	Section 127, Communication Act 2003.
	It is grossly offensive to post anything on the internet, essentially.
	Okay, well there's the law.
	Yeah, it's not wrong to say being offensive is an offence in the UK. It's an embarrassment.
	It's an embarrassment, yeah.
	Anyway, it's a civil rights issue, but anyway, carry on.
	Yeah, so then we want to talk about the numbers.
	Let's just go into what issues Black Lives Matter probably should be focusing on.
	And the numbers we got out were the black murder rate is the highest in the UK since 2002.
	So this is the Guardian article, if you can get it up.
	And I love the framing here, which is the killings of black people in England and Wales are at the highest length.
	105 black people were victims of murder and manslaughter.
	So okay, presumably...
	You don't know who's doing the killing.
	There are just marching, roving bands of neo-Nazis in the UK killing black people from this headline.
	I mean, I don't know who's killing them.
	And that could be an issue BLM could go after.
	Just random.
	Maybe it's off-duty cops.
	It could be anyone.
	It could be literally anyone.
	The amount of information contained in that headline is actually very, very low.
	Very low.
	So they say in here that 105 people were victims of murder and manslaughter up till March 2020.
	This is up from 1996, the year before, so that's up a few years.
	Black people are more likely to be victims of homicide.
	These figures show about 15% of all victims in this period were black, but only making up 3% of the general population.
	Trying to avoid the words of spite there.
	Now this 3% is probably out of date, because that's the 2011 data, so I tried to estimate the growth.
	It's probably about 4%, but again, 15% of the victims, 4% of the population.
	That's clearly being over-targeted by whoever's killing them.
	By this mystery group of people that's targeting black people, yep.
	And they're not targeting whites, presumably, because 64% of victims of murder are white in the UK, whilst they make up 85% of the general population.
	Which is going to be another out-of-date figure.
	It's probably going to be about 75% of the population.
	But even then, very clearly, there is a disparity.
	Black people are being killed more than white people in the UK as to their populations.
	Except that when you look into what's going on there, as they mentioned, buried in there, the figures also show that black people are more likely to be perpetrators of homicide and murder.
	Hmm.
	After laying out that they were victims and how is this, bury in there, they're also more likely to commit the murders.
	Approximately 1 in 5, or 21%, of convicted suspects were black.
	Bloody hell.
	21%.
	When they probably make up about 4% of the national population.
	Bloody hell.
	And who are they killing?
	Well, it seems it's other black people, doesn't it?
	Yeah, I mean, black people are the most victims of crime disproportionately, and black people are also the murders disproportionately.
	Murderers.
	They also say that 67% of suspects committed homicide were identified as white.
	So, white people not murdering as much, and therefore...
	Desperately underrepresented in the murder figures.
	Need more white murderers, I presume.
	That's the progressive solution every time.
	Anyway, so they say approximately half, 49% of black victims in the year of March 2020 were in the 16-24 age group, so that's half of all the people being murdered.
	So this is young black men in London?
	Young black men.
	Compared with 25% for Asian people and 12% for white victims.
	So not white kids being murdered in the streets, it's black kids being murdered in the streets.
	The most common method of killing for both male and female victims of all ethnicities was a knife or another sharp instrument.
	So it really is the black gang culture in London?
	Yeah, it is the meme that people have been criticising Steve Kahn on endlessly of black men in London stabbing each other to death.
	And there's endless amounts of video evidence for this over the last couple of years at least.
	So many news articles, just on the Facebook page and stuff like that.
	Every now and again I'll just share one of these articles where it's like, here we go.
	And these are the most brutal murders you've ever seen, where it's just literally gangs of them.
	And you can see loads of camera footage.
	Chasing them down, stabbing them, and then just leaving them in a pool of blood to die as they run off laughing.
	It's horrific, absolutely horrific.
	I would never live in London.
	So thinking about it, the black population make up 4% of the national population, so England and Wales, and yet they make up 21% of the convicted suspects.
	This is not just people who have been arrested, convicted.
	But when you come to people using sharp knives to stab each other, 27% of all those who were identified were black.
	Other murders, 27%, compared to 4% of the population.
	So it's a cultural thing within these gang communities.
	Yeah, I mean, if you wanted an issue which you could identify as a, let's just say, a race-specific or disproportionate issue you could look at as an organization like Black Lives Matter, I mean, the black men being stabbed in such a disproportionate matter to death would probably be one you'd pick.
	I mean, if Black Lives did matter, that's the most obvious place, especially given how the police are only killing one person per year.
	Yeah, but I guess that's the one important person per year.
	Which again, I'm not in favour of the police killing anyone in custody, obviously.
	Just in case there's a retard watching, but I'd say.
	So there's a good point being made here, which is where is BLM? So the next link here has just been the Labour Party, which whoever runs this is gold.
	Yeah, it's an absolute star.
	So they mention in here that when you break it down, it gets a bit more concerning, let's say.
	Murder victims in London are disproportionately from the black community, as are the murderers themselves.
	In 2018, it was reported that almost half of the murder and murder suspects in the capital were black.
	So about 50%.
	Despite black population accounting for 13% of London's population.
	Now anyone who's aware of the meme despite, then you'll be aware of the meme of the US like black Americans are 13% and yet make up about 50% of all murders.
	It's like a weird Pareto distribution, isn't it?
	Yeah, apparently in London the Pareto distribution also applies.
	I just ran the statistics and yes, 13.4% of the London population are black.
	49% of the murders.
	Yeah, so that's a weird, weird coincidence.
	And it was not just, you know, my racist mathematics, let's say, pointing that out.
	You go to the next link, it's just Sky News, saying exactly this.
	Murder victims, black murder victims and suspects, London versus UK. And they look in here and they literally say in the article, almost half murder victims as well as suspects were black, despite the ethnic group accounting for just 13% of London's population.
	The word despite has been forever ruined by the internet.
	Yeah, it's become a meme, but it is just data, and that is data from London.
	And, well, I mean, if you were looking for an issue on which Black Lives Matter...
	Well, apparently it's not for us.
	How is it not this?
	How is it not this?
	How is this not more important to you as BLM UK? And the thing is, that's the reason we talk about this, because this is genuinely a kind of hell that I think these people live in.
	I was thinking about this the other night.
	I would do everything I could to get away from this place.
	I would consider it a kind of prison.
	It's awful.
	You go to school and there are gangs of people who just irrationally hate each other for living in different postcodes, who then stab each other to death on the street over nothing.
	It's just awful.
	50% of all the people dead last year through this kind of homicide.
	Yeah.
	Young black men.
	Yeah.
	Kids.
	Absolute kids.
	Teenagers.
	As a dad, I'm just thinking, if that were my kids, I'm like, right, we've got to get out of here.
	Of course, I don't think fathers are going to be much of a part of the story of this, are they?
	Yeah, as David Lammy, the Labour MP who's in charge of justice for Labour, has pointed out multiple times until he decides to zip it.
	The problem there was that there's a very large lack of black fathers.
	Yeah, a high percentage of fatherlessness in the black community in London.
	Yeah.
	So just going back to the Labour Party, he makes some good points here, which is, well, where are BLM on this?
	And as you can probably guess, he says here that, Wait, no, not even a tweet.
	And yes, if you look up their Twitter account, nothing, nada, nothing about this.
	As we already know, BLM doesn't actually care about black people.
	If they did, then they would speak about the hundreds of black-on-black murders that blight the cities of London and Chicago.
	They would be asking serious questions about the social issues which lead to black kids in gangs instead of finger-pointing and blaming white supremacy for all the ills of the black community.
	Well, they're absolutely right.
	It's because Black Lives Matter are a communist organisation.
	Yeah, the only deaths that matter to the blinkered eyes of BLM are those which can help it advance its Marxist revolution.
	Therefore, instead of focusing on the overwhelming majority of deaths, they home their very small fraction of deaths that occur within the hands of the police.
	After all, it's the police who are the enemy of them in their minds, and therefore the police that are standing between them and the Marxist revolution.
	That's correct.
	Totally correct analysis.
	Yeah, absolutely, 100%.
	Fantastic.
