Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 17, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:52

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #156

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 17th of June 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about whether or not the FBI are the ones who are in charge of taking over the Capitol, which I didn't think would be the case.
	Like, I know that Glow in the Dark meme is a good meme, but I didn't expect the FBI to be in agreement that it's also a good meme.
	All good memes reflect an aspect of reality.
	Yeah, they do.
	Also, we're going to be covering the transgender mass shooter who decided that they were being bullied for being transgender, so in self-defense they would shoot people.
	No, no, no.
	Shoot transphobes.
	Yeah, not people.
	That's how that works.
	And also, the American bug woman.
	Yes.
	We talk about how the New York Times is like, hell, look at all these American women, even the immigrant women who are not having children and are just working for their corporate overlords.
	Don't you want to be like that?
	And it's like, hmm, no.
	It also makes you think bugs are running the news stations.
	Wow.
	Well, I mean, you know.
	Moving on.
	The arachnid threat.
	Anyway, so, first thing I wanted to mention was, I mentioned yesterday, and it's now up, it went up last night, I think 5 o'clock, the interview with Will Nolan, the ex-Eaton master.
	Ex, because, of course, he made a video in which he argued that there was a patriarchy paradox.
	He was denied the ability to put this to the students as a thought.
	permitted to put it on his youtube channel with a disclaimer saying this is not the view of eton to make it clear this wasn't the view of eton it's a private view of will noland and uh for that he lost his job and uh it's under review because one of the weird things that he mentioned is one of the criticisms he got and the problem the university had was well it has the word eton in the disclaimer so people might think that has a connection to eton it's like it literally says not the views of eton that That's enough.
	So you ask me to put the disclaimer, and then you say the disclaimer is the thing I'm being fired.
	Yeah.
	But it's about his views on masculinity as well, isn't it?
	Fundamentally.
	Because he's got a biologically essentialist view of masculinity, saying, well, look, it rests on our biological foundations.
	And they're like, well, you're gone.
	Yeah, so I mean, that's the ridiculous of it.
	They try and throw up a million things to be like a smokescreen of things you've done wrong.
	None of them land.
	And it's, as everyone can tell, it is because of his beliefs, which are protected under the Equality Act, might we remember.
	Philosophical beliefs are a protected characteristic.
	And with the My Four Starter rolling recently, the gender, what is it, what would you call it?
	Gender-critical feminists are allowed to exist.
	Women are a thing, apparently, in British...
	Biological essentialism.
	Being female is being tied to being a woman.
	That's a philosophical belief that is protected by law.
	So you can't lose your job for having that belief, which is what Nolan has, essentially.
	Or at least what he argued in that video.
	I mean, that's the other thing as well.
	It's not even necessarily his views that he made an argument that was then to be debated.
	But yeah, great guy.
	I really hope he gets his job back.
	Great interview.
	And if you want to find his channel as well, go to...
	I think it's NolanKnows on YouTube and give him a subscription because guy needs the support and deserves it, rightfully.
	Anyway, without further ado, let's get into the FBI controlling the Capitol.
	So...
	Turns out that the FBI might have been the ones behind the Capitol siege in which the storming of the Capitol took place.
	Yeah, I'm as surprised as anyone.
	I know it's a bit of a meme at this point, just when anything happens ever, it's glow-in-the-darks.
	But, well, there seems to be evidence for it.
	And the evidence comes from a news outlet called Revolver who documented the court documents of the people who are being charged with trespass and terrorism or God knows what else who went in.
	And they've noted that quite a lot of the people who were there aren't being charged at all.
	Which, funny that.
	And the reason they're not being charged is because they're probably agents of the FBI. So this is the Tucker Carlson clip in which he put this all out, which is fantastic.
	So we're going to play a couple of clips from this.
	So let's play the first clip of Tucker Carlson laying this out.
	We know that the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers who were present at the Capitol on January 6th, not just the one who killed Ashley Babbitt.
	According to the government's own court filings, those law enforcement officers participated in the riot, sometimes in violent ways.
	We know that because, without fail, the government has thrown the book at most people who are present in the Capitol on January 6th.
	There was a nationwide dragnet to find them, and many of them are still in solitary confinement tonight.
	But strangely, some of the key people who participated on January 6th have not been charged.
	Look at the documents.
	The government calls those people unindicted co-conspirators.
	What does that mean?
	Well, it means that in potentially every single case, they were FBI operatives.
	Really, in the Capitol, on January 6th.
	For example, one of those unindicted co-conspirators is someone government documents identify only as Person 2.
	According to those documents, Person 2 stayed in the same hotel room as a man called Thomas Caldwell, an insurrectionist, a man alleged to be a member of the group The Oath Keepers.
	Person 2 also, quote, stormed the barricades at the Capitol on January 6th alongside Thomas Caldwell.
	The government's indictments further indicate that Caldwell, who by the way is a 65-year-old man, Yes, dangerous insurrectionist, was led to believe there would be a, quote, quick reaction force also participating on January 6th.
	That quick reaction force, Caldwell was told, would be led by someone called Person 3, who had a hotel room and an accomplice with him.
	But wait, here's the interesting thing.
	Person 2 and Person 3 were organizers of the riot.
	The government knows who they are, but the government has not charged them.
	Why is that?
	You know why.
	They were almost certainly working for the FBI. So FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, according to government documents.
	I mean, that's amazing, isn't it?
	I mean, one of the things to make clear, though, is the difference between an informant and an agent, let's say.
	So someone who provides information to the government on, I don't know, maybe they say things to the government, that doesn't really give them immunity in cases of storming the Capitol, I would imagine, and yet they're not being charged with that.
	So that makes me think that these people who are not being charged but took place, have connections to the government, are not just informants who provide information.
	Yeah, might actually be agents.
	Might actually be agents or, as he says, co-conspirators.
	Yeah, but that's just two of them.
	He says, I mean, the one guy had an accomplice.
	Three people?
	I mean, three people be resolved for all this stuff?
	No, I mean, you've got a lot of people.
	I mean, maybe about 20, at least.
	20?
	You've got 20 guys, and you get them to be the ones who break down the barricades and everyone else follows.
	There were people with masks doing it as well, weren't there?
	Yeah.
	Turns out there were over 20 people of this kind that's playing the next clip.
	And those two are not alone.
	In all, Revolver News reported that there are, quote, upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oath Keeper indictments, all playing various roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities, and in some cases, much, much more severe activities as those named alongside them in the indictments.
	There's a huge difference between using an informant to find out what a group you find threatening might do and paying people to help organize a violent action Which is what happened, apparently, according to government documents, on January 6th.
	That's a line.
	And the FBI has crossed it.
	And it's not the first time they crossed that line in Michigan.
	Remember that plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer?
	We heard a lot about that.
	And Whitmer was able to cover some of her own incompetence, though not all, by pointing to the fact that she's now a victim.
	Now, in the FBI's telling of that plot, a whole team of insurrectionists was going to drive a van up to Gretchen Whitmer's vacation house and throw her in the back and drive away.
	The mastermind of this plot, according to the FBI, was a man called Adam Fox.
	Who was Adam Fox?
	Adam Fox turned out to be a homeless guy who was living in the basement of a vacuum repair shop.
	Quite a gorilla!
	It turns out that one of the five people in the planned Gretchen Whitmer kidnap van was an FBI agent in the van.
	Another was an FBI informant.
	And the feds admitted in these documents that an informant or undercover agent was, quote, usually present in the group's meetings.
	In other words, using simple math, which we can do even on cable news, nearly half the gang of kidnappers were working for the FBI. Remember the guy who suggested using a bomb to blow up a bridge as part of that plot?
	That got a lot of coverage.
	That guy was an undercover FBI agent.
	Could you imagine being this guy, the guy who lives in the basement there?
	He's trying to sell a plot.
	Literally everyone around you is an FBI agent.
	That's happened.
	I'm sure that's happened.
	It almost happened in that case.
	We're 50% of them being an FBI agent.
	But I'm certain that years ago there was some sort of terrorist plot, and it just turned out that everyone involved in it was an FBI agent.
	All terrorists.
	They thought they were stinging each other, basically.
	But I mean, the reason I focus on the number there is because if you actually look at the footage, as people have, I mean, this video here is a video of people at the front there, masked up, dressed like white.
	Antifa.
	That's what they look like.
	That's why the crowd chanted Antifa, that's why the narrative about, oh, maybe Antifa did it came about.
	There were a couple of people who identified as members of BL-11 Antifa who turned up.
	Yeah, there were.
	These guys, I mean, they're all masked up.
	You can see it's just two of them there bashing down an entrance, and then loads of people around them not doing that, because that's all you really need.
	They look quite concerned, actually.
	It's like, what are these guys doing?
	Well, they're chanting no, and we'll play that clip in a minute, but one of the things I want to mention is the 3%ers are another group which was present, and the concept of the 3%ers is only 3% of the population need to rise up to overthrow the government.
	Right, okay.
	And it's the same principle with riots, really, and the police know this as well.
	That's why when you're operating in a riot situation...
	Oh, look, there's someone actively trying to stop them and then shoving them out of the way...
	Yeah.
	So in a riot situation, the police will look for highly aggressive individuals and then grab them, pull them out.
	And they know once you do that with just a handful of the most aggressive, the whole thing is not a threat.
	And it's the same case in this, in which you can just see the footage.
	So let's play the next clip here of people chanting no other than breaking it down.
	Use what you got.
	Yeah, they're breaking through.
	Go! Go! Go! Go! Go! Go!
	Go!
	So you can see all the Trump supporters and their flags and whatnot chanting no, boo, no Antifa.
	And you've got these guys in black clad bashing down the windows there.
	I mean, I'm not denying that there would be Trump supporters bashing down the windows, but it's interesting how you don't need many people.
	You certainly don't need many people.
	And if you've got upwards of 20 FBI informants slash agents already in the Oath Keepers group, never mind 3%ers and all the rest of it, the other groups.
	I mean, how many have you got there?
	And this isn't the only time weird stuff happens, as you mentioned, with the example of the terrorist group.
	I mean, this is a funny one in which undercover cops posing as drug dealers arrest undercover cops posing as drug buyers.
	That's in 2019 as well.
	Yeah, I mean, this happens all the time.
	Spider-Man meme, though.
	But anyway...
	So, if we go to the next link, this is something that has been commented on more broadly and for a long time.
	So, this is a movie called The Day Shall Come by Chris Morris.
	Chris Morris is the guy who did the movie...
	Brass Eye.
	Four Lions, Brass Eye, The Date of the Day, no, satire.
	And the concept of Four Lions is it took you on with a real terrorist group, a suicide cell, and made you see how them as a group work.
	This movie, The Day Shall Come, is about a guy who's clearly not a terrorist...
