All Episodes
Previous Next
July 8, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:31:19
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #171
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast The Lotus Eaters for the 8th of July 2021.
I'm joined by Carl.
Hello.
And today we're going to be talking about transracialism and how it is rising up.
Also the horror of Capitol Hill and the people who can't sleep from that awful, awful day of standing around with a camera.
And also queer ideologies coming for your children, which is not a quote from us, but a quote from queer ideologues.
Yeah, apparently the gay community of San Francisco are coming for your children in their own words.
Weird thing to say, but okay.
Well, I mean, they literally say, Conservatives, you were right.
We're coming for your children.
Anyway, first thing to mention, new stuff we have on LotusEaters.com.
So we have a new premium podcast, me and you did, about vagueness, in which you taught me about vague concepts.
Yeah, it's hard to pin down, isn't it, on the very nature of them being vague?
But it's important because we deal with them every day, and they're often something that you'll find demanded of you.
I define, in firm terms, in strict terms, a vague concept, which is, of course, an impossible thing to do, so it's an unfair thing to ask.
So we go through it and explain why this is the case and what you can do with it, I suppose.
Yeah, especially when you're asked of it in a political debate.
Yeah.
And you're like, well, why the hell would you ask me to do something completely unreasonable?
Yeah, exactly.
In which case you get an unreasonable answer.
Exactly.
Well, you can just refuse it because they're being unreasonable.
Anyway, so the next thing here is just the interview, I believe this is the one Rory did, with the chap from Gangsline, which is a, didn't he used to be, I think he was either in charge of a gang or a gang member, and now he spends his time trying to get people to leave gangs, and then the ways that works and how that all goes.
Yeah, yeah.
So someone who has direct first-hand knowledge of what it's like to be in a London gang.
So that'll be interesting.
That's going up at 3pm today.
So after you check out the The Concepts podcast after this, go and check that out.
But without further ado, let's get into how transracialism is arising.
Yeah, so the transracial movement is rising up against intersectionality, it seems, without the permission of intersectionality, even though, of course, it fits perfectly within their ideology.
So you, of course, will remember Ollie London, everyone's favourite Korean.
Sorry, no, Jimin, we're supposed to call him now?
Yeah, I think that's the official name.
Sorry, Jimin, formerly known as Ollie London, everyone's favorite transracial Korean, has been supported by none other than Rachel Dolezal, who was the transracial employee of the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
And of course, this was quite strange because she's white.
She's of German heritage.
And so everyone was like, right, okay, that's weird.
And she does as much cosmetically as she can to mimic African-American aesthetics, I think is the nicest way of putting it.
So I have curly hair, therefore I'm black.
And I have lots of fake tan and...
Yeah, in the same way, Jimin, I've had surgery on my eyes, therefore I'm Korean.
Yes.
Again, biological essentialist there, which is strange.
It is, but the amusing thing is that basically, no one on the left really wanted to talk about Rachel Dolezal, because, I mean, what are they going to say?
Well, if you can be a man, why can't you be black?
Well, the response was just, you're not the gentleman, but with Jimin...
Well, yeah, I mean, it's a question that keeps coming up, and will keep coming up.
So Rachel Dolezal had a chat with TMZ, and she said she had no problem with Ollie London's decision to identify as Korean after having surgeries, and her point is to live and let live, because what else was she going to say there?
I have a problem with him doing this.
Of course not.
Yeah, so she, of course, considers herself to be transracial.
And her answer was, doesn't society have bigger fish to fry than someone, whether it be her or Ollie, claiming to be transracial?
And the answer is no.
They do not.
And they don't because you have hit on the most weak point of intersectional ideology.
And if this is allowed to continue, then eventually there will be no racial categories at all.
And that's really difficult for those racial activists whose entire activism is focused around their capital B blackness or something like that.
So yeah, this was not well received, obviously, but none of the left have been very fond of this particular group.
I guess, can we call them a community?
A transracial community?
I hate that term.
I do too, but I think it might apply in the way that they use it for gender and sexuality and all that.
Well, I suppose that actually applies in the case between Ollie and Rachel.
Because they're the only two.
Well, they're the only two who have also got a connection there.
I mean, they've spoken about each other, so that is more of a community than gay guy and gay guy on the side of the planet.
Yeah, that's a good point.
But I guess another person who's a part of the transracial community is officially Sean King, at least according to Tamir Rice's mother.
Tamir Rice, of all of the cases that Black Lives Matter have, I think is genuinely the most tragic one, because the video's awful.
He's just a kid playing outside with a toy gun, and the police car screams up and just jumps and shoots him.
He's 12.
It's awful.
The context around that, though, makes it obvious that it's not the police officer's fault, and that's why he got off.
Yes.
I don't know if people know, but the kids had his BB gun under the law.
There's meant to be a little orange bit, so it showed that it's a BB gun, not real.
He'd taken it off, he was walking around with a gun, he was pointing it at people, so one of the guys he pointed at called the cops and was like, I don't know if it's BB, I don't know if it's real, but you guys should check this out.
The dispatch didn't tell the police officer that it might be a BB, so when he turned up, the kid pointed the gun, well, the kid's getting shot.
And that's why he didn't go to jail.
Yeah, but it's the most tragic one, in my opinion.
And so Samaria Rice, his mother, last month had made a point to say, look, I've never met Sean King, even though Sean King's done an awful lot of fundraising on apparently her behalf.
Sean King, another guy who's clearly not black, trying to claim to be black.
Yeah, well, Sean King, again, has German parents.
He is a German parent.
What?
I didn't know that.
Oh, yeah, his parents are all obviously European.