	And this is also ringing true in the US, as you mentioned, with Chicago.
	I just want to get the FBI crime statistics.
	I mean, this is where the meme comes from.
	But just to confirm that, no, it is also just data.
	This is 2019, the most recent data they have.
	So of the black Americans in the United States, they make up 51.2% of all murders in 2019 and 52.7% of robberies.
	These are the highest disproportionalities.
	They're also disproportional in every other crime there.
	And it's...
	It's just data.
	Like, I know there'll be like the ADL and whatnot have listed as some kind of like absurd conspiracy theory to try and harm black people or something.
	The FBI are now in on the conspiracy.
	I suppose they are.
	Actually, I bet they would say that as well.
	Well, they've got to.
	They're kind of forced to if they want to call this a conspiracy.
	But that's not an issue.
	The way the police treat black people is the issue, even though it's disproportionately nothing burger, by comparison.
	Yeah.
	And this is the other point.
	You keep seeing them say, like, oh, well, people in the black community are being disproportionately policed and therefore they're being disproportionately convicted and things like this.
	It must be some big conspiracy to keep the black man down.
	Well, then you've got to argue how many of these people are being wrongfully convicted.
	Like, if 52% of all murders in the U.S. are from black people, I mean, how many of those are you saying are not rightfully convicted?
	Point to the ones.
	Name them.
	I mean, let's just pick one at random.
	So the next link here is just some random murder that took place in which this guy, he's engaged to this white girl and she's got a daughter and a son and he ends up murdering her and murdering her daughter.
	I was like, well...
	Well, is that wrong?
	Is he wrongfully convicted?
	Yeah, but this was even worse because he had raped the pair of them while live-streaming on Instagram and then shot them both in the head.
	This is awful.
	This is just genuine, like, just nightmare world stuff.
	Collapse of society stuff.
	I just...
	And if you're going to make the argument that somehow black people are being over-policed and therefore over-represented in all crime statistics and police statistics and prison statistics, well, I mean, name them.
	Name the thousands upon thousands of cases of murderers and rapists and robbers who are, you know, didn't do it and are now being crime charged.
	Yeah, where are the false convictions?
	And where are the thousands upon thousands of white or Hispanic or Jewish murderers who are just not being found?
	We have no idea where they are.
	Yeah, or getting away with it.
	Just getting off.
	And I wanted to go into this because there's also the whole myth in leftist circles of mass incarceration in the US being a huge problem with blacks.
	Now, I'm sure there's plenty of valid criticisms of the way the US uses its justice system.
	The fact there are so many people in prison there.
	I would wonder if that's more just the effectiveness of the...
	I think that's due to the three-strike rule.
	Perhaps as well.
	There's a lot of things to be said about the way the prison system works in the United States.
	But I've always been told this view that the real reason there are so many people in jail in the United States is because of drugs.
	It's because the police will pull someone over for drug possession and then that's what's making up all this population and why it's so high.
	I used to think this.
	It's not true.
	It's just a flat-out lie.
	Well, I thought that was the case too.
	I mean, the thing is, it sounds reasonable.
	I mean, it sounds like something that's likely to be happening.
	I mean, you always hear about these people who, you know, some guys got pulled over for weed.
	I mean, like FPS Russia is a famous example.
	He had some small amount of weed, and they took away all of his guns on everything, put him in jail for the small amount of weed.
	And, you know, his career was ruined over it.
	He's now doing other things.
	So that's what I mean.
	It sounds likely.
	Yeah, it sounds like it could be true.
	And it's just not.
	So if we can get to the next image.
	So this is a website, by the way, that's documenting the issues with mass incarceration.
	They think it's a real issue.
	How do we deal with it?
	And they're saying it's a myth.
	No, it's not just me.
	So the image I wanted to get up was a pie chart that they have of the people who are in U.S. prisons.
	So the different kinds, the various breakdowns.
	And you'll notice here that, for example, in the state prisons, murders down there, 183,000 murderers are currently serving in state prisons.
	713 violent offenders.
	227,000 property offenders.
	153,000 public order with 191,000 drug.
	So that's overwhelmingly a tiny minority.
	So even when you just look at drug in general for state prisons there, it's not a huge amount.
	You could say it's significant.
	But then you see the little breakdown there.
	Drug possession.
	45,000 people.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that is too high, but as a percentage of the overall pie charts and where the serious concerns lie, I would be looking at violent offenders.
	Yeah.
	713,000, why is there so much violence going on?
	I mean, you tell me, BLM. Are you going to deal with this?
	No, never going to deal with it.
	And that percentage, by the way, just a percentage, 3.4% of all state prisoners are drug possession.
	That's 2020.
	3.4%.
	So total left-wing myth then?
	Complete left-wing myth.
	And also you have to keep in mind that what kind of drugs?
	Because there are different standards for different drugs.
	Heroin, crack, and stuff.
	I'm sure when you break that down again, I mean, tell me which one of those people need to be let loose.
	I'm sure there are some number that I'd agree as someone who's very liberal about drugs, that this is pointless.
	But the idea that mass incarceration is caused by...
	Drug possession.
	It's just fake.
	It's just completely fake.
	And they say in here, so they list the five myths about mass incarceration.
	The first myth, releasing non-violent drug offenders would end mass incarceration.
	No, it wouldn't.
	Because drug convictions have, you know, XYZ problems.
	However, because they're trying to be favorable, they say, look, there are some issues there.
	But four out of five are not in there for drugs at all.
	So this is when you get the bigger breakdown of drugs in all other sectors here.
	And you'll notice...
	Sorry, go back.
	So 450,000 people are incarcerated for non-violent drug offences on any given day, they say.
	But when you look at that, 120,000 unconvicted are the local jails.
	So that's the people in local jails who aren't yet to even be convicted.
	They're just arrested, maybe kept for a few days.
	Either awaiting bail or trial.
	That sort of thing.
	And that means you have 19.5% of the entire population of prisons is there.
	But if they're not being convicted, then I don't know how to include them.
	And also the rest of them, they don't give you a breakdown.
	We saw the possessions being a very small percentage of state prisons.
	But are they trafficking?
	I mean, if people are trafficking, are we going to say that trafficking heroin shouldn't be a crime?
	Is trafficking crack cocaine?
	Should that be a crime?
	What are you actually going to legalise here to get these people out of jail?
	I think there's probably a good chance that this is not the only thing that's being trafficked at the same time.
	No.
	These are going to be drug gang networks, right?
	Yeah.
	Not to mention you've also got people producing things and various other small crimes and something there.
	It's just a myth.
	I thought I'd just mention it as well because I'm so sick of hearing it.
	But, yeah.
	BLM's going to do nothing about it because why would they?
	It's not in their interest.
	Well, yeah, I mean, that's nothing to do with the Communist Revolution.
	That doesn't challenge the power structure at all.
	If anything, that suggests the power structure is actually doing a reasonably good job.
	Most of the problems, the people who are incarcerated...
	They're putting away the rapist murderers, which BLM, I guess, they're not in favour of that, so...
	Yeah, I mean, if anything, BLM seems to be a murder advocacy group at this point.
	That's true, though.
	Yeah, but that's the thing.
	If they cared about what's actually happening to these communities and wanted it to stop, they could do something.
	I mean, even if it wasn't actually getting government involved, right?
	You're BLM. You've got hundreds of millions of dollars, and it was millions of pounds in the UK, even though there's absolutely no problem with Black Lives Matter here.
	You could set up community centres and have outreach programmes and literally be like, look, we want all of these gang wars to stop.
	What is the problem here?
	We've got lots of money that people have donated.
	We're going to build things.
	We're going to help you out, put you on courses, get you integrated into society, help you out of the pit that you are clearly in.
	but instead they make money from them being in this position of suffering and pain.
	They want them to be like that.
	They get money because they're like that.
	They don't redistribute any of that wealth to those communities and help them out.
	They're total grifters.
	I hate it.
	The dependency is part of the plan for them.
	Yes.
	If the dependency goes away, then their income goes away.
	I really am.
	Honestly, I'm looking at this as a father.