	And one of the sad truths about the FBI is, since 9-11, they've come up with this way of doing things in which they find someone who's clearly just nuts and not a terrorist, surround him with FBI agents, get him to make something up, and then arrest him for plotting terrorism.
	And Chris Morris lays this out.
	So if we go to the next link here, this is an interview on Channel 4, and if we play the clip, this is him explaining exactly that.
	Who is the biggest recruiter of terrorists in the USA? And two...
	What would you do if you were broke, about to lose your house, and someone offered you a hundred grand?
	And that's really...
	The answer to the first question is, rather surprisingly, the biggest recruiter of terrorists in the States is the FBI. And the answer to the second one gives you the clue as to how our story works.
	Because the FBI have accidentally, it seems, developed a system which works rather well.
	And the system is, they make up a terrorist plot, they find someone to try and carry it out, and they arrest them for doing that.
	Supposedly, the biggest plot since 9-11 About an army planning to launch a full ground war on the US, based in Miami.
	And it turned out, three years later, I bumped into somebody involved in the trial, who said, that ground war was actually seven construction workers who were going to ride into Chicago on horses.
	This was not a really serious terrorist plot.
	They had just been wound up by an FBI informant.
	They had no money.
	The informant was offering a lot of cash.
	And so they riffed a crazy scheme to try and get this guy out of money.
	The FBI spent 18 months winding up a schizophrenic in Boston to come up with a ludicrous plan to fly model aeroplanes into the dome of the capital.
	At the same time, they said the Tsarnaev brothers were harmless.
	Now, that is because, at least in part, it's easier to wind up the mad guy and get him to do something ridiculous and then say, I've saved the city.
	The trouble was that that effort was taken away from examining what was really happening.
	So, I mean, there's the thing.
	The FBI has a habit of this for two decades now, at least.
	I should have looked this up in advance of the podcast, but someone in the chat will post a comment to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that the FBI were connected to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
	Some of their mess-ups there or something.
	No, no, I'm absolutely sure that they provided the materials or something like that to the guy who committed the attack.
	I'm certain of it.
	Fact-check me.
	But for the instance that he's giving there, which is a similar one, you take the mad guy, you make him say something stupid, you offer him a lot of money, and then as soon as he says the stupid thing, you arrest him.
	I mean, this is a process they've been doing for two decades, and...
	Okay, you've got that.
	And then you've got these court documents, which the government is saying themselves, we're not charging person two, three, and so on and so forth, because there are guys who are at the Capitol riots there, and they were engaging, as Tucker says, in worse acts than the people who are being charged.
	So presumably they're the ones breaking property, not just standing around and filming.
	front we can see that there's a few number of them they're not a huge number of the crowd as you would expect in any situation like this there's not nothing there that's that's actually a really good point raised by tucker and um he he continues this point with some other stuff as well so this is the next thing here in which he talks about the he talked to i think some representative he says that the government is continuing to hide footage so the government has like 10 000 hours of footage from security cameras all around the building because it's got cameras that they haven't released
	And this is in the middle of us trying to, you know, the Congress trying to figure out what happened.
	I was like, just give us the footage.
	What do you think's in the footage?
	Like, it's an office.
	It's not, you know, the headquarters of the FBI. But okay.
	I mean, it's a public building as well, so it's not like the public don't go to it.
	I don't know.
	And then they also won't identify the officer who killed Ashley Babbitt.
	Ashley Babbitt being a pretty egregious example.
	You can argue she was trespassing, but the shooting isn't justified even as someone who would be sympathetic to someone trying to enforce the law and other shootings and whatnot.
	Because in that case, you had her there, Okay?
	There's a door, and then there's the entrance to the capital with the guy with the gun.
	Behind her are armed police officers who could be seen by the shooter.
	So when she jumps up and tries to break in, like, sure, she's trying to break in, that doesn't justify deadly force.
	She doesn't have a weapon.
	There are police officers behind her.
	Those have got weapons.
	It's a really weird shooting, and it's strange they haven't identified the officer.
	Presumably because he's Secret Service or something, but...
	Well, you know, as Tucker says, what are they trying to hide?
	I mean, why are they hiding the footage?
	Why are there so many FBI agents involved?
	So Matt Gaetz has apparently written to the FBI to ask them exactly this, because you mean you would, wouldn't you?
	So he writes in here, he gives some questions to the FBI. To what extent were the three primary militia groups, the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Three Percenters, infiltrated by agencies of the federal government?
	How many federal undercover agents or informants were present at the Capitol, and what role did they play?
	And also, how many unindicted co-conspirators were FBI, army counter-intel, etc.?
	So, how many of you guys were there?
	How many of them were engaged in the rioting itself?
	And the ones that were suddenly not going to charge?
	Compared to those who are being charged with lesser offenses.
	And how many of you infiltrated?
	Which, fair thing to ask.
	reasonable questions that i would like the answers to he's not the only one marjorie taylor has also done the same thing she's raising questions about this and uh that seems like a responsible thing to do in this case because i mean you do want to find out surely and uh twitter have decided nah nah cut the feed so oh no if we go to the next link you can see here so if we can scroll down first so we can read what twitter have written so tucker cullson was trending because this is a good point he raised and in here twitter put a notice
	federal law does not permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy despite a baseless suggestion by tucker cullson that some co-conspirators of the january 6 attack on the us capital were not charged because they were undercover fbi agents Why is that baseless?
	That doesn't make any sense.
	Like, the first part of that statement confirms the second part of that statement.
	So if you can close that and go back to Jack Posobiec, because Jack Posobiec, being someone who would know in this instance, makes a perfect point.
	The first part of this headline confirms the second part of this headline.
	But Twitter calls it baseless anyway.
	Did a human even write this?
	Yeah.
	Because it makes no sense.
	Like...
	We have the government documents.
	I mean, no, no, but it's fine.
	Okay, that's fine.
	Let's assume that there is a slight gap here into which we can insert doubt.
	What does it get filled with?
	Why is the Biden administration and their FBI not want to charge the other co-conspirators who broke into the Capitol?
	Why some and not others?
	Because presumably they're agents.
	I mean, as John's pointing out, agents and informants are different things.
	And if they're just informants, well, they could be charged, presumably.
	But there's a whole bunch of them we have on the court documents who are not being charged.
	Well, no, it says that it doesn't allow witnesses or informants to be charged.
	That doesn't make any sense, though.
	Okay, Twitter, what's the reason?
	Why are they not being charged?
	I want to know, and I think everyone else wants to know.
	Well, last night, clips from our show began to circulate on social media.
	The tech monopolies, which helped get Joe Biden elected, continue to work closely with the administration to control the news and information that you are allowed to see.
	Because it's America, right?
	Well, this piece of news, the one on our show last night, was a problem for them, so they tried to make it go away.
	Twitter appended the following note to our clip last night, quote, Federal law does not permit cooperating witnesses or informants to be charged with conspiracy, despite a baseless suggestion by Tucker Carlson that some co-conspirators of the January 6th attack were not charged because they were undercover FBI agents, end quote.
	Let's think about this.
	Now leave aside for a second the most obvious question that arises from the statement, which is, how would Twitter, which is a media company, not as far as we know, a law enforcement agency, be able to confirm our reporting last night was, quote, baseless?
	How would they know that?
	Does Twitter somehow have access to the FBI's personnel files?
	We don't know.
	We hope someone finds out.
	But consider the statement more broadly.
	Twitter is saying that people who are secretly working with the FBI cannot be charged for encouraging others to commit crimes.
	Well, yes.
	Exactly.
	That's the very point we made on this show last night.
	That's why they haven't been charged, because they were secretly working with the FBI. So in an effort to shut us down, Twitter just confirmed what we suggested was true.
	Thanks, Twitter!
	It's just so stupid.
	And again, Twitter has to answer the question then, if you're the arbiter of truth on this, why weren't they charged?
	Why were some charged and not others?
	Give us a reason.
	Name which members are the FBI agents, Twitter.
	Because presumably, as Tucker points out, you have access to the personnel files.
	Otherwise, how can you say it's baseless?
	But just, like, there has to be some reason.
	What was the arbitrary decision of the FBI and the Biden administration here?
	What's the reason?
	But also, I just...
	What an amazing thing.
	Because, I mean, nothing happened from the capital invasion.
	Because it's just like...
	Right.
	I mean, as we pointed out a million times, you get in and you're like, ah, we got the capital.
	Now what?
	Yeah.
	I don't know.
	I'm going to walk around with a lectern.
	I'll go to Nancy Pelosi's office and pee on our desk.
	Nothing was going to happen.
	There was nothing there to be done.
	And, yeah, so there was a complete nothing burger.
	And one has to wonder, I mean, if you are the FBI and you have an axe to grind with Trump, which they did, and an axe to grind with Trump later on in his presidency as well, And you have a bunch of agents who have infiltrated the crowd outside of the Capitol.
	Why not get them just to break it down and work everyone in?
	And then make sure Trump can't come back.
	I mean, yeah, it is a theory.
	It has some evidence.
	But not proven.
	Just make that clear.
	YouTube.
	But the thing is, well, okay, that's actually something to be looking at.
	And I'm glad that Republican representatives are asking those questions.
	Yeah.
	Me too.
	God, I imagine 10 years when we find out.
	Well, yeah, it's going to be very interesting, isn't it?
	Look forward to the documentary.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, Trump is definitely going to be vindicated in like a decade's time.
	I mean, after six months of Biden, everything's falling apart.
	So we're vindicated in half.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Most of it's already done.
	But anyway, let's talk about the recent conviction of an accomplice of a transgender mass shooter.
	Because I find the way that we talk about mass shootings to be entirely one-sided...
	And I think that it's worth some discussion.
	So in 2019, there was the STEM school shooting, the Highlands Ranch shooting in Colorado, where someone called Maya McKinney, who was a transgender person going under the name of Alec McKinney, female to male, was one of two Colorado students charged in the STEM school Highlands Ranch shooting in May 2019.
	And sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole at 38 years on that Friday.
	McKinney, who was juvenile at the time of the shooting, was sentenced as an adult because he was only 16 when this was done.
	But when it got to sentencing, he's older?
	No, they just tried him, I guess we'll say, as an adult.
	Gotta respect those pronouns.
	Gotta respect those pronouns.
	As the mass shooter.
	Well, I mean, YouTube may well fall.
	You know what I mean?
	I'm just...
	But this...
	Yeah, and...
	So yeah, this shooting, in the shooting, he killed one Kendrick Castillo, who was trying to rush him, to try and disarm him, along with eight other students being injured.
	Castillo was killed, obviously.
	So the students were acting heroically.
	Castillo's father obviously was not happy about this.
	You took something from me that can never be replaced.
	You've taken my purpose.
	I will never find peace.
	And his mother said, I will never forgive you.
	My only wish is to see you dead, burning in hell.
	So understandable reaction from the parents there.