	I'm looking at this going, man, A, the fatherless households, there's a real concern about that to me, but I find it depressing.
	But what I don't find depressing is when a bunch of Catholic mums go on thought patrol.
	I don't find that depressing at all.
	You saved an uplifting story, I see.
	I did.
	I saved a white pill for the very final story for the weekend, so you can go away happy, folks, right?
	So what I'd like to see is salutes in the chat for the Catholic mums, because...
	Well, I don't really know what to make of this story.
	It's genuinely funny, and there are many levels to it, right?
	So this was a story that broke a week ago.
	This woman called Tiffany Poindexter, which isn't her real name, but it's the name she uses on OnlyFans.
	She's a 44-year-old mother from Northern California and claims to be one of the most successful OnlyFans models in the world, raking in a six-figure sum every month.
	Every month?
	$150,000 a month sharing her sexy photos on OnlyFans.
	I mean, that is staggering, isn't it?
	1.8 mil a year.
	Before taxes.
	Yeah, I assume.
	Then pay your taxes, thot.
	Yeah, well, her husband's involved, so I imagine he's definitely making sure that happens.
	The mother of three boys aged 8, 10, and 12 first started her account in 2019 as a way to spice up her relationship with her husband after the couple began experiencing marriage problems.
	I mean, that must be horrific for the sons.
	Wait, they've got kids?
	Yeah, three.
	Three boys.
	Oh, boy.
	What are your mum's nude photos?
	Eight, ten, and twelve.
	They must be, what is that, middle school in the US? I don't know, but getting to the sort of age where romance is starting to get into their minds, and then it's just going to be...
	Mate, have you seen your mum?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Exactly.
	It cost me $5 a month, mate.
	Only five dollars.
	Look at that.
	That's how cheap your mum is.
	That's how cheap your mum is.
	That's awful, isn't it?
	God, I'd have a field day with this as I was in school.
	Yeah, I know.
	I'm actually kind of disappointed.
	I'm too old for one of my friend's mums to have had OnlyFans.
	It's a cruel thing.
	It's a cruel thing, I think, that would be happening to our kids.
	But, yeah, so they live in an affluent area of Northern California that's made up of a close-knit Catholic community and claim to have received considerable backlash from those who don't approve of it.
	And you can see the photos, right?
	So, I mean, if we can go up a bit, look at these photos for a minute.
	I find this total cringe, right?
	Really?
	Yeah, when...
	When it's your mum, yeah.
	Menopausal women try to act sexy like this.
	There's something about this just like...
	That time of your life is over.
	I don't know, you'll be there in 10-20 years.
	I'm never going to be a menopausal woman.
	I don't know, but your family will.
	You're still going to find your wife hot shortly.
	Yeah, I will still love my wife, but, you know, like, trying to be like a teenage girl, I find kind of cringe.
	Like, you know, you are a mother, which means you're an authority figure, right?
	You're also nearly, you know, 45, and come on.
	It's time to accept that that period of your life is over.
	Like, take it to its extremities.
	It'd be like your grandma dressing up in a schoolgirl outfit.
	Well, why not?
	Just...
	Why not?
	What difference does it make?
	You know, this is the thing.
	It's like, no, they...
	I mean, I realize that you're making a lot of money out of it, so my moral objections are going to fall by the wayside here.
	But I personally just find this to be just cringe.
	But anyway, so this began with her and her husband trying to spice up their marriage.
	And so they posted a picture of her in a bikini on Reddit.
	This was very popular, apparently, because there are lots of young men who want a sexy mother to do mothery things with them.
	And so she started an OnlyFans.
	And in the first month, she made $14,000.
	Jesus Christ.
	I mean, there's an incentive structure if you ever needed one.
	How much more powerful could the incentive be?
	Maybe give you 20 grand, I guess.
	Well, 150.
	A month by the end of it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But what I'm saying is that there is a massive problem with simps.
	This has to end, man.
	OnlyFans is a total curse.
	It's like, look, why don't we just make it really, really profitable to be a prostitute?
	You know, really profitable.
	Like millions of dollars a year in your online prostitution.
	Now try and resist that.
	Try and resist being an online prostitute.
	I mean, I have trouble.
	Not going to lie, I'm considering a career change right now.
	Yeah, considering transitioning.
	I actually really want to know what the highest rated, like, Catboy is on OnlyFans.
	Because I bet it's a million dollars as well.
	Nick Fuentes, email us.
	Anyway, so they started in September 2019, and nobody knew about it.
	No friends, no family, or anyone.
	It was a sexy secret between me and my husband that was so exciting and fun.
	Okay, stop you there, right?
	It's not a secret.
	How's that a secret?
	You're on the internet.
	You're on the internet.
	Literally thousands of people are giving you money for your e-thought pictures.
	It's not a secret, you delusional woman.
	But more than that, again, how irresponsible is this?
	Like, this is obviously going to have consequences to your children's lives for your exciting and fun.
	You know, like...
	Anyways, for her own self-indulgence, for her own gratification, for her own pleasure, she's doing this to her kids.
	Her kids are like, oh, I've seen your mum naked, mate.
	Selfish.
	You know the chant, my wife's son?
	You're like, your father's mum is dead in school.
	But it's totally selfish.
	I feel like I'm contributing to the bullying of the kids now.
	I'm all stop.
	I mean, if she was like, well, we desperately needed the money, I'd be like, fair enough.
	They desperately needed the money.
	I can understand why they'd do it.
	That happens in plenty of famine-stricken countries.
	Absolutely.
	But the United States?
	Northern California?
	Affluent Catholic community?
	You're not doing...
	I mean, she just admits it's not for money.
	They're not having money problems.
	She did it because her relationship was getting stale with her husband and they thought he'd spice it up.
	It's like, okay, well then why didn't you stop when it started getting out of your control?
	Why didn't you just, you know, try on some kinks or something in the bedroom?
	I don't know why you need to post...
	Who knows, right?
	Why are you charging for it then, if it's not about the money?
	That's a good point, actually.
	That's a very good point.
	Why is she charging for it if it's not about the money?
	Well, you could put it on, I don't know if we can say it, P-Hub.
	I don't know if I need to sense that word or not, but you can put it up there for free, but you put it on OnlyFans for money.
	Yeah, interesting.
	But anyway, then in July 2020, neighbours and parents from the couple's school, the children's school, found out about Harani fans, and this is where it gets really interesting, because the thing that is most interesting for me is that it's not the men who are patrolling her over this.
	Wait, is it the other mums?
	Oh yes, it is the other mums.
	The other mums are like, not on my watch, you whore!
	Please tell me it's out of, like, you're hotter than me as well.
	Well, I mean, for a 44-year-old woman, she's fairly attractive.
	Super BS. Like, there's no doubt that that's...
	My photo on her anniversary.
	What?
	I don't understand.
	So like, someone else's husband is watching her, and then his wife is upset that he's looking at the woman next door?
	Are you surprised?
	Are you surprised that it's the other mothers who are like, sorry, my husband's looking at you naked?
	I don't think so.
	This has always been the issue with everything.
	Female.
	Makeup.
	It's always women patrolling women.
	Exactly.
	If women tomorrow decided that as a group of people they were going to stop wearing makeup, men would have nothing to say about it.
	And they're certainly not going to stop having sex with women.
	So it's like these feminist complaints about the unrealistic body types in the media.
	It's like, yeah, who did that?
	Glamour magazine did that to you.
	How many men are reading Glamour magazine?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Whose fault is this?
	I bet all the structures are basically woman-owned and woman-run as well.
	So it's like, look, you did this to yourselves.
	But anyway, right.
	So she said that someone came across my account and suddenly I had mums from the school texting me and leaving voicemails saying I had to leave the school.
	Some women from my area actually printed out pictures I posted on my OnlyFans and mailed them to the principal of my children's school.
	I'm sure he enjoyed them.
	What's he going to do with them?
	We were called loads of names.
	Apparently it was disturbing, disgusting, and horrifying, and my children should be kicked out.
	According to their, it wasn't just the children's education they tried to hinder.
	They also wrote to the local priest and bishop, as well as made a secret Facebook group to gossip about the family.