	So, the Deputy Attorney George Brauchler said McKinney had shown remorse for his actions.
	Brauchler is not sure whether McKinney would be sent to a women's or men's prison, but said the Department of Corrections usually makes accommodations to protect trans individuals, and currently McKinney is housed in a male wing of the juvenile correction facility, but has his own cell to obviously protect him from his fellow men.
	Yeah.
	I mean, we've come to this solution already in the UK. Americans are behind us on this.
	Yeah.
	But we've had men who identify as women sent to women's prisons who then raped the inmates.
	Yeah.
	Because what do you think was going to happen?
	So the solution to this ultimately is setting up transgender-only prisons.
	Well, yeah.
	And I mean, they've essentially got to be in their own cells because, I mean, in this case, it's a female to male.
	So biologically, the inmates might not draw that distinction.
	They might not be very progressive and they might not care about personal boundaries.
	And they might identify the biologically female components as being something they wish to target.
	I also saw President Trump actually tweet out at the time, congratulations to the kids who tackled him.
	Yeah.
	Because, I mean, yeah, brave.
	Heroic.
	But, yeah, so 40-something years is the time in which this person will get paroled.
	And yeah, so in September 2019, a judge found that McKinney's alleged accomplice, a 19-year-old called Devin Erickson, could be prosecuted on 44 charges that include murder and attempted murder.
	And I think it was yesterday, Devin Erickson was convicted.
	So a former high school student who was charged with opening fire alongside a transgender accomplice on, quote, transphobic classmates at a Colorado childhood school has been convicted on all 46 counts, including the murder.
	Erickson and McKinney shot one student dead and wound others.
	But the thing is, they burst in on the class when they were watching, like, a movie, The Princess Bride, isn't that new?
	It's a great movie.
	And just started shooting, which is awful.
	McKinney told the police while he was in custody that he had targeted three students who bullied him for being transgender, but also wanted to make every student suffer like he had.
	What?
	Sorry, you didn't suffer by being dead.
	Well, that's not what being trans is.
	So, I mean, killing kids to make them see what being trans is like?
	And what a reasoning.
	Well, that's the point, actually, we'll get to after I've gone through this.
	But yeah, so obviously people on the internet had things to say about this.
	Social justice crusaders on social media advocated to hashtag abolish prisons for McKinney's release, who was sentenced to life in prison, leftists claim that the oppressive society in a world designed to kill us had driven McKinney to violence, alleging that he doesn't deserve to be punished for his crimes because it wasn't his fault that he committed the act.
	Hmm.
	Was it the male side that did it and the female side didn't?
	No, no, it's society.
	Wider society is responsible for making...
	This is the left-wing position, right?
	And it all stems from Rousseau, that we are born good and we are made corrupt by society.
	And therefore, obviously, they can just openly say, well, we live in an impressive society that's somehow unwelcoming to trans people, even though, after committing a mass shooting, we're still going to use the pronouns of their choice, and we're going to make sure that he is put in the correct prison that matches his gender identity.
	Like, it's so oppressive.
	This is so oppressive, yeah.
	You could kill people and still have your pronouns used.
	Or in the case of, what is it, Stephanie White, the man who decided to sexually assault inmates after being convicted of being a danger to children and women for rape and so on and so forth, still used the same pronouns for whatever he wanted in the Guardian article about that.
	Because of course they knew.
	Yeah, and so we can see some of the examples on social media.
	These are most recent ones, I believe.
	No, in fact, these are from 2020, some from last year when the conviction was first put out.
	But if we can just go to the next one.
	Which is the hashtag, free Alec McKinney, and just loads of examples of leftists celebrating it.
	Yeah, I mean, we've got, you know, reminder that we have to hashtag free Alec McKinney, he should not be in prison.
	It says queer anarch in the next one, so that's nice.
	You know, just on Twitter, it's fine.
	Real trans person here, really an abolitionist, hashtag yes free Alec McKinney.
	Abolitionist.
	Prison abolitionist.
	Prison, this is all stemming from Foucault.
	Prison is a form of legitimized oppression.
	Because it is?
	Yeah, deliberately so.
	Why would you say it wasn't?
	Well, no, we wouldn't characterize it as oppression because oppression implies injustice.
	Hang on, if I kill three kids, what should I get then under Foucault's world?
	Well, that's a great question, and I'm not going to go into now, because I haven't actually read Foucault yet.
	I just read around him, and I'm aware of what his opinion on this was.
	But I will get to it at some point, but it doesn't matter, because Foucault was a goddamn pedo who wanted to abolish the age of consent as well, because any kind of structuralism is oppression in this world view.
	That is the left worldview.
	That is the left worldview.
	Well, again, it all stems from the idea that man was born innately good, and it is society, all the structures around us that make us evil, which is obviously not true.
	Men are born awful, and without good conditioning and habituation, we'll turn into absolute monsters.
	When was he born?
	What year?
	He was most active in the 70s and 80s, I think.
	Okay, so it's long after the age of imperialism.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Because I would have taken him to, you know...
	But it's obviously French theorists.
	Yeah.
	Just don't bother with them.
	Just take them to the undiscovered world.
	Look how good these guys are.
	Hang out with them.
	Enjoy being eaten.
	Bye-bye.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	But yeah, anyway, so we'll go to the next one.
	Hashtag Free Alec McKinney Cope Transphobes.
	Hmm.
	I like the response.
	Ha-ha, justice system go burr.
	Palestinian flag.
	Yeah, Palestinian flag, exactly.
	These people are mad, basically.
	It's weird, you never see this kind of...
	I know there's right-wing cringe, but you never see so much cringe like this from people with British flags or American flags and hashtag God guns and all that stuff.
	I don't see the same kind of thing, where they're like, yeah, I endorse mass murder.
	Well, that's because they don't endorse mass murder.
	Just to be clear there, I think.
	Not only that, they endorse the idea of structures.
	You know, they believe that there should be prisons for mass murderers.
	Whereas if you think that prisons themselves are a form of legalised oppression...
	Then you end up on this particular perspective.
	And just to be clear, I don't think we should call prisons as a form of oppression because, again, oppression implies injustice, as in it's not just for the person to go to prison, but it is just.
	And so we don't call it oppression because oppression is not fair.
	What was the last thing you had on the end here, by the way?
	Oh, so this is just someone responding with exactly the point we made earlier.
	Imagine thinking you have to respect the pronouns of a school shooter.
	Yes, yes you do, apparently.
	As we also saw with the rapist threat to children person, Stephanie White, you also have to respect her pronouns in the articles about her.
	Because you couldn't dare point out that no, this person doesn't reserve any respect whatsoever.
	I mean, quite frankly, what terms do you use to describe paedophile, rapist, mass shooters?
	I mean, it's like scum.
	Not very pleasant ones, you're right.
	Endless list of profanity, but pronouns, you've got to use the right one.
	I just can't get over it.
	Wood chipping.
	So, I mean, that's one way of putting it.
	But it's the thing...
	I just don't understand.
	I just don't understand this point, which is even the worst people in society, in which they're left at least publicly, will say they're also the worst people.
	I don't know.
	Private thoughts.
	Will they?
	I mean, there were people...
	We'll CC Bosch another time, but...
	Okay.
	So, you know, mashulers, blah, blah, blah, all bad, and yet, yeah, but did you use the right pronouns?
	Like, why does that rule still get applied to?
	I mean, in the media, you see the people using he and she, the goddamn worst person on the planet.
	This rule is established before any interaction with the real world, right?
	And so this is a sort of a priori moral rule that has to exist.
	And if we don't respect it in all places and all times, then the entire thing becomes undone.
	We can't start finding contingent, like, real-world reasons in the left-wing view to undermine that particular rule, because then the rule becomes invalid.
	Why couldn't I do it in any other circumstance?
	And of course, if you're trying to impose this new moral order on the world...
	Because we need that rule, therefore the ISIS fighter who's crucifying children, he's...
	Sorry, he's she or whatever.
	Take for example, we have a rule before we do anything else that we shouldn't torture.
	Torture is a moral wrong.
	And so, yeah, but we're not going to apply that to ISIS fights.
	We should be able to torture ISIS. No, we shouldn't.
	Because the act of torture in and of itself is bad, no matter who you're torturing.
	And this is the way they look at it, as if we're doing the same thing, but with pronouns.
	Anyway, we're a little bit ahead of time, but that's good, because I've got a lot to talk about on my new daddest sermon on the American Bug Woman, because this is really something I like talking about.
	Is this a lead-on from Batwoman from China?
	No, no, no.
	It's the mirror image of the Bug Man, the progressive Californian Bug Man, who coombs and plays on his little...
	I don't even know the name of the stupid little thing.
	Dinoswitch?
	Whatever.
	The child's toy that he is consumed with as his woman is currently paying for his entire lifestyle and definitely not having an affair with her boss.
	But anyway, so let's talk about the American Bug Woman.
	This is the virgin American Bug Woman will be versus the Chad Canadian housewife.
	So this was an article from the New York Times that was published this week called Why American Women Everywhere Are Delaying Motherhood.
	Why do you think they're a delaying motherhood, Callum?
	If it was me, probably because I want to do the job and get money, because I'm thinking that's the best idea.
	You've got corporate overlords to serve, that's why.
	Luz Portillo, the oldest daughter of Mexican immigrants, has many plans.
	She is studying to be a skincare expert.
	She also applied to nursing school.
	She works full-time, too, as a nurse's aide and doing eyelash extensions, a business she would like to grow.
	But one thing she has no plans for anytime soon is a baby.
	I can't get pregnant.
	I can't get pregnant, she tells herself.
	I have to have a career and a job.
	If I don't, it's like everything my parents did goes in vain.
	What?
	Everything my parents did goes in vain if I don't have children.
	No, if I have children.
	What?
	That's right.
	I'm sure the Mexican parents are like, yes, we do not want grand kiddos.
	You know, I can't do a Mexican accent.
	Grand kiddos.
	Yes.
	Spanish, who cares?
	Niños, niñas.
	But the point is, I'm sure that's what the Catholic Mexican parents think.
	No, no.
	But they obviously don't want grandkids, right?
	Because why would they?
	And they're obviously like, right, I want to get to America so you can be a bug man drone for a massive megacorp in California.
	That's the future we want for you.
	I want our DNA and our bloodline to die out.
	That's why I had a child.
	I want you to be a serf on a corporate plantation somewhere.
	But think about that for a minute.
	You have a child.
	What you want for that child is not to reproduce or have any children.
	Why did you have a child in the first place then?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	But the point is, apparently she thinks that everything goes in vain that her parents did, which presumably moved to America.
	But is that real?
	Is that what people think?
	And more importantly, this really undermines the left-wing argument for mass immigration, right?
	Because the argument is, well, our birth rates are declining.
	Well, we're going to need immigrants then to keep our old people going.
	But why wouldn't the immigrants just adopt our opinion on having children?
	Right.
	Great point.
	It's fantastic.
	It doesn't work.
	If Japan just imported loads and loads of immigrants, I mean, they'd just take on the Japanese lifestyle if not having kids.
	Exactly.
	Instead, you need to make the Japanese have some kids.
	Exactly.
	And this is what's happening.
	This is what the New York Times is being forced to report.
	For decades, delaying parenthood was the domain of the upper middle class Americans, especially in big coastal cities.
	Highly educated women put off having a baby until their careers were on track, often until their early 30s.
	But over the past decade, as more women of all social classes have prioritized career and education, delaying childbearing has become a broad pattern among American women almost everywhere.
	And who does that benefit?
	Does it genuinely bear in a fit these American women?
	I'm going to sound like a Marxist, but I'm going to be like, yeah, the CEOs, the businesses, the corporates.
	That's exactly right.
	This is extra labor...
	No, she was right.
	Extra labor for the labor pool.
	That's what women are in the view of corporate America.
	And so don't have a family.
	Don't get married.
	Don't have happiness in the home or anything like that.
	You have a deadline.
	Well, those TPS reports aren't going to fill out themselves, are they, ladies?
	Get to work...
	But anyway, yeah, the result has been the slowest growth of the American population since the 1930s and a profound change in American motherhood.
	Of course, when they say growth in population, they mean the native population, as in like the people who are born and raised in America.
	Not the immigrant population, but of course they're becoming pod people too.
	Women under 30 have become much less likely to have children.
	Since 2007, the birth rate for women in their 20s has fallen by 28%.
	So there's nearly a third the birth rate has plummeted by since 2007.
	Is this sustainable?
	Can a civilization maintain itself if it doesn't actually produce new generations?
	So what is that?
	In 2080, there are no kids?
	In fact, we've got a negative?
	Basically, yeah.
	And why, when we come to 50, 60 years, why should my children, or their children, do anything for any of these genetic dead ends?
	They've got their own grandparents to worry about.
	They're not going to have time to work for you, they're working for me!
	I've got a much stronger claim on who they should be supporting in my old age.
	Well, this is kind of the, I mean, fundamentally why social security and, what is it, like collective pensions are kind of trash.
	Because it means you don't have to take care of your grandparents.
	You can just leave it to the state.
	Some social work order.
	Okay, well, where are they coming from?
	Well, not me, because I didn't have kids.
	But exactly, you can leave it to the grandparents.
	Sounds great for you, but then you're the grandparents.
	Yeah.
	Dumb.
	You're going to end up there.
	Yeah.
	You're going to end up with some person who probably doesn't speak your language very well because they'll be an immigrant or a descendant of an immigrant who doesn't care about you at all.
	They've got no reason to.
	They've got no reason to.
	They're just there because you pay them and you'll be like, yeah, but at least I filed those reports on time.
	But then we'll just steal their money, you know, taxation, and then just give it to you because you couldn't be able to have kids.
	Yeah, and they won't be resentful about this at all.
	But anyway, yeah, so...
	And the amount of risk involved in pregnancy in your late 30s and early 40s is, of course, ridiculously high, ladies.
	Don't let the media make you think.
	That it's just as easy to get pregnant at 38 as it is at 21 because it's just not at all.
	And we've covered this many times in other stories of women who are like, well, I went until my late 30s and now I can't get pregnant.
	I should probably make the argument again just to make it clear.
	I'm being quite vocal about it and so are you.
	I need to have kids.
	But it's your choice fundamentally and that's where I lie.
	No one's going to be forced.
	But societally, come on.
	Like, this doesn't work.
	I mean, as you're pointing out, those numbers.
	Take down 30% over 20 years.
	It's your choice not to jump off a bridge tomorrow, whether you do.
	But we're not saying, you know, probably best you don't.
	I mean, this is a societal thing rather than individual.
	Well, a civilizational thing.
	Like, there's a real, real problem.
	Like, John's got 35-30% of couples have fertility issues.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's a real thing.
	Don't let them make you think otherwise.
	And the number of like, oh, I froze my ovum and then ten years later I defrosted them and none of them became fertile.
	Wasn't that the poster woman for the campaign?
	That was.
	She fell to her knees and screamed at the sky.
	Sky God's not going to help you.
	Nope.
	The story here is about young women whose birth rates are plummeting, says Caitlin Myers, an economist at Middlebury College.
	I'm glad we've got an economist on board.
	Do tell me about the economics of women's birth rates.
	That's the real important analysis we're hitting here.
	All of a sudden, in the last 10 years, there's a tremendous transformation.
	And that's all she has to say.
	Just tremendous transformation.
	Is there an implication from that?
	You know, demographic collapse, not generally something that civilizations want to happen.
	When that happens in history, it's because of catastrophe.
	Like, a demographic collapse happens because of, like, a Mongol invasion or something like this, you know?
	A geographic analysis of Professor Meyer's data offers a clue.
	The birth rate is falling fastest, where the greatest job growth, where women have more incentive to wait.
	Get to work.
	You've got life in an office.
	Greatest job growth.
	Could you scroll down just so I can see that map there in which the length is all out?
	So it's a big map of the United States.
	I wonder, can you move across to California at all?
	Not really?
	Okay, don't worry about it.
	We'll try the New York part.
	No, because I'm thinking about the mass migration centers of the United States.
	I mean, because I have to wonder about your point, which is if you bring in loads of people from a foreign country because the native population isn't having enough kids, why wouldn't they just copy the viewpoint and just not have kids either?
	But I have to wonder if in those areas where you're getting mass migration into the United States, you're seeing that in real time or not.
	But we can't move the map around, so...
	Anyway, in more than two dozen interviews with young women in Phoenix and Denver, some said they felt they could not afford a baby.
	They cited the cost of childcare and housing and sometimes student debt.
	Well, the thing about not being a working mother is that you don't have to worry about childcare.
	It saves you a huge amount of money, in fact.
	And anyway, many said they also wanted to get their careers set first and express satisfaction that they were exerting control of their fertility and their lives in a way their mothers had not.
	Okay?
	But now, in 20 or 30 years time, you're not going to have anyone to take care of you in your dotage.
	You were in control of that fertility.
	Okay?
	So who do we blame?
	When old people are just rotting in old care homes because there's no one to staff them, who do we blame?
	Well, you say old people when you are old and you're rotting in your care home.
	Because that's the thing.
	It's not about someone else.
	Exactly.
	It's you.
	Who do we blame?
	And the answer is the person who is exerting control over their fertility.
	I hate to say it.
	I hate to be the bearer of bad news.
	But this is just going to be a fact.
	Not pleasant, is it?
	No.
	Not pleasant at all.
	But who has made women think that this is a good idea?
	Because this is happening, and it's going to end in tragedy.
	Well, don't worry.
	We'll just import everyone from everyone else.
	It doesn't work.
	That's just kicking the can down the road.
	Yeah.
	Because then those women go, well, I want control over my fertility.
	I've got my career as a corporate drone.
	Exactly.
	So we become a black hole of demographics.
	I mean, it's kind of the meme from Futurama.
	You know, their example was the planet that had global warming, so they just bring a block of ice every year.
	Of course, you need a bigger block of ice every other year.
	Exactly.
	And you think that people in other countries are going to be like, well, look, if you go over there, essentially, that's the end of it.
	I love the idea that the mother in, I don't know, Gardner or something is like, look, if you go to the UK, you won't have kids, so don't go.
	Yeah, you won't have grandkids.
	You'll kill our bloodline.
	Well, not just that.
	You will kill any kind of familial understanding of yourself.
	Like the West is demographic Mordor.
	Yes!
	That's how they're probably going to end up looking, especially when the consequences of the demographic collapse become more apparent.
	And it's like, okay, we don't have enough young people to do these things.
	And the young people we have are so overeducated, they don't want to do these things.
	And so we literally are struggling.
	I mean, at the moment, people are struggling to get fast food places staffed because of Biden's bloody payouts.
	Like, this is going to be like that, just worse, because there will be no way of getting them to do it.
	And there won't be the bodies to make them do it anyway.
	But anyway, yeah, so, I mean, you know, if, like, this one woman, Ebony McFadden, 28, says, I cannot have a kid and not feel bad about it, who grew up in rural Missouri and is now two weeks from graduating as a medical technician in Phoenix.
	I feel powerful that I can make a decision with my own body.
	I don't have to have a kid to be successful or to be a woman.
	Well, if you feel powerful, that's all that matters, isn't it?
	You know, the fact that in 20, 30 years' time, that power is going to have been proven to have been misused doesn't matter, does it?
	I don't have to have a kid to be successful.
	I suppose if you define success as pure material wealth, then sure.
	Sure.
	And to be a woman?
	I don't have to have a kid to be a woman.
	True.
	I don't know.
	I agree, but...
	I don't know.
	No, no, no.
	Come on, I can even do this on your standards.
	Go on then.
	Which is that she doesn't have to have a kid to be a woman, but her ability to have a kid will disappear, and then is she the same amount of a woman?
	I don't even think we need to frame it like that.
	If being a man is, if we look at it in the Greek view as the entire course of one's life, and you have someone who never properly grows up, they just work in a corporate environment and spend all their time on toys and hobbies, and they never themselves...
	Did he really grow into a man?
	Did he really become a man?
	He never has kids, he never has responsibilities.
	Did he become a man?
	I think the same standard could apply to a woman.
	He's responsible for his house.
	Is he?
	He probably pays for his business, maybe?
	He's probably just a cog in a corporate machine.
	Yeah.
	But, again, you see how it's all about.
	It's entirely focused on the women themselves.
	Well, I this, I that, I the other.
	Okay, but don't you have some responsibilities to other people at all, in any way?
	Well, it's not even that.
	You can do it on a personal level.
	As you mentioned earlier, do you really want to be old and lonely?
	Sure, but that's, again, appealing to the fact that, look, it implies that there's absolutely no duty to women to the civilization in which they live.
	You know, if the Chinese invade tomorrow, Callum, you have a duty to pick up a rifle and go to the front, okay?
	I know it's not going to be pleasant.
	No, I had this argument with my ex-girlfriend, actually.
	But you will have that duty.
	Unfortunately, ladies, you might have a duty to the civilisation in which you live as well.
	If the society is worthwhile in your opinion, because that's the caveat.
	No, because I had this argument with my ex-girlfriend.
	She was from Kuwait.
	And the Kuwaiti opinion on Kuwait is, let it go, who cares?
	Because it's a fake country.
	Everyone knows it.
	It's a meme.
	They're just there for the real wealth.
	So if the Iraqis come again, it's just like, pfft, see ya.
	I mean, that's actually the tragedy of the First War.
	Sure.
	Which is, everyone rich left, all the poor people got, the atrocities done to them.
	But I would hazard a guess that America is actually a civilization worth defending.