	Call in the Inquisition.
	We've got a thought.
	Oh, man.
	Hey, what are you doing to get rid of the thought problem?
	I'm not saying anything.
	Exactly.
	Call your rabbi, for Christ's sake.
	Oi.
	He's probably not in favour of online prostitution, is he?
	He was an anarchist, actually.
	Maybe he is.
	But, yeah, so she says, it hit me in the gut every time I heard something new.
	In the very beginning, I thought I was going to have a nervous breakdown.
	It was just so intrusive.
	It was something that was supposed to be a secret in our marriage.
	No, it wasn't.
	You put it on the internet.
	Liar!
	Yeah, you are lying to yourself and us here, Tiffany.
	They think I must be having sex with all these men and I'm not.
	It's just a hot sexy wife fantasy.
	No, that's not what they think, right?
	They think my husband is looking at pictures of my neighbour naked and I don't want that to be the case because that's my...
	It's about particularity.
	It's about you showing something to other people, selling something to other people that is supposed to be, in their opinion, particular to your bedroom.
	And they don't want you threatening their marriage by essentially devaluing their own contribution in the sexual arena.
	I just, I do want to also be like, I'm going to get the other side here, which is, I bet it's also about, as we said, that it's competition.
	Because I remember there's a bunch, you ever watch like Desperate Housewives or anything like this?
	And there's always like the housewives are all kind of dull.
	And then there's like one woman on the block who's hot.
	And they hate her.
	They hate her.
	They hate her because of it.
	Like they're all still friends basically publicly because that's how women work.
	But I do also bet that there's a bit of like, I don't want to have to dress up and do all this stuff because I don't have the time.
	And you probably don't because you've got a job.
	But this is her entire job.
	But this isn't her job.
	This is a hobby.
	She still has a job.
	She still has a full-time job.
	Yeah, her and her husband still have jobs.
	It's like, why?
	Like, I would just be banking all this money.
	How many millions do you need?
	Yeah, exactly.
	But I mean, their main jobs must pay really well for them not to leave them in order to have this financed them, right?
	But this is the thing.
	It's undoubtedly that the other wives on the block are just like, I'm not having this woman being a Jezebel and tempting my husband because he might leave me or something.
	He'll spend his money on her rather than spending it on me, which he should be doing because she's his wife, right?
	And all of these are perfectly legitimate arguments.
	I don't really see how you could turn around to these wives and say, no, you're not allowed to be annoyed that your husband might be spending money on this woman's OnlyFans.
	Of course you've got the right to be annoyed.
	And anyway, this went further, if we can go to the next one.
	And eventually the principal of the Catholic school expelled her children over this.
	What?
	Yeah.
	What did the kids do?
	Yeah.
	This is where it starts getting a bit anti-liberal.
	I'm all for, like, you know...
	This is the enforcement of how you keep standards, isn't it?
	It is, yes.
	I'm all for the social shaming.
	Totally.
	If you're going to be an online prostitute, expect people to give you the respect that an online prostitute is accorded.
	But then, this is kind of harsh.
	It's not the kids' fault that their mums are whore.
	The kids weren't dressing up, were they?
	And I've got no doubt that if you went to the voice, are you happy about your mum doing it on OnlyFans?
	They'd be like, no.
	Can I please stop talking about this?
	Yeah, I really don't want to have to do that.
	I get this all day.
	Can I talk about Transformers instead?
	Or Minecraft or something?
	I mean, good God.
	Oh, man, that must be awful, actually, for the kids.
	But the principal of the Sacred Heart School, the Catholic school that they go to, said, Your apparent quest for high-profile controversy in support of your adult website is in direct conflict with what we hope to impart to our students and is directly opposed to the policies laid out in the parent-student handbook.
	Therefore, we require you to find another school for your children and have no further association with ours.
	I suppose if you're trying to be a good Catholic, that's probably the right thing to do.
	Not very liberal, but I mean...
	Catholicism isn't.
	Yeah, it's not.
	I don't know why anyone would be expecting...
	Can't wait for this to happen at an Islamic school in England.
	Well, only a matter of time, probably.
	And they'll have exactly the same reaction as the Catholics.
	And what's the British state going to do?
	Yeah, what is the British state going to do?
	You have to take these kids even though their mum does this.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But yeah, anyway, so they got the kids kicked out of school, so the kids are going to have to find a new school.
	And what I find interesting, right, so I'm working on the book club for Brave New World, but that's going to be coming after the premium podcast talking about...
	Thick concepts and the sort of depth of language, right?
	Because all of this, I think, really does sort of tie together, because there's a very interesting part in Brave New World where one of the civilized women goes on a field trip, because they, not to spoil it, I mean, it's a new book and you should have read it already, But one of the civilised women gets lost on a field trip to the Savage Reservation and separated.
	And the civilised woman has been conditioned to believe that having sex is a kind of duty.
	You have to have sex with as many people as possible and monogamy is a bad thing in this hypothetical dystopia.
	And when she does this with the savage women's husbands, she doesn't understand why the savage women then come to house and beat the hell out of her.
	For continuing to have sex with their husbands.
	And they, you know, the point being, like, the savage women have this particular view, right?
	The relationship, the sexual relationship is a monopoly.
	The woman has a sexual monopoly over her husband, the husband has a sexual monopoly over his wife.
	And this kind of behavior is an interruption of that sexual monopoly.
	And this is very much the same sort of principle being played out, where it's the wives who come after her because she's intruding on that sexual monopoly.
	And it's hard to say that they're wrong.
	You know, it's the civilized woman who's like, yeah, everyone can see me naked and having sex or whatever.
	And it's like, This kind of actually reminds me of the enlightened progressives who are very interested in promoting open relationships.
	Well, that's exactly what the root of all of this is, and that's one of the strands that is explored by Huxley in Brave New World.
	It's actually really interesting how it ties into the interchangeability of the Enlightenment view of the world, because when you abstract things, you have to have a rule for everything, which means no particular thing is actually very important.
	It's the class of things.
	That's important.
	And this is what the Catholic woman, the savages, are objecting to.
	It's like, no, this is a particular thing between me and that man there.
	And that man there is subscribing to her OnlyFans, so you're getting a beating, you thought.
	And it's the same principle, and that's the same sort of thing that Huxley's been putting out.
	And it's that kind of mindset between this sort of modernistic, scientific view of the world and the sort of pre-modern...
	I guess we'd say romantic view of the world that is the real dichotomy that's being explored in Brave New World.
	And that's why it's going to be the best club review you've ever seen on that.
	Because, my God, I understand it like no one else does.
	I'm just saying.
	But anyway...
	Just thinking in my head, how does Bake the Cake apply to OnlyFans?
	Like, if I request that...
	I don't know.
	So what would be the equivalent here?
	So there's like a straight Christian-only fans, if you can imagine such a thing.
	And then a gay subscriber demands that they do anal or something, and then they refuse on the basis that it's unchristian.
	Could he sue?
	I just saw someone mention it in the chat.
	I'm like, you know what, that's an interesting point of law.
	Like, how does that work?
	Well, I mean, I'm sure the law would favour in the view of anti-discrimination, because that's the scientific perspective.
	You can't have a particular, you have to have a universal, which means you can't discriminate, which means you've got to take it up the arse for the sake of progressivism.
	Literally.
	Literally.
	Oh, God, I can't wait for that law court case there.
	It's probably on the books already.
	It's only a matter of time until it's triggered.
	So, don't set up a Christian Ernie fan.
	Anyway, we've got some video questions.
	If you want to send us a video question, if you're a Gold Tier member on the website, you can do that.
	And, of course, we'll be having the Gold Tier Hangouts at 4 o'clock this afternoon.
	But let's go for the first question.
	Hey Lotus Eaters, my name's Tony D and this is Little Joan.
	We do videos as well and on one of our videos we talked about immigration in the United States.
	The Democrats seem to be opening the doors wide open, right, right, and trying to get as many potential future voters for them as they can, but they're no longer the party of the working man and most people who come to this country become We predict that in five to ten years this is going to backfire spectacularly on the Democrats and there really have imported future Republican voters.