	So would I. Okay.
	And so one of those parts is to make sure there is a civilization in about 50 years' time.
	But for entirely self-centered reasons, these women are like, well, no, I'm not going to do it.
	Who told them that was an acceptable opinion to have?
	Why is that an acceptable opinion to have?
	Would you be able to have such a self-centered opinion in any other aspect of life?
	I'm not going to finish doing this report because I have the power to say no.
	Yeah, okay, but there are other people relying on you filling this out.
	Yeah, but I don't have to.
	Sure, you don't have to, but it would be useful, wouldn't it?
	You know, you might have a duty to do these things.
	Cogs are working in my head.
	I know.
	I'm thinking in my mind, because the example you're giving there is in work, in which you have a salary and all the rest of it.
	So I was thinking in my head, well, okay, well, let's take charity or something like this.
	Do you really have a duty to go out and do charity work or just make something of the neighborhood you live in or whatever?
	Only if you care about something other than yourself.
	Immediately what came to me was David Starkey.
	You remember that feminist he debated?
	And he was like, you know, one of the things about being British is you're meant to do things for free.
	And she wanted 30 grand or whatever it was to come and give a speech.
	And he was like, I was willing to do it for three.
	You're disgusting.
	Yeah.
	Like the pointing and sneering at her.
	There was something in that.
	Yes, there is.
	It's propriety.
	It is proper for the successful to look after the unsuccessful if they can.
	So, yeah, still in the past decades, birth to women over 30 have not offset the decline for women in their 20s.
	Driving down overall births and leaving the open question, are young women delaying childbirth or foregoing it altogether?
	The next one, I noticed that China isn't doing the same thing.
	China's just recently lifted their cap, so they want their population to grow again.
	I wonder why.
	The answer is, of course, they expect to go into a war.
	I have not seen the Oxfam scandal, John, so I won't.
	I wasn't necessarily talking about charities, you know, organizations.
	You meant personal.
	Yeah, I mean, just like selling up barbecues in your local areas.
	Just some culture.
	Like, just have something that happens in your neighborhood.
	Like, you know, make it a nicer place to live.
	Yeah.
	So, Kara Schoenher moved to Maricopa County, Arizona, from Seattle.
	She moved to Phoenix.
	She married, and she and her husband, a chef at a casino, have been holding off on having children.
	She's going to graduate this summer as an esthetician, doing things like facials and waxing.
	She wants to have a base of clients before having a baby.
	I still don't think I have everything I want.
	Set myself up for success.
	I want to have a house and career first.
	My career.
	Okay.
	You're waxing.
	Right?
	But...
	Set a deadline.
	Like, give yourself a deadline.
	Like, okay, well, if I reach 32, and I still am not in a position, then I'm now at the point where my fertility starts dropping off a cliff.
	So is it something I'm actually committed to, you know, having this base of clients?
	Or am I just going to go forever without children?
	Again, do you have a duty?
	Is there anything you're going to consider or reconsider?
	When you get to about 40 and the option is just now off the table, are you going to be one of those women screaming at the sky?
	You don't think about it.
	Even taking Judy off the table now, I mean, the deadline's not terrible, I guess.
	It's just like, well, if you get to 32, then what?
	I'm like...
	It's something that these women really have to consider.
	In interviews with women from immigrant families, almost all of them Hispanic, the delay was less about the cost of children than a desire to get their lives on track.
	Miss Portillo, who was 22, said her immigrant parents had raised her and her three siblings frugally and done fine.
	This is another argument that is totally, totally nonsense.
	Oh, you need huge amounts of money for kids.
	No, you don't.
	You just don't get to spend loads of money on your kids if you don't have huge amounts of money.
	And there's nothing wrong with being frugal.
	How much money does it cost to actually have a kit?
	Well, nothing.
	It's free.
	Well, no.
	You have sex and the baby pops out.
	It doesn't cost you anything.
	I'm sure.
	You don't have to buy a breeding license yet.
	Not yet.
	But I'm wondering, like, if you actually tottered it up, I mean, what would it be for a year or two?
	Well, you know, you buy baby clothes.
	You buy, you know, if you're not breastfeeding, you buy formula.
	And, you know, you need to buy, like, you know, Although breast is best.
	Apparently so.
	But you can get a lot of these things secondhand, which is advisable because these things can get quite expensive.
	But you get them secondhand and they're very cheap because obviously the parents who don't need the crib anymore want to get rid of it.
	So you can get rid of it quite easily.
	We're keeping it in case he wants to get back in.
	Exactly.
	But the thing is that that is something that I think people have become a bit funny about.
	It's like, I want to buy the new thing.
	Why?
	Why?
	What difference does it make?
	You know, it's a perfectly functional thing and you can get it cheaply.
	And the thing is, I think another thing is people like, yeah, but disposable income.
	It's like, yeah, but you will find that your interests change when you have children and not in a way that you dislike, right?
	So it's hard to imagine.
	If I went back 10, 15 years, it'd be hard for me then to imagine that I would be satisfied with a life where I don't have X amount of money per month to spend on video games and beer and whatever, right?
	But now I'm at that position, I can't even imagine I'd want, I would never want to go back to the pre-position.
	What I was doing is cooming, right?
	That would be awful to me.
	I would much rather spend that money on my kids because you can see the results and you get a huge amount of emotional benefit from it.
	And it's something that it's, the argument is just wrong because of the change of your perspective.
	And it's hard to explain and factor that in.
	But anyway.
	Yeah, I think that's probably your biggest barrier.
	Yeah.
	It's something I'll develop a bit more, but it's something you've got to factor in.
	But anyway, I think all the points there from this one have been made.
	Let's go on to the alternative, which again was the Chad Canadian housewife.
	Now this is amazing.
	I saw this the other day.
	So this lady was Miss Canada, Cynthia Lowen.
	And she chucked in her high-flying career as a doctor to be a housewife.
	And obviously this is being treated as if she's a freak or something, but it's like, she sounds really happy.
	She doesn't sound like she's like, oh god, I've got to get all this pressure to get my career and to get all these things done.
	She just seems really happy, right?
	That house looks pretty nice.
	Well, yeah.
	A woman who trained as...
	So what does her husband do?
	He's former army, so I don't know what he's doing now, actually.
	Sorry, because I'm wondering how much money's in the family, you know?
	Wow.
	I'm sure it's enough to support a house like that.
	So yeah, she left it all behind and donned a pinny, grabbed her rolling pin and embraced the trad wife movement, where the wives do everything and the husbands are the main breadwinners.
	I hate that.
	It's not the wives do everything.
	It's the division of labour in the household is shared.
	The husband brings in resources and she allocates the resources.
	It's not the wife does everything.
	The very framing of it is completely wrong.
	So my wife is just a housewife, but she's in total control of everything she does all day, every day.
	I'm not in control of what happens in the house, and I just have to give her money.
	Which is why women are the ones in charge of consumer spending.
	Exactly.
	Absolutely.
	This fallacy of the world of finance is a true amount of men.
	It's like, well, the women are in charge of the money.
	But the impression that the article tries to give off is that she's somehow being oppressed.
	And this is wild, because just her description of her day showed me the oppression, right?
	So she said that she was frustrated with her life, and I wasn't really feeling the calling to become a boss babe.
	I was feeling the calling to become a wife and homemaker, where I was supposed to be a doctor.
	So she married her ex-harmy husband, and they came to an agreement that she would take care of the home while he went out to work.
	Again, not controversial.
	Go back 10, 15 years.
	Totally normal agreement.
	My husband is the primary breadwinner.
	I'm in charge of the home.
	Working with my hands around my home gives me satisfaction.
	So much more compared to any other job that I've had.
	So this is making her happy.
	Look, she's happy.
	She's enjoying what she does.
	As well as serving her husband, which I don't know whose word that was, she's relinquished control of the decision making, allowing her husband to lead the relationship, though she insists it's not oppressive.
	Again, lead in quotes, though.
	I assume that's the author writing both of them.
	I have no idea.
	It sounds like they've lifted this language from the sort of trad wife movement, which honestly I think kind of masks what's really going on.
	Because if anyone thinks for a second that the men are in charge of these houses, they're wrong.
	And I'm telling you this from first-hand experience.
	It's just not the way it is.
	She's expecting her first child and she says, I let my husband lead, so that's naturally very difficult to me because I'm a very stubborn person.
	So I think this is kind of ideological from the sort of trad wife movement, which I'm not saying anyone should necessarily join or anything like that because I've never really looked into it.
	And this sort of like kind of artificially imposing like leadership and follower roles kind of, I feel is a little bit cringe.
	I quite like the aesthetics.
	Yeah, but you find your own balance in any relationship.
	I don't just mean like the power part.
	I don't really understand the power part either.
	But I mean like the clothes I see trad wives wearing.
	Like the fashion of it is appealing.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, the aesthetic of it.
	Yeah, it looks good.
	But she says, my husband didn't know when I began doing this, but he felt so much more appreciated and valued.
	So not only is she happier, she's making her husband happy.
	Do you not want your husband to be happy?
	No, you want to be in competition with your husband.
	Look at my career.
	I'm almost out on you.
	That's an attack on your husband's masculinity.
	And instead, she's actually embracing a role that plays into her husband's masculinity.
	So now he's proud that he gets to support her.
	She's having a good life.
	He becomes happier because he becomes valued.
	And this just looks way more wholesome, doesn't it?
	Or you could be a pod person in America and eat the bugs.
	Right, what's your opinion then on someone who really does want to do the CEO route and all the rest of it, and they have a kid in between?
	Go ahead.
	Do you still think that's a mistake?
	Well, it depends on the person, unfortunately.
	All of these things depend on the constitution of the individuals involved.
	But I think that what the Mexican immigrants are showing is not necessarily...
	Independent concerns, right?
	They're not like independently, oh, I've got to outcompete all the men around me.
	No, this is a part of the feminist propaganda that's built into the nature of the systems in which we live.
	And it has been since the 90s.
	I remember this being pushed in the 90s, and we're at the very end of it now, where it becomes ridiculous when a woman's like, oh, I'd like to be a wife and homemaker if that's all right.
	Oh my God, look at this freak, you know?
	And it's like, no, that's totally natural.
	And you can see it in the author's writing there.
	Exactly.
	But I'm not saying, you know, that anyone has to do something.
	I'm saying it's actually advantageous if you are inclined that way.
	If you're like, I'd like a family, then go and get it.
	Don't worry about careers.
	Don't worry about success.
	You know, measure success on your own.
	Don't measure it by how many TPS reports you filed.
	But anyway, so the way her day sounds is idyllic, right?
	She starts her day with a trip to the gym, follows by walking the dog before heading home to get ready for her day of housework.
	Despite being faced with mountains of laundry and a whole house to clean, yeah, it'll get worse when you get kids.