	Your thoughts on that, we'd like to know, and whether or not the UK has a similar issue with their immigration issue.
	Yeah, it seems to be dependent on the community that you've brought into the country, but it seems that Trump's increase in demographic share in these various communities seems to indicate that, yeah, if you can just break through the conditioning the Democrats putting onto these communities by saying, oh, you're being oppressed, blah, blah, blah, then it turns out that, yeah, they actually do start swinging Republican, especially if they're people who have fled from socialism, such as the Cubans.
	And we actually do have a similar sort of effect in the UK.
	And it's interesting how it's based on the communities themselves because, like, as we've mentioned many times, Sikhs, Hindus, and Jews vote for the Conservative Party in this country, whereas Muslims vote for the Labour Party in this country.
	So it's interesting how it's not just immigrants vote left because that's not the case.
	A lot of immigrants are actually quite conservative themselves, and once they realize that the Democrats are not representative of their values, shall we say, they endorse OnlyFans, I would assume, they probably are not going to stay Democrat for very long.
	But I think that's not a very good justification of mass immigration.
	I'm still opposed to mass immigration generally as a concept.
	But I mean, it's not all doom and gloom, basically.
	Dog.
	The dog is adorable as well.
	Let's go to the next question.
	The entire chat was filled with dog.
	Well, yeah, he's a good boy, obviously.
	So I've been thinking a lot about the morally challenged, especially how masks out there are.
	Keep nothing.
	Yeah, apparently this is on your end, speaker.
	They out...
	I wonder, do you think this would...
	No repercussions?
	Or will karma...
	I'm afraid I did not catch the question.
	So the chap who made this, that's the file we received, so please send us another one and I guess check the audio first.
	Yeah.
	Because otherwise, sorry.
	Yeah, because I just didn't get the question there.
	1776 be with you, gentlemen.
	I just wanted to remind you that pedophilia has been an entrenched part of leftism for a long time, and you can see it even as far back as Adolis Huxley's A Brave New World, in which they openly spoke about sexualizing children as a benefit to their society.
	So I just don't think that many younger people are aware of how deeply entrenched this vein of pedophilia is in leftism and how dangerous it is.
	I mean, that's true.
	Indeed, in Brave New World, one of the interesting things, and again, you have to bifurcate this into the scientific and the romantic, right?
	The romantic savages and the scientific civilized people.
	Because the scientific civilized people, once you...
	Again, we need to go through this thick concepts podcast, right?
	Because there are all these moral concepts that get layered as assumptions in certain words and in certain ways.
	But if you can devalue the language that you're using, then suddenly there's nothing sacred and protected in your own thought process about things like lowering the age of consent.
	Which is why socialists are just like, well, I'm a materialist.
	There's nothing sacred about a child and a child's innocence.
	And so a 14 year old has reached the age of puberty or whatever, and therefore everything's fine.
	And it's like, no, there's more to it than that.
	And yet the socialists can't see it because they've deliberately blinded themselves by the kind of language they're using.
	Again, we'll talk about this in the Preview Podcast.
	There's a lot to go over.
	I'm a materialist.
	But yeah, it wasn't that Aldous Huxley was in favour of this.
	The point of Brave New World was actually to expose how this is going to be evil, right?
	And so the children in Brave New World don't have parents and are encouraged to be sexual with each other as really, really young, like five or six years old.
	And one of the examples is one of the world controllers, the regional controllers, is there showing students around a hatchery, essentially.
	And one of the little boys comes up crying because he didn't want to engage in the sexual play.
	And the little girl's like, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hurt him or anything like that.
	And they're all like, oh no, he's done nothing wrong.
	He's just, you know, being silly or whatever.
	Like you would do if a child stole another child's toy, right?
	But that's the point of it.
	The point is for it to be, it's to get your moral hackles up.
	Because it's like, this is vile.
	How can you people just do this, you know?
	But I mean, the boy can't go to anyone, you know, he's got no parents or whatever.
	So who's he going to go to to complain?
	But But that's the point.
	And then contrast this to the socially conservative savages who don't want the civilized woman just screwing all of their men and don't sexualize their children and all this sort of thing.
	The mindset is totally different, and Huxley is showing that in Brave New World.
	But he's absolutely right.
	It is a product of scientific left-wing thinking that will end up essentially normalizing paedophilia, which is why all the...
	I think we're seeing it happen in real time.
	Which is why all the science bros, you know, Bernie-supporting, Vorsch-loving leftists are all like, yeah, lower the age of consent.
	And then the dads are like, nope, get in the wood chipper.
	Yeah, so he's not wrong at all.
	And this goes after the French intellectuals petitioning the French state to lower the age of consent in the 70s.
	Like all of Foucault, Derrida, all of the postmodernists, all of these people.
	It's like, this has got to stop.
	But anyway.
	Hey Carl and Callum.
	Just giving you a quick question with regards to your talk that you gave over in Germany, Carl.
	Is it available in any other way other than on YouTube?
	I've got a mate who is a minister in the government in South Australia and I'd love him to have a better understanding of critical race theory, especially in regards to Robin DiAngelo's rampant racism.
	I used to be a member of the Liberal Party here and gave up on that because they Aren't conservative in the true sense of the word, though I am tempted to get back involved just so that I can try and make them red-pilled, but, you know, I really don't think that's going to work.
	So probably better to actually start up the patriarchy party.
	Dad is in Unite.
	I agree, mate.
	I agree.
	Unfortunately, it's exclusive to lotusseaters.com.
	Maybe encourage him to sign up.
	I mean, it's one of the best pieces we've done, so I don't want to just be like, you know...
	I'm sure we could make an exemption for politicians or something, because these people need to be bloody educated.
	I mean, I wouldn't, so on the article that has the video embedded in it, I've included the script that I was reading from, so I wouldn't, you know, I wouldn't complain if you, like, copy and pasted, you know, some of it and then sent it to him or something like that in an email.
	I wouldn't mind.
	But I don't think we can make it public, really.
	Because you want it to be one of those things.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Like a Robert D'Angelo charges for fucking racism.
	Yeah, exactly.
	We've got to keep the lights on.
	But yeah, so you can, and anyone else can sign up to lotuses.com for a fiver a month and get access to all of our premium content.
	We've got loads there and it's all really, really good.
	And I think nourishing is good for your brain.
	I hope politicians get more than a fiver a month.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, that's a wonderful endorsement of the quality of the work we've done.
	This guy's like, I really want to send it to him, but I can't.
	It's like...
	Maybe he'd want to sign up.
	Maybe he'd enjoy it.
	But feel free to let you know.
	Just scrub the text and email it across to him.
	I don't mind.
	Do you want to go to Australia?
	I'd like to leave my house.
	I'd like to go to the next town over.
	On the side of the planet, just because you can when you can.
	Yeah, exactly.
	My wife really wants to go for a holiday in Australia.
	I'm like, oh god.
	24 hour flight.
	We have so many supports over there.
	Three kids.
	I've always wondered, how do we bridge that gap?
	But yeah, 23 hour flight is not fun.
	Also, we're not allowed to go on holiday by law.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I just mean outside.
	Outside of tyranny.
	Yeah.
	Right, we've got some questions.
	So if you want to leave a question, of course, if you're a member of Logistics.com, you can leave a message on the page and we'll go through some.
	TF Allspark says, Cancer.
	Sorry about the failure.
	My phone won't let me watch the video before I post it.
	What I asked is, with the mortally challenged, masked-off approach...
	Ah, this is the video.
	With the morally challenged mask-off approach, being so bold as if to seek praise for their actions, do you think that they will just keep going on and never be made to pay the piper, or is the karmic axe coming for them on the backswing?
	The karmic axe is definitely coming for them.
	You can ignore reality, as Ayn Rand said, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
	And I think on that point, she is exactly right.
	And this, again, is the point of Brave New World.
	I can't wait to do this book for you.
	Next week, we will do the thick concepts.
	And I might have to make this a two-part because there are lots of different things that all tie together for a proper understanding of Brave New World.
	Like the best example being just happened today.
	The British government has agreed to call people who take time off for maternity mothers instead of, what was it, person?