	Cynthia applies a face full of makeup, curls her hair, and puts her pearls on to complete her chores.
	Seems unnecessary, but whatever makes her happy.
	After popping her husband's dinner in the slow cooker, Cynthia then sets about making the house spick and span.
	And of course, if you do this every day, it's not a very long job.
	Who would have thought you would feel so much joy from a cleaning product, she chirps while wiping the kitchen island.
	She actually seems to be happy doing the small things around her home.
	She was a doctor, but she finds satisfaction in having a decent home and a decent life.
	She completes her daily tasks, including mopping and hoovering.
	She carries a notebook alongside her to make note of any bigger tasks she might want to add to her list.
	After setting the table for dinner, she's got nothing left to do but to wait for her husband to get home and then just chill out.
	And notice how she, in all of this, is her own boss.
	She's the one who's deciding what happens in her life.
	She runs around, what do I want to do?
	I might want to do this task, I want to do that task.
	She's the one who's deciding everything for herself.
	My wife's exactly the same.
	Every day I come home, and she's like, oh, I was thinking about doing this thing to this room.
	I'm like, oh, God, why?
	How much is that going to cost?
	What does she do on the weekends and whatnot?
	I'm sure they go out and do things.
	I wonder, because this does sound boring to me.
	I have to do that every day.
	Yeah, but you're not the wife.
	But this sounds very much like my wife's daily routine as well.
	But it's obviously very relaxing.
	It's obviously fulfilling as well.
	And the fact that she's there improving her environment around her.
	She's got all the time in the world to do it.
	Everything's sorted out.
	She's got her life in control, and she's the one who's making her decisions.
	It doesn't look like oppression.
	Well, that's the point, isn't it?
	Because it's framed by the feminists as this is a form of oppression.
	But yeah, so, you know, despite the seeming mundanity of Cynthia's everyday life, she insists that being a homemaker is more than fulfilling.
	The more that you view homemaking as a job, the more fulfillment you get from it.
	Just like any other job with any career, you're going to want to have goals.
	And she sets those goals.
	She's the one who determines how she fulfills those goals.
	This is being presented as if it's some form of oppression, and she's weird for wanting to do this, but it's totally normal, really.
	In every other country in the world, it's totally normal.
	Outside of the English-speaking world, it's totally normal.
	And there's nothing wrong with it.
	It seems to be making her happy.
	And yet, you know, in 20 or 30 years' time, all of these Mexican women who have immigrated and be like, yeah, I've got my career, but you don't have kids.
	Well, you know.
	It's not like Mexico's got a very familial culture or anything.
	I'm sure they won't miss it.
	I'm sure they'll be like, no, I'm fine by being a single, childless cat lady.
	The thing that's popping into my mind with the Tradwave thing is the story I've told you about with the VIP who left North Korea.
	I've told you before, I'll tell you again, because I don't think I've told the chat.
	But there's a book we've got with one guy who's very high up in the North Korean regime.
	He'd met Kim Jong-il, and he eventually defects and gets out there.
	And he runs into a guy who knows someone from the South Korean intelligence services to get him to get to South Korea.
	and uh he goes in he hangs up with the guy and he's like oh yeah my wife's made you some food they go and sit at the table like him and the guy and the wife brings the food over drops it down and then goes and walks off into like the corner on the floor and just sits down and like faces away from them and starts eating her food and he's like that's a bit weird like can we invite her to the table and she's like no not interested and she's like you guys are boring like But obviously I don't think women should sit in the corner.
	No, North Korea is a very, very strange place.
	But the point is, it's horses for courses.
	Men and women are different and you shouldn't feel that you should be pushed into doing careers if that's not for you.
	Let's go for the video comments.
	Hello everyone!
	Quick question if the video messages worked yesterday, because I think you said before, no swearing, my apologies.
	Apparently this podcast is like Smash Bros, only for good boys and good girls.
	Yes.
	Anyway, how is my video editing skills from me trying to video edit and send it in yesterday?
	Because I think I'll need video editing skills to do a politics of Attack on Titan properly.
	I mean, just talking from a script isn't good enough.
	I didn't see it.
	I didn't really notice it too much, but that's probably the point of everything, to be honest, which is that everything flows smoothly.
	So I'm sure you'll be fine.
	So I just got a message from my fiancé who works in Primark.
	They've just had new training on how to use the changing rooms, which are now all going to be unisex or for everyone.
	Hmm.
	Quote, if someone doesn't identify with the gender they're born, it's unfair to put them in a situation where they have to pick.
	And what if a woman customer says she's uncomfortable changing in an area where men can also get changed?
	That's not unfair.
	Well, their solution is she can use the disabled chaining room because that has a lock on it, or she can purchase the clothes and try them on at home.
	That's right, women.
	Get in the disabled changing room.
	So my fiancé quite rightly feels that women are being pushed out of changing rooms to be replaced with men.
	They're being basically treated as if they're disabled.
	Do you remember, I think Vicky mentioned this, it was a UN post or something, which it was like, what was it, there are women, as in like trans women, and then there are cis women, and they made the cis women the other, and it's like, right, and they're in the disabled toilets, and all the real women, the trannies, are in the female toilets.
	I like the way that this is how subverted everything has been, where we have to have training on how to use changing rooms.
	Is this what progress looks like?
	That's all I'm saying.
	Is this what progress looks like?
	I thought we'd know to use the bathroom, but...
	Progressive said no.
	Progressive said I need to be indoctrinated on how to do it.
	But also the fairness point.
	If I want to go into a female changing room, it's unfair to tell me no.
	No, it's not unfair.
	If a woman doesn't feel comfortable, it's...
	Stop being a transphobe.
	That's the unfair part.
	It's unfair to make a woman go in there when she doesn't want to.
	Surely.
	But it's not unfair if someone...
	I feel a certain way.
	Well, that's too bad.
	I feel like I'm six foot seven and I should be a basketball player, but I'm not.
	So it's not unfair.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And if that's unfair, then deal with it.
	I mean, the funny part of this, actually, is in my university, I found a map.
	And the map shows the whole university and where there are trans-inclusive toilets and where there are male toilets and female toilets.
	And I was like, hey, I've never seen a trans-inclusive toilet on campus.
	What are they talking about?
	So I found one in the library and I followed the map and I went up there with the disabled.
	They listed all the toilets of the disabled as trans-inclusive.
	So I know it's the reverse of that.
	Technically true.
	Because, I mean, it's one stall.
	No one's going to...
	Yeah, exactly.
	Technically it's true.
	But yeah...
	That we're building back better together and building back greener and building back fairer and building back more equal.
	And how shall I? In a more gender-neutral way.
	Perhaps like a more feminine way.
	I'm just trying to read the teleprompter here.
	And I would give Britons back their freedom.
	But I'm afraid of how the media will treat me if I do.
	That's exactly what Boris is like.
	Sad thing there was no teleprompter.
	That is what his mind was thinking.
	Yeah.
	I love the gender-neutral way.
	A more feminine way.
	No...
	Well, you can see he said gender neutral and then realized he cocked up.
	Yeah.
	And then went with the safe bet of just praising women and femininity.
	And, I mean, I just cocked that up even worse.
	Yeah.
	See, I'm not going to go for the safe bet of praising women.
	No, women, you've got duties.
	Women, you've got responsibilities.
	In fact, you're not good enough now.
	Oh, true.
	I'm going to berate you so you'll be better.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Like a father.
	Yeah.
	I come from the Hobbesian School of Thought, which is men are basically savages.
	Men and women, obviously.
	Everyone's a savage.
	And we need standards in order to train ourselves to not be savages.
	Where would you send your kid to school?
	A school that doesn't think that or a school that thinks that?
	Exactly.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	This is a quick one because you guys might be covering it, but did you see the expose showing that the Capitol Hill riot on January the 6th was most likely organised by FBI and other operatives?
	Yes, we did!
	And that the people charged with the trespassing offences are being kept in solitary confinement for 22 hours a day and routinely beaten by guards, it seems.
	Just like Winston.
	Huh, I didn't see reports about the beating.
	No, I didn't.
	The solitary, which is inhuman.
	I mean, we...
	It depends, obviously, but the circumstances of solitary confinement are pretty extreme.
	They should be used in the strictest circumstances.
	But, yeah, we did cover it.
	I was just saying to Carl, you know the term, like, mostly FBI? It's like mostly peaceful riots.
	Mostly FBI storming of the Capitol.
	Just when anything happens now, from now on, I'm just going to say it to the feds.
	Well, it generally glows in the dark anyway.
	But it feels like it's going to be kind of like a cop-out.
	You know how the far-right is, just anything happens, it's the Jews.
	For all the centrists, anything happens, it's the feds, don't worry.
	That is true, yeah.
	Let's go for the next one.
	So, Thomas Sowell says, you don't play by the rules, you don't get the protection of the rules.
	Jordan Peterson says, believing in equity is the smoking pistol of the left.
	I believe if you advocate for ideas that historically have always required violence in its inception and resulted in mass genocide when it's implemented, the state has every right to swoop in and kick your ass.
	I suspect the Italians agree with me because their conservatives are trying to pass a law banning communism.
	France's ex-generals are fighting back.
	Meanwhile, in the English-speaking world, we are governed by a dementia-riddled corpse and a sackless wanker who says build back better with gender-neutral feminism.
	I have no words.
	That was fantastic.
	That was brilliantly put, yeah.
	He's absolutely right.
	I was thinking of doing a segment on the Italian communism law, because I looked into it, and it wasn't enough, really, I didn't think.
	Right, they just didn't go hard enough.
	No, yeah.
	So it was a minor party that proposed this, so unlikely to pass.
	But what was interesting is I saw Dankler and whatnot complaining about this, and I agree fundamentally on average circumstances that you shouldn't ban ideas and parties and whatnot.
	But then there's the case of France in 1938 or 9, I can't remember, in which the Social Democrat Party banned the Communist Party.
	And it's like, well, no one's complaining about that because, I mean, they were literally allied with Moscow and likely to overthrow the country considering Moscow had just aligned itself with Berlin.
	So, I mean, there are circumstances where this is not only possible, the right thing to do, and also liberal in its actions.
	Well, the thing is that there is an argument, I think, that if you are going to define yourself, your political system ideologically, as in you are a liberal democracy, and we agree that intrinsic characteristics are not worthy of being discriminated against, then the only thing we are left with are philosophical characteristics.
	And there's no reason that a liberal democracy shouldn't think to prevent the subversion or overthrow of itself by other ideological frameworks.
	Interestingly, in law, we actually really have that standard in Britain.
	So I think if you're not adherent to British values defined by the government, then you can be classed as a terrorist organization or a banned organization, prescribed.
	But the thing is, if we say that a liberal democracy isn't allowed to prescribe certain sort of ideologies, what we're saying is that every ideology other than liberal democracy has a way of defending itself, whereas the liberals don't.
	So for Britain, for example, you have to be, what is it, adherent to democracy, rule of law, so on and so forth.
	And if you don't, you can get prescribed, which is why there are a bunch of non-Nazi groups on the socialist list.
	No just Marxist socialist groups, only national socialist groups so far.
	Weird.
	G'day guys.
	I just want to do a quick shout out to my buddy Azores.
	He was one of the soldiers who was deployed at DC back in January and now he is working on a new novel.
	It's called Deutschland and it I misspelled Patreon.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I'm going to check that out because I do like alternative history.
	Adding subtitles now.
	Most of the hosts here are atheists.
	In my mind, to believe God doesn't exist is equally as religious as believing God does exist from a purely rational, materialistic perspective.
	This is because the existence of God, as described in the Abrahamic religions, cannot be proven or disproven.
	Therefore, the correct scientific position is agnostic.
	Although that could be what you mean by atheism, curious about Carl's response, in particular, if possible.
	Unfortunately, there's another logical step after this refusal to take a position on any agnostic subject.
	If you have no proof in the affirmative, then you have to assume the negative.
	Yeah, I mean, Richard Dawkins has made this point as well, with a description between atheist and agnostic.
	Fundamentally, if you want to drill down into it, all atheists are agnostic about the existence of the God and the Bible and whatnot.
	In the same way they're agnostic, as he would say about, you know, the Easter Bunny and so on and so forth.
	Yeah, but it's the same as Bertrand Russell's chocolate teapot orbiting Mercury.
	You know, I'm agnostic about it, but that means I have to default to the it's not there.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	So, back at the ship once again.
	Wonderful.
	No, it's not all rainbows and sunshine.
	In today's buffet, we had an incident with an old man harassing people.
	Now, if you could tell us who it is, if you recognize him, that would be really nice.
	Does he seem familiar to you?
	Do tell us if we can send him home.
	Also, you're not seeing him until at least December.
	That's really rude.
	Okay.
	I do like the idea that Santa hangs around with pastry chefs.
	Yeah.
	That's where else we'd be.
	Right, so Matthew Hammond says, I propose defunding the FBI. U.S. says other agencies could take over their responsibilities.
	U.S. Marshals take over pursuing violent crime.
	Secret Service takes over pursuing financial crimes and cyber crimes.
	And Border Patrol ICE takes over pursuing missing persons and human trafficking.
	Homeland Security and all the rest of it.
	Not an unreasonable suggestion, in my opinion.
	Spadrunova Rapiers says, Doesn't the UN Human Rights Commission say that solitary confinement is akin to torture?
	Don't like the UN, but it's a valuable club to beat Biden with at this point.
	It depends how long it goes on for, is my understanding.
	I might be wrong.
	Joseph says, I don't know about the FBI, but I definitely remember a story where a group of undercover cops tried to sell drugs.
	We had that on there.
	Ignacio says, seems like the glow-in-the-darks were trying to instigate a day of love in the capital, using the Antifa playbook to instigate a violent riot.
	Having read Annie's books on the tactics of Antifa has been really illuminating.
	Yes, indeed.
	Dave says, the FBI and CIA have become partisan organizations.
	That couldn't have been more clearly proven with Donald Trump and James Comey.
	I mean, it's just unbelievable.
	That means they couldn't possibly serve the public in a neutral way and they need to either be purged or disbanded.
	Yes.
	Finnish Special Forces says, hey kiddo, want to go ransack a federal building?
	Florida man.
	Yes.
	That's exactly.
	I love that guy just walking along with the lectern.
	I mean, obviously not here to overthrow the government.
	I'd love to think he was one of the guys dragged along by an FBI agent as well.
	Well, he looks like it.
	Like, hey, you want to go?
	Like, I'll give you some money.
	He's just a random guy.
	I saw Dan Kelly tweeting, like, you know, someone joins the chat and they're just like, hey, would you like some guns?
	I have some guns.
	Would you like some, kids?
	Eric says, it's almost like our federal government knows that if it divides people, it can rule even easier.
	It's almost like a conspiracy.
	Interesting how the CIA invented the idea of a conspiracy theory as a smear.
	William says, Carl, I've never heard the allegation the FBI was involved in the first WTC bombing, and I've paid attention to this stuff.
	Well, then, someone correct me properly, because I'm sure...
	I'm going to go look this up after the broadcast.
	I know there are allegations of procedural failures with 9-11.
	No, no, no.
	We're talking about the 1993 bombing.
	Chris Simone says, If memory serves, the FBI are responsible for the creation of Al-Qaeda.
	I would have to go and look at that.
	They're funding them.
	There we go.
	Israel Hayes has posted here.
	Two cassette tape recordings obtained by shadow reporter Paul DiRenzo of telephone conversations between FBI informant Imad Salem and his bureau contacts revealed secret US government complicity in the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, which six people were killed and more than a thousand were injured.
	So yes, seems so.
	Told ya.
	Told ya.
	Hang on, what did they show?
	Complicity?
	What?
	Yeah, they were involved.
	If I recall correctly, they provided the materials to make the bombs.
	Again, I'll have to go back and look it up.
	You would have thought that would be the point you arrest him?
	They'd be like, hey, you've got bomb-making materials?
	They were weirdly...
	I remember reading a report about this a while ago.
	They were insistent that he go do it.
	They were egging him into it.
	I'm sure they were.
	Like I said, it's been years since I've read about this.
	But the traditional thing is then you arrest him when he goes down there or something.
	I guess they just...
	Depends what your intentions are, doesn't it?
	They set their alarm clock late.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Must have just been daylight savings or something that day.
	Matthew Wilson says there are thousands of cameras in the capital complex with tens of thousands of hours of footage that show precisely what happened on January 6th.
	If it was an actual insurrection, this administration would broadcast it in a continuous loop.
	It's clearly the evidence that hurts the narrative.
	Yeah, they would, exactly.
	Why aren't they promoting the video footage and saying, well, look, this proves our point?
	Good question.
	Tal says, the FBI has been doing things like that since its inception.
	It was an abject failure from its beginnings.
	Yeah, weren't they the ones, was it them on the CIA trying to assassinate Castro incompetently?
	I think both of them.
	Well, probably, yeah.
	It was mainly created to handle Prohibition-era organized crimes.
	People like Al Capone.
	It failed because his behavior was constitutionally protected, minus the violence, and that couldn't be proven.
	Or minus the tax returns.
	They ended up getting on tax charges, exactly.
	Yeah.
	FBI's opinion.
	Federal government opinion.
	Henry Ashman says, Well, this is the thing, right?
	The point I was trying to make there is it's not actually ideological, I think, these mass shootings.
	I think these mass shootings come from a kind of mental health perspective and a personality defect.
	Because the point is that everyone has a mass shooter.
	Every single group.
	You can't name a group, a movement, a subculture that doesn't produce mass shooters because mass shootings appear to be a kind of American phenomenon that are based in mental health rather than a political agenda.
	I mean, obviously you get terrorist groups that have political agendas.
	Suicide bombings, much smaller cattle or fish than every one.
	Yeah.
	But that's the point.
	There has been a free speech mass shooter.
	There has been leftist mass shooters.
	There have been trans mass shooters.
	There was a Bernie bro who shot Scalise.
	That was a mass shooting.
	And it literally for healthcare.
	He chanted for healthcare as he shot them.
	Yeah, literally.
	And then you have the ice attacker from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's chanting for the Green New Deal or whatever.
	It's a concentration camp.
	Yeah, concentration camp, as I say.
	And so every single aspect of the political compass in America has produced a mass shooter, so it's not about the politics of the thing.
	It's about the individuals and the personal characteristics of them.
	Matthew Wilson says, if words are violence, then shooting people is self-defence.
	I think that we'll abandon the words being violence perspective.
	They're not.
	Definitionally, they're not.
	But he's explaining the leftist position.
	Yes, exactly.
	Which is, you use words, that's violence, or if I shoot you, that's just the same.
	Exactly.
	Which is why leftists were defending last year.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's how they got to that conclusion.
	But of course, just to be clear, we don't believe that.
	Yeah, we're not leftists.
	Yes, we're not leftists.
	Words are not violence.
	End of story.
	Sorry, I just had to refresh my page.
	Liberals in the 90s, rise up above the adversity.
	Don't let it bother you and it won't have power over you.
	The key to success lies within you.
	Liberal in 2020s.
	Nothing is my fault.
	Society is against me.
	Therefore, we need to burn it all to the ground.
	Again, this is a socialist rewriting of liberal axioms.
	The liberal perspective was, in the 90s, again, that you are responsible for your own self-improvement.
	And that implies that the assumption that's built into that is that you're not actually perfect.
	But, of course, if you replace this with Rousseau's view that actually you are perfect and society's made you evil, then everything is justified.
	And it's awful.
	So, Chris said, careful about claiming the right doesn't praise mass murderers.
	The left will immediately go to Carl Rittenhouse as an example, despite the fact that he was attacked by a violent mob.
	Well, that's the thing.
	Carl Rittenhouse didn't go on a mass shooting.
	That was self-defense, because he was being attacked physically, not being told words.
	Yeah, exactly.
	He didn't surprise an unarmed group of students watching The Princess Bride.
	We've got a trumper over here.
	Exactly.
	And this is not the first.
	Carl Rittenhouse is actually not a counter-example from the right, although there are right-wing mass shooters.
	The abortion bomber or whatever it was?
	Yeah, and there have just been a, you know...
	But people don't generally defend him.
	I just don't see that ever.
	Well, the only time I ever see it is on 4chan.
	And I wouldn't call those people conservatives.
	And it's largely ironic as well, so...
	Yeah, but I'd call them much worse than a conservative.
	But anyway, Chris says, couldn't it be argued that a partial case of the decline in American birth rate is the most household require both adults working to make ends meet?
	So people are starting to adopt the Japanese men's mentality of why bother with family that I will never even see and will likely look poorly upon me as an absent parent.
	Well, that's actually one of the problems with making women want to work, isn't it?
	If you're doubling the workforce, then you are increasing competition.
	It's not good for the man's earning capacity if women are generally a massive part of the workforce.
	What do you mean?
	Well, yeah, sure.
	I'm confident that we, the men, can out-compete the women, and if the gender pay gap's anything to go by, get wrecked.
	But the point is, why are the majority of women in the workforce, like, full-time jobs?
	These are full-time jobs that the men would have previously occupied.
	And so this downward pressure on men's wages.
	I'm suspicious of the Japanese man who's saying, I can't compete.
	Then again, you look at Japanese culture.
	I try not to.
	Two nukes wasn't enough, you know?
	I think it's the result of the two nukes.
	Actually, yeah, because I mean, have you ever read stories of Japanese who have been found, you know, who skip the war and then go back?
	For like 50 years, they were hiding down some hills somewhere, yeah.