	Yeah.
	The House of Lords had to force them to use the term mother to describe a woman.
	And they were like, well, we can't describe women as mothers.
	A woman with a child, in fact.
	Yeah, a woman with a child.
	But it's thick concepts, whereas the British government, the Conservative Party in charge, wanted to say it was a person.
	It was like, you not know what you're doing.
	Of course I'm in favour of persons chest feeding.
	I'm a Conservative.
	Yeah, literally.
	That's where we live.
	That's literally it.
	I love the way it's the House of Lords that's the last line of defence.
	The boomers.
	I mean, literally praise the Lords.
	LAUGHTER I never thought I'd say it.
	Jonah Lord said, War is peace, freedom of slavery, ignorance is strength.
	These bombs are diverse, inclusive, and improve our relations with the guy who gives me my stacks.
	Biden, probably.
	Dylan Tucker, I wish I could say I'm surprised that Biden is airstriking again, but unfortunately I can't.
	I'm glad I'm not in the military anymore.
	I'd much rather be at home, doing what I can to protect my family from the government's bad decisions, and then abroad, quote-unquote, protecting my country in a war Biden started.
	Yeah, it just didn't take long, did it?
	Nicholas Malson.
	Hi folks, hope you're doing well.
	I think we are.
	Carl, as you've been exercising for a while and it shows, you look great.
	Oh, thank you very much.
	How much do you focus on the equipment that you work out with or is your approach focused more on exercising with less gear?
	Minimal gear, really.
	We've got a pull-up bar and some push-up handles that you hold and push yourself up with.
	I brought my free weights in but I haven't used them much.
	Mostly it's just doing that and then cycling into work.
	You've been doing it.
	How many pull-ups can you do now?
	I can do two.
	Not bad.
	Proper ones.
	Not bad.
	Well, you're up to five, aren't you?
	I am.
	Yeah.
	Like when you started, what were you, two or three?
	Two.
	So I'm now where you started, so...
	Sorry, chin-ups.
	Heath Kiff says, Yesterday a fine fellow commented that the opposite to dadism is infantilism.
	I think there's something worth discussing here.
	It's a common trend of reducing non-leftists to thickos with no personal autonomy who must be protected from the evils of misinformation for their own foolishness.
	Uh...
	I don't need COVID rules because I'm sensible, but we need harsher rules to control those idiots having lunch in the park.
	Just like you said with North FC, they think that people who are not educated are incapable of making real decisions and need to be babied at all times.
	Yeah, that's absolutely true.
	And one of the things I found really interesting about that as well is the pretensions to knowledge that the sort of scientific left...
	The scientific class have.
	In fact, if you think about it, a lot of their predictions are just generally wrong.
	And a lot of bad mistakes are made.
	And the problem is the bad mistakes are made on a much bigger scale than North FC making a bad decision in his own personal life.
	I mean, if he makes a bad decision, only a few people are affected by it.
	But if Neil Ferguson makes a bad decision, the entire country is ruined by it.
	And so it's like, there's real moral weight in that distinction as well.
	Again, this is all stuff we'll go through on the podcast and in the Brave New World review, but there's real, these are the questions of our time that I think are being presented to us here, and I think we can answer them.
	And next week, we will get it done.
	I've already started on the notes that I need for the podcast.
	The difficulty is I want to make sure I arrange everything really, really neatly.
	Not a waste of people's time.
	Not just a waste of people's time, but so it's clear.
	I want to make sure it's as clear as I can make it.
	Alex L. Have you ever read Albert Hirschman Rhetoric of Reaction?
	It gives a great commentary on the futility of government intervention, which often brings about the result it was trying to avoid, e.g.
	Boris sending out patients to care homes and killing thousands of old people.
	Did Boris do that?
	I know that Cuomo did that.
	I think the British government did as well, to my knowledge.
	Why the hell would you do that?
	Because people are idiots.
	Sheik Asaba says, these actions from the neolib US establishment are not coming from a position of security and strength, but from weakness.
	That's correct.
	All of this is coming from a position of weakness in Biden's mind, because Biden, I think, doesn't really think that he's legitimate.
	They are accelerating their plans, already starting the forever wars, and are continuing to browbeat and humiliate their opponents.
	They wouldn't be so desperate if they were secure enough in their power that they would maintain it during the current election cycle or even just up to the midterms.
	Remember that even with all their fortification, they could only take the presidency by slim margins and lost out in nearly every other race.
	That's true.
	Absolutely true.
	Thomas Leavitt says, So this is a question we get asked quite a lot, to be honest.
	One of the things, I think, is make sure that you improve yourself.
	Be the example that you want others to see.
	That's a difficult thing.
	It requires commitment.
	It's tiring.
	It's...
	Honestly, so much easier to just go and eat sugar and play video games all day, but I'm not going to do it.
	Do the work, read the books, study the texts, create, build the things that you want to see in existence.
	That's the best way to be the example, on an individual level.
	And it's the most satisfying as well.
	Suddenly you have purpose, you have meaning, and other people will look up to you and respect the virtue that you demonstrate.
	The next thing is to talk to them about these things in these terms.
	I've been using the terms virtue and vice a lot recently because they're terms that have meaning.
	They're thick concepts that have meaning.
	They're not scientific, they're not precise, but they mean something and people react to them as if they mean something.
	And these sort of thick concepts, these moral judgments that are involved in the concept itself by describing a part of the world, you're also evaluating it.
	This matters.
	And so essentially you need to start talking to people in these terms, not just about these terms.
	So I will find some, I will think some good examples to impart during the premium podcast.
	But talking to people in ways that they're not used to talking and the media doesn't is important.
	And not only that, obviously, share information.
	I tell people I know about, obviously, lotuses.com, but other things.
	I'm never shy to promote content creators that are great, like Matt Christensen.
	You know, bench peer-esteem crowd.
	All these people are doing a good job.
	Spread them around.
	You know, spread anything around that's not radical left-wing nonsense.
	You know, even if it's stuff you don't 100% agree with.
	You know, I've got no problem talking to Christians and doing all this stuff.
	You know, whereas five years ago, I'd have been like, that's insane.
	Of course I'm not going to talk to Christians.
	It's like, well, hang on.
	They don't want revolution.
	You know, they don't want to abolish civilization as we know it, you know?
	And it's in small ways.
	In small ways, basically.
	But I think that's the most concrete ways.
	Walter Vara says, What can you do when members of your family are incapable of not buying into the media and government spin on the coup and the absolute state of the world?
	Is there any point trying to convince them?
	Or should you just focus on the people you still can do something about thanks to the work?
	I mean, it's worth presenting them with pieces of data that contradict their worldview, just so they're aware that there are pieces of data that contradict their own worldview.
	But there's going to be people who just will not be persuaded and are afraid of being persuaded.
	And so it probably is a better use of your time and effort to try and persuade those people who are not in that position and who are open to listening.
	Best advice I have there, I'm afraid.
	Chris Wolfe, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the left is acting like the adults in Pinocchio.
	Yes.
	Yes, I should have thought of that.
	That's a great example.
	OnlyDads.co.uk.
	OnlyDads, yeah, we should definitely write stuff.
	OnlyDads.com is taken.
	Damn.
	But OnlyDads.co.uk is 99p.
	Excellent.
	But if the puppets show signs of independence, they lure the children away from true educational responsibility and carry them away to Pleasure Island, where they are turned into jackasses.
	Their targeting of impressionable minds is truly disgusting.
	If advocates for a movement are entirely impressionable youths, you must look to those influencing them with a critical view.
	Yes, that's exactly the point of the cartoons yesterday.
	Assigned male.
	Assigned male comics.
	Sorry, yeah.
	The adults influencing these children are the problem.
	James Quinn, finally jumped in with bronze.
	Welcome aboard, James.
	It's all I can afford at the moment being a poor.
	We'll get you that Lotus tank and warehouse studio.
	You guys deserve it.
	Man, I can't wait to get an Alex Jones style studio.
	If we ever do, like, succeed bigly.
	What's he got there?
	Is it, like, a full-on warehouse?
	Oh, it's a massive complex, actually.