	Universally, every single account I've read, they've all come back and said the same thing, which is the culture of masculinity is completely gone, you know, militarism, that sort of thing is all gone, and they hate that.
	It's like, no one's a proper person anymore.
	Yeah.
	But the point is, women entering the workforce en masse obviously produces a downward pressure on men's wages, which means that men literally can't because of all of the other options for people being employed.
	Same thing happens with North Korean defectors who get to South Korea.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	They're really upset that none of the men are proper men.
	None of the women are proper women.
	Well, there we go.
	We have complained from a North Korean who's starving, but okay.
	No, but there's something tangible that has been lost, and they can see it.
	And they're saying, look, there was something here that you've gotten rid of, and okay, there is a temporary...
	Communism isn't the solution, but...
	But neither is abolishing the family, which is kind of what's happening.
	William says, My daughter was quite bright and got a very liberal education.
	I fully expected to go to law school or follow some similar life path.
	Right now she's 31, is a stay-at-home mum of two young boys, and absolutely loves being a mother.
	I mean, just to be clear, I think most women probably would enjoy being mothers.
	I've not met a mother who doesn't enjoy being a mother.
	I mean, you occasionally hear about mothers who, like, their kids and them don't bond or something like that.
	Sure.
	It's awful.
	Yeah.
	But that's not most women.
	No, it's an exception to the rule.
	Exactly.
	Alexander says, Thank God for my mother.
	She told me over and over that I'm going to have kids.
	Two kids.
	This forced me to look at what having children would be like.
	Again, like, this is great, right?
	Because...
	No, no, no.
	This is great.
	Because people...
	But people need to remember that their life is not just a youth, and that was the obsession.
	And this began in the 90s, and it's gone through the 2000s up until this very day, where it's assumed that essentially your whole life plan is what your 20s look like.
	And it's like, sorry, when you get to 40 or 50, you really need to have had a plan other than being 20 years old for your entire life.
	And when you get to that point, as Alexander's parents have pointed out, look, at some point your thinking changes.
	And your priorities change.
	I'm now in the process of finding someone I can settle down with and start a family.
	Unfortunately, I'm a male and will probably have to convince whatever person I do end up settling down with that children are a good thing, especially considering my generation.
	My mother also put this idea of her two children and is in the process of doing so for my younger siblings.
	Good.
	Chris again, could the shift in this perspective on having kids have anything to do with the change in education in the job market?
	Undoubtedly.
	When I was young, my dad brought in more money, despite only having a HS degree.
	However, when his job up and moved, he was laid off and was never able to find another job that paid as well due to a lack of a higher degree.
	Is it possible that you need to go to college or your fail mentality has broken things down with the millennial generation on Because they are all forced to take on large amounts of debt, which unfortunately motivates a lot of decision-making that can be severely limiting when they can't get a job in their area of study, no matter what it was.
	Doubtless, I think, is the case there.
	But I'm not saying that there aren't outside forces that also incentivize this kind of Life planning, if you can even call it that, or lack of.
	And I'm not saying that just get married, have kids, all problems go away.
	I'm not saying that either.
	But I think the way the trends are at the moment, we just have to start agreeing that the trends are bad.
	They're heading in the wrong direction.
	So how do you end the trend of the declining demographics?
	You start having kids.
	You've just got to do it.
	Well, the things the government can do as well, apart from just importing everyone.
	Yeah, the Danish government did this, where they just had an advertising campaign saying, hey, by the way, we kind of need to have kids.
	Or you can give tax breaks, or you can just give them money.
	And these are, historically, if you look through the 60s, 70s, and 80s, these are all things they did.
	Well, people mostly would list, I imagine, as the main reason as to why you're thinking about not having kids is the money.
	And if the government just says, we'll pay for it.
	Or not even we'll pay for it, we'll take less from you.
	That's the other way of doing it, but if you don't earn enough money, then sure.
	Brian says, I've had a successful career where I'm able to do some really cool stuff.
	That being said, nothing I've done at work has given me the reward and satisfaction of watching my son grow for the last 18 months.
	Man, I tell you what, watching your kid take their first steps towards you is the best thing in the world.
	Can't even describe it.
	So they've got this weird stumble and they know they're figuring out something new and they're looking at you and smiling because they're doing something and they're coming to you and it's the best thing in the world.
	Kelly says, hardly anyone under 40 wants to be a housewife or to be one.
	Hardly wants a housewife or wants to be one.
	I'm single and I work my ass off to pay my bills and I still have to do all the housework.
	Exactly.
	The housework doesn't go away.
	Exactly.
	The only difference is I don't get dick at the end of it.
	I get married, women, because at the end of the day, you are still a woman in the dish you still need doing.
	That's a great point.
	That's great!
	Because this fancy, oh, the housework doesn't happen.
	Yeah, it does.
	You're still going to do housework, married or not, working or not.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Omar says, I'm not sure if it's more feminism's fault or the fault of corporations, but somehow large swathes of women have been convinced that parenthood isn't the most important role anyone can take on.
	Women are turning themselves into femcells and surprised that better men aren't interested in 30-plus aged workaholics.
	That's a great insult.
	But they're like the workahole woman who's in their 40s.
	Oh look, the femcell.
	And there's so much cope about this.
	There's another article that John sent me.
	There's this 50-year-old woman going, men are just intimidated because I'm so much smarter than them.
	It's like, okay, femcel.
	That's fantastic.
	I'm really in love with that insult.
	That's a great one.
	They want a man who earns more and has higher status, yet complain about shrinking dating pools when they aren't willing to lower their own standards.
	Yeah.
	And they'll die with those standards.
	Alone.
	After being eaten by their cats.
	Alexander says...
	Oh no, I read that one.
	Christopher Hitchens used to say the world would be a better place when every woman had complete control over her own fertility.
	Turns out he was as short-sighted in that opinion as he was in his opinion that compulsive smoking wouldn't put him in the grave at 62.
	To be honest with you, I think he probably expected that.
	I actually agree with that, though.
	It's still desirable that women are in charge of their infertility.
	What's not desirable is promoting irresponsible use.
	Yes.
	Having control of a thing doesn't mean absconding from your duty to engage that thing.
	Like, you know, you've got total control of your car, but you're never going to drive anywhere.
	It's like, why?
	It's, you know, you could argue it's the difference between, say, the Swiss and the US on gun rights, for example.
	Like, the Swiss will have the rights to have the guns, but the parties, you must act responsibly with them, which is why they train you, whereas in the US you have to...
	Well, yeah.
	Don't they have a mandatory service period in Switzerland?
	Exactly.
	So there's, you know, next to no gun deaths and everyone's got guns.
	Yeah.
	Will says, judging by the way we seem to be rushing towards mandatory vaccinations, I expect there is no one available to look after the old.
	We'll have some sort of Logan's Run forced euthanasia.
	It's not even that there's necessarily going to have to be a government plan.
	It's just that, well, who's going to look after the elderly?
	I don't know.
	Where are they?
	No one.
	The government will do that.
	That's what we're currently doing.
	Yeah, but when the government can't find the staff to look after the elderly, we won't need a Logan's Run.
	They'll just die on their own.
	And that's the government's plan, apparently.
	Liam says, Hi Carl, that is the question.
	We know women have a biological clock, but at what age should us men decide to have children?
	I'm 23 and I'm hoping to join the Royal Marines next year and worry about selfish career decisions affecting my ability to be a good dad.
	Should I wait until later in life and hope I can find a younger wife or crack on and breed as soon as possible?
	Well, I can't really give one rule, one size rule for everyone.
	But basically...
	It's probably, if you're only 23, and you're a man, and you are embarking on a career path, then you probably do have some time.
	You can probably wait until you're late 20s, so you've got that established.
	I mean, the reason we're using the clock for women there is because of the fertility clock, and that's true.
	I've just googled what it is for men, out of interest, and apparently up until the 40s, no change whatsoever, that's statistically significant, and then beyond the 40s, 1-2% per year.
	So again, it's not an exponential limit.
	No, it's a very shallow curve.
	So, I mean, 40s at the latest would probably be a good rule, surely.
	Yeah, but to be honest with you, and this is another thing, right?
	I actually wish I'd had my children earlier on in life, because, man, they're tiring.
	My son's like, can we go out and play football?
	I'm like, I've just done a full day's work, and I've just ruined my bank back and forth to work, and now we've got to go out and play football?
	Oh, God.
	I wish I was 30.
	And so these things will all impact your ability to be a parent and how much satisfaction you get out of it.
	So I would say late 20s is probably optimal for someone on your career path because if you're joining the Royal Marines, do like four or five years in the Royal Marines, get your career sorted and then you'll be making money, you'll still be young.
	Tell us if you get transferred to Ex-Math.
	Duffy says, Thank Ford we're abolishing motherhood.
	Yes, thank Ford indeed.
	As a man in his late 30s, seeing women my age cohort who shun motherhood in favour of a hedonistic lifestyle saddens me.
	They take to the streets and the tweets for social causes, but they have little care for real people in their orbit, favoring being called dog mums.
	And the few that do become mothers have embraced the lie of the sanctity of single mothers.
	A father is nothing more than a sperm donor who the courts force her to share visitation with.
	Do you think that the tradition movement existing that may be a corner is being turned back towards nuclear family do you think that with the traditional movement existing that may be a corner is well right and well hopefully basically I think it was wildly optimistic to think that we could abolish the nuclear family and hopefully I mean I don't want to sound preachy about it right I really don't want to sound preachy about it, but this is reality.
	You know, it is, what?
	Optimistic.
	Overly optimistic to abolish the nuclear family.
	I don't know how that's good.
	Well, no, it's not good.
	That's the thing.
	But it was treated as something that could be done.
	Oh, well, you know, I mean, in the 70s, you'd get adverts on TV literally saying, and I'll dig a bunch of these up because I watched a few of them a while ago, where it's literally some, you know, young businesswoman going, you can have it all.
	You can be this, you can be that, you can be the other.
	It's like, look, no one says that to young men.
	No one would ever say that to young men.
	You can have everything.
	You can't have everything.
	The things you're going to get are going to be very limited.
	Go out of your way to try and make sure you get the things you actually want is the point.
	But like I said, I don't mean to be preachy about it, but it's just that it's reality and it's going to hit you in the face.
	And you don't want to be one of those people who are kind of left behind at the end of it going, Christ, I really screwed up.
	And there's no way of taking it back.
	There's no way of taking it back.
	So be aware that you are going to live for like, you know, the next 50 years And you've got to be aware of your life plan in your early 20s and 30s.
	Anyway, on that note, we're out of time, so we're going to end here.
	As I mentioned, go and check out the Will Norland interview on noticees.com.
	There's an advert on the YouTube channel if you're not subscribed, but please do subscribe because then you'll get access to the full thing and all the rest of the premium content that we have.
	But otherwise, we will be back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.

▲