	And he's got, like, three...
	I think it's three of these huge studios, and then he's got, you know, big booths full of people doing stuff, and then the cameras that are moving around.
	The institution.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's mega.
	It's amazing.
	But, you know, I mean, we've only just started.
	You know, we're doing great for the first four months.
	And by the way, thank you, Evan, for supporting us.
	We're doing our best to be worthy.
	But, you know, it's like one day.
	One day we're going to have it, I promise.
	Yeah.
	But also, if anyone is interested in being a content creator here, we'd be very interested in hearing from you.
	You can email us careers at lotuses.com and we would like to see examples of your work in a CV if you think you can make good videos that people would want to watch.
	Will the Impaler says, gender dysmorphia is a mental, or dysphoria I think it is, is a mental disease.
	Do you treat someone with paranoid schizophrenia by indulging their paranoia and telling them it is real?
	Is that what you do, Josh?
	No.
	The answer's no.
	No, you don't.
	Do you treat someone with paranoid schizophrenia by indulging them in their delusions?
	Definitely not.
	That's the worst thing you can do from our qualified psychologist.
	Joseph Woodland.
	On the women having to compete with trannies, think about how far-reaching the sports scholarship repercussions are in the US. Being good at sports while in high school is enough to change your life.
	That's true.
	It can get you free higher education as opposed to 100k worth of debt or flat-out refused if you're too poor to get the loans.
	Because that's the thing as well.
	In the US, I don't know what the standards are.
	Because in the UK, to become recognized as trans, you have to spend two years committing to it.
	You have to change your voice.
	You have to show a real, real commitment.
	And then you go through the surgery or whatever.
	But it's a proper standard.
	But I don't know what it is in the US. If the US is just being accepted in law, as you say it, therefore...
	I mean, I imagine the Biden administration would be in favour of that being the standard.
	Exactly, but you can't even claim it's fraud.
	How is this fraud?
	Because literally all you've said I have to do is claim that I'm a woman.
	That's why it's not hyperbolic to say this is the end of women's sports.
	I really think it is.
	James says, hey guys, I'm excited to say I'm starting a new job as a public affairs officer at the end of March.
	Well, congratulations.
	And I'll be complaining to Parliament for a living now rather than just shouting them on the TV. Bravo!
	That's great.
	Yeah, excited and wants to say thank you for reigniting in me a belief that change is there to be made and argued for.
	Any words for our housing minister when I get to speak to him?
	Yeah, I've got some questions, right?
	I want to know why if the birth rate for a native British is 1.7 per family, we need hundreds of thousands of new houses.
	Because that would imply that the 400,000 new houses that we're going to build, that would imply that we would actually have a declining need for houses.
	So it would also, following on from that, if we're In requiring hundreds of thousands of new houses, it would imply that the government is paying to house foreigners.
	Why are the British taxpayers paying houses for foreigners?
	Why is that happening?
	Get them to answer.
	I really want to know why.
	And how does that compute with the government's insistence that they will bring immigration down to the tens of thousands?
	Exactly.
	We know, logically, they must be building houses for foreigners using British taxpayer money.
	But it's not just that.
	I'm a conservative.
	Over their own sayings.
	They say in their manifestos, for the last ten years, we'll bring it down to tens of thousands.
	Despite their promises to get that down.
	Why are you planning to break your own promise?
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's what I would like you to ask, in fact.
	So yeah, and he says, just to add, it's involved in the residential private rented sector.
	I don't know exactly.
	Well, that is.
	But that would be my question.
	But let us know how it goes.
	I'm very, very interested in hearing more.
	Who is that?
	That was James.
	We'll remember the name.
	Lawrence says, you may need to be careful with these statistics.
	Maybe the drug charge is the lesser charge you end up in for your violent escapades and the stats pad out to actually be problems that are drug-related.
	Could be.
	It's probably a case that these are difficult to disentangle, but we don't have any further statistics on them.
	No, they're actually, in that specific source, they mention that when drugs were a lesser charge, what tends to happen is it gets flagged as, let's say, I murdered someone under the influence of drugs.
	That gets jocked up as murder.
	It doesn't include the drug charge, so there is some complexity there, but it shows that the people in there for pure possession is a nothing but good.
	So, yeah, you're right to bring that up.
	I didn't have time to mention it, but it is one of the footnotes.
	Very good.
	God, we've got the best audience, man.
	Yeah.
	Sharp.
	James II, to correct a previous comment, it wasn't the government sending COVID patients into care homes.
	It was one or two hospitals in the UK who sent a small amount of COVID-positive patients back into care homes.
	The decision was made by NHS staff slash management, but as we know, the NHS does something wrong.
	It's all the government's faults.
	If it does something well, all hail the NHS. Thank you for the correction.
	Yeah, I thought it was the government's fault.
	So yeah, the holy NHS is not infallible.
	I can't believe it.
	I can't believe it.
	Nicholas Stern says, does the general public see single motherhood as a bad thing?
	I've been talking to my friends about this, all Gen Zedders, and they're all adamant that not only is single motherhood not associated with anything bad, it's the way of the future.
	So depressing.
	Yeah, well, I mean, you'd think that these Gen Zedders, who have all got their mental health issues and don't know who their fathers are, They might be like, yeah, single motherhood sucks.
	But I mean, I guess if they don't know anything else, they don't know that actually, if you're not part of a single parent family, you've got a much higher chance of, say, not having a mental health condition, then maybe they'd change their tune.
	But like I said, it seems to me that we're not allowed to say that there's something wrong with single motherhood, you know?
	And the thing is, a lot of the time, it's not even the mother's fault.
	You know, the husband will die or something like that.
	No, it's just you don't have two people working on that child.
	Yeah, but it's just tough.
	And I'm telling you as a parent, it's tough when you've got two of you.
	Like, it's not easy on the best of times.
	Liam, only a few more minutes, so let's crack on.
	Liam says, Hey Carl, I'd like to hear your opinion on this quote from Peter Hitchens regarding his opposition to libertarianism.
	I just do not think that liberty itself can be elevated into a principle.
	The liberties of some invariably conflict with the liberties of others.
	Any serious theory of government has to make choices between competing interests.
	That's a true statement.
	And I was having this argument with Short Fat Ataka yesterday.
	So we were playing our weekly game of Bannerlord, and I've been kind of teasing him about it because he wants freedom, liberty, to be the highest principle that society can operate under.
	And I was trying to explain to him, well then, you're arguing for the liberty to be free of your own physical constraints.
	That leads you into transgenderism, into all this gender abolitionist stuff.
	Declaring nature to be an enemy of the people.
	Declaring nature to be an enemy of the people.
	Declaring the family to be an oppressive structure, which is, again, brave new world.
	This is how it's all framed, and I keep coming back to it, but it's so goddamn relevant.
	And that's not true.
	It is true that, say, the family structure inhibits a certain amount of liberty, but that's for other different goods.
	Because there are multiple competing and pulling factors that are trying to pull you one way or another.
	If you say, right, I'm going to go for all liberty...
	Okay, but then you're going to have the liberty to get groomed by a 45-year-old man as you're a 10-year-old, right?
	I mean, that's total freedom.
	A 10-year-old may have the freedom to sleep with a 45-year-old man, but that's not good.
	Why do you want that?
	You don't want that.
	That's actually bad in other ways, but they are free to do it.
	And if freedom is the only good value, highest value, then that's not good.
	I do agree with Peter Hitchens here.
	I think he's right.
	And this is why I found myself back in the sort of Aristotelian view, where I think the highest value should be human flourishing.
	And the great thing about human flourishing is it's very ill-defined.
	And so the scientists are like, what does this mean?
	How do I quantify it?
	It's like you don't.
	Go home.
	I didn't ask you about particle physics or whatever.
	Why are you here?
	That's your speciality, and we're not talking about that, so I don't need to hear from you because you're a total layman.
	Go away!
	I'm sick of taking moral advice from scientists, right?
	But the point is, if human flourishing is a thing, then that's a very, again, thick concept.
	It's got a lot built into it, and you can draw a lot out of it.
	So you can say, well, look, freedom is important for human flourishing.
	Yes, it is.
	It is important.
	Also, relationships are important for human flourishing.
	And abolishing gender roles is also the abolition of relationships.
	And so you don't want to do that.
	And so you can't have total freedom because you've also got these other aspects of existence, a human life that you miss out on when you elevate one of these aspects.
	But they're all a combined part of the idea of human flourishing.
	And I think Aristotle was right.
	All of it comes back to Aristotle being right about almost everything.
	It's really creepy, actually.
	The scientists are like, no, he's wrong about everything, and then they get down deeper into it and think, okay, he was right.
	He was right.
	Cut down it.
	If we are to triumph in the culture war, freedom has to be at the heart of what we espouse, but we also have to accept we need a limit to freedom at times.
	How do we justify it?
	Well, I think I've just done that.
	The Civic Nationalist says, so the consensus among me and my friends, we will all break up with our significant others if they made an OnlyFans.
	Good.
	Well done, boys.
	We all view the women as basically ethos, and why would we ever want to be with someone who's basically short of being a whore?
	They are free to do this, but I am free not to date them.
	I will not suck the female penis.
	I will not eat the bugs.
	I will not live in the pod.
	I will never comply.
	My limit of restricted freedoms stops when the government chooses to enter my life.
	Yes.
	The female penis needs to get added to the phrase of the bugs in the pods.
	Yeah, I will not suck the feminine penis.
	We're going to do a premium podcast on the pod people of the future at some point, because all of the signs are there.
	Bill Gates recently came out and said, we've distilled this water from feces.
	Drink it.
	It's like, why?
	Why do I have to drink it?
	Why can't I water crops with the feces water?
	Why does it have to go in my mouth, Bill?
	And why are you grinning?
	And he's there, literally, he's grinning, holding his feces water.
	It's like, no, it's about humiliation.
	That's what it's about.
	It's about humiliation.
	I'd have to see the clip.
	I don't want to waste time.
	He's got this stupid big grin, and it's like, I'm not putting the poo water in my mouth, Bill.
	He might be celebrating as like, well, we've been able to get rid of 90% salination, but now we've purified it.
	100% purified.
	Brilliant.
	Then someone else can drink the 100% pure poo water.
	I'm not drinking it.
	If you have to go for spacecraft or places where there's very little water, it's a great achievement.
	For anywhere else, of course, it's absurd.
	But that's not what I'm doing.
	Why do you need it in the United States?
	Yeah, stop promoting poo water to me, Bill.
	Can't at least have pee water first.
	It's have to be the worst kind of water.
	I love how you're bargaining with him.
	Why is this computer salesman trying to make me drink poo water?
	Anyway.
	Oh, man.
	I just don't get it.
	Bill, I've already bought a computer.
	Just piss off.
	I love that he's in PC world with you.
	Before you leave, before I take your purchase, drink the poo water.
	But there's a huge grin on his face.
	It's like, no.
	It's just the customer's like, but Bill, why can't I just...
	I got the money.
	It's pure.
	He's like, no, no, no.
	This is part of it.
	Chris Simone says, on the point of the spicy mum, I will say I don't really have an issue with what she did at the core of it.
	Do whatever you want.
	However, I can't say I have any kind of sympathy for her because she was foolish enough to put her face in the pictures.
	That itself invalidates any cries of being victimised.
	You knew the risks, you reap the benefits, and there are the consequences.
	That's a great point.
	And that is actually quite a fair point.
	If she had kept her face and her identity anonymous on the OnlyFans, okay.
	Well, then she wouldn't have been lying.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Then she wouldn't have been lying.
	But instead, she was lying.
	And the thing about it, though, this is what we're talking about, about the thick concepts, right?
	The social relationships.
	Because the question of ethical knowledge seems to come down to social relationships.
	And she is interfering in the marriages of the other women around her.
	That's the thing.
	That's what the other mums are saying.
	My husband is going to go to you to see a naked woman and get sexual gratification when he should be coming to me to get sexual gratification because I am his wife.
	And so you have interjected yourself into this relationship by setting up that OnlyFans.
	And it's like, you know, it's difficult to be like, yeah, okay, it's not a mechanistic, like, direct cog, hitting another cog and pushing a cog.
	It's more like, you know, gravity affecting something, right?
	It's not, you know, there's no direct causal obviousness, but there is still a force there that's at play, and that's the force.
	And it's difficult to express properly.
	It's not like she's thinking that that's happening or anything.
	It doesn't matter whether she intends that.
	You're just, you're not, well, you're not arguing that.
	You're arguing that it's, um...
	A sort of state of play.
	Yeah.
	Like...
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	She's...
	Like, you know...
	Because it's in the local area.
	Yeah.
	I mean, an example would be...
	Okay, so, like, if next door, a band hired an office next door, and they're going to write, we're going to band practice now, but we wouldn't be able to record this podcast because their noise would be drowning out us being able to do this podcast.
	And so we would have a problem with them, even though there's nothing wrong with them setting up a band and playing their band and practicing with their band.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	How can you complain about it?
	Well, actually, it's ruining something we're doing.
	And the mums are looking at it in that sort of way.
	You're ruining my relationship with my husband.
	And it's not that it's illegal for you to do it or anything like that.
	Or immoral or anything.
	Well, it is.
	It clearly is having external impacts.
	But that's the thing.
	It's these kind of fixed social concepts that actually are part of our social reality and they matter.
	And so, yeah.
	So these things are important.
	But the last one, Sam Keating.
	A society requires a pseudo-religious grand narrative for morality.
	Liberalism doesn't have its own morality.
	Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people, said John Adams.
	Or there's Sam Adams.
	I can't remember which one.
	So the left is creating a religion of woke to give morality to their politics thoughts.
	I don't really need to make any correction there, Sam.
	I think you're completely correct.
	The interesting thing about liberalism, like classical liberalism, is it's not an all-consuming worldview.
	It's actually more like a kind of game theory.
	You know, where it refers to your relationship between the individual and the state and the individual and the market.
	It's like, these are perfectly rational considerations, but it's not like a mythical narrative, right?
	Whereas the socialists have a mythical narrative.
	It's the working class uprising and overthrowing the oppressive bourgeois tyrants.
	It's a myth.
	It's a mythos and liberalism isn't really about that.
	It's actually a lot more sensible.
	We're selling a utopia.
	Well, even if you attempt the utopia and it utterly fails, they'll still say it was worthwhile because it might have ended up in utopia.
	Exactly.
	And it was a romantic dream as well.
	Whereas what we're saying is, isn't it just prudent to have it so the government can't just come and take your stuff?
	Isn't that a good idea?
	Isn't it a good thing to have police around to protect your property and yourself?
	But it won't lead to some glorious narrative about perfection.
	That's true.
	So?
	You'll never get to be Lenin.
	That's right.
	But that's a good thing because Lenin was an awful person.
	Also, on something you said about dadism and not wanting it to become a dichotomy of dadist versus anti-dadist, would it not therefore be better to frame dadism more in the realm of stoicism and utilitarianism, which have no direct opposition as a moral philosophical framework rather than inherently political?
	I don't mind framing dadism against utilitarianism, to be honest.
	I hate utilitarianism these days.
	But yeah, I mean, I think that's fair.
	I think it's a fair way of describing it.
	Like stoicism, like utilitarianism, there isn't a direct opponent against it, unlike capitalism and communism, things like that.
	Yeah, but anyway...
	Good stuff.
	I love the quality of the comments we're getting on this.
	This is brilliant.
	But anyway, thank you everyone for joining us.
	If you would like to see more content from us over the weekend, we will have a weekend podcast going up on the website because of course we've still got the YouTube strike.
	And we're on all of these other social media platforms, so BitChute, what is it, DLive and various other...
	Just Facebook still.
	On Facebook still.
	Maybe.
	Library, Odyssey, Rumble, all these sort of platforms you can find us on.
	And you can, of course, sign up on lotuses.com, become a member, support what we're doing here, and get access to all of our premium content, especially The Conservative's Guide to White Fragility.
	If you happen to be an Australian minister, you know you want to.
	It's good work, though.
	You did a good job.

▲