Yeah, I'd want to get away from that ethnic group as well if I am.
Well, yeah, me too.
But, like, Sean King's...
The way that Sean King has introduced himself into the black race is by claiming that his mother is a whore and cheated on his father with a black man.
And his mother's like, no, I didn't.
Why are you throwing me under the bus?
Don't you care about my honour as a good wife and mother?
And Shaw's like, no, I'm black.
Like, I didn't make this up.
What he did.
So anyway, Samaria Rice says, I ain't never talked to Sean King a day in my life.
Sean King raised all that money for Tamir and sent me a $60,000 check.
I don't know Sean King from a hole in the wall.
So Sean King raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in this, and she only got $60,000 of that.
Where does the money go?
Well, that's the question, isn't it?
That's the question.
And it's not sure.
It's indeterminate.
She has been a critic of social justice activists who she says are chasing clout and double down on that on Instagram, where she says, why do you think it's so important to tell folks we had a conversation?
before explaining that King is basically trying to attract money for himself rather than for any of the causes, which has been a longstanding criticism of him.
She's referring to reports that he allegedly embezzled thousands of dollars by exploiting her son's name, because in 2015, the Washington Post couldn't account for $60,000 in online donations that he'd made to him.
She said, Personally, I don't see how you sleep at night.
I never gave you permission to raise nothing.
She went on to say her cop and donut conversation with King included all lies from him.
Wow.
Please stop thinking we're on the same page.
As a white man acting black, you are an imposter that cannot be trusted.
Does that make him officially white?
Everyone can see it, Sean.
Like, everyone can see it.
She continued, saying, you're a selfish, self-centered person, and God will deal with you, white man.
Capital W, though.
Capital W. So he's a politically white man.
D. Ray McKesson, King's former close associate, had also implied that King had stole money when they were with an organisation.
Although, it has to be said that the families of Nia Wilson, Philando Castile, and Terence Crudcher, and others, have vouched for King, and so they've been on his side.
They haven't said that he's black, though.
They've just said that he gave them money.
I see the chat saying, she should have said, you ain't black.
Would have worked.
Well, I mean, yeah.
She basically did.
A white man acting black, you were an imposter.
That can't be trusted.
That's a pretty damning condemnation of a race activist.
It's also race-phobic.
I mean, technically, from a progressive perspective, sure.
Sean King self-IDs as a black man.
Yeah.
If you're saying he's a white man.
You're transracial-phobic.
Yep.
That's correct.
But anyway, so what happened in London regarding this?
Because we're experiencing the question of transracialism here, aren't we?
Yeah, so I mean, much of this has been a bit of a meme, but one of this is intersected with politics in a way that I find really interesting.
And it has to raise the question, if we're going to have these categories, I mean, in the liberal perspective, race is not important, race doesn't exist, just social construct, in which case, if we stop talking about it, it won't exist.
That's the point.
But socialists, not happy with that, want different races.
Where's the lines?
Where's that going to be?
Because if Rachel Dolezal can't be black, okay, but how many generations of interbreeding with a black person does her family line have to be before she becomes black?
And vice versa.
See, this is just why I hate progressive politics.
It makes no sense.
Well, even if it made sense, I don't want to have to make these sort of calculations when deciding who's a good and bad person.
So this happened with a Labour MP, and it's really strange.
Of course it happened.
So this is the article, The Guardian, leftist outlet.
So, of course, leftists universally are saying transracialism, not true.
You know, Olly London, not Korean.
They're saying Richard Dolezal, not black.
What happens when the reverse happens?
So, the question here.
Labour MP Kim Johnson accuses Met of racism after being stopped in London.
You can see a picture over there.
Racism against what?
I'm not sure.
She looks Spanish.
So, Liverpool MP and family questioned by officers as Scottish supporters celebrated the Euro 2020 match nearby.
And...
Not...
Not very black.
Well, it could be racism against the Mediterranean.
Like, for people listening, her skin tone is maybe a shade darker than...
probably about the same as yours, to be honest.
Yeah, I'd say it's probably about the same as mine.
Yeah, but she has curly hair, so I guess that's the claim.
Ah, yes, because no white person has ever had curly hair before.
Except Rachel Dolezal.
So, she says in here, Johnson, who became Liverpool's first black MP when she was elected in 2019.
Stop it there.
The Guardian wrote that.
So the Guardian agrees with transracialism.
They're like, this lady, she's a black MP, even though she's as white as any white person.
Good thing you told me, because otherwise I wouldn't have known.
And the argument here is presumably the Guardian believes in the one-drop rule, that, you know, one drop of her ancestry was black and therefore she's black, even though she's white as sin.
So...
But there we go.
I mean, in the case of Ollie London, left not willing to accept it.
In the case of Rage Adolesale, left not willing to accept it.
But in the case of this lady, Kim Johnson, the one-drop rule applies, and therefore they're able to accept that she's black, which is clearly not.
I suppose it's technically because there's not one drop of Korean in Ollie London and not one drop of black in...
Chongqing and the other one.
I don't know about the Korean question but the the one drop of black I mean if this is the interesting thing I looked up the US law in the south of what to do about this and they had the rule if there was an identifiable African within your lineage then you were black so you had slaves that were clearly not black but still were slaves because they were African lineage so if you were able to trace it back I mean we all do apparently come from Africa therefore.
Well I mean how far are we tracing this back?
One drop.
Well then everyone's black by their standard.
Yes.
That's the point.
So, she, her son and his friend, Guardian writes this, both black men in their 30s, I don't know her colour of her husband, but willing to have her to guess that he's not the brownest person, and their wives had just stepped out of a taxi to go to a restaurant.
When asked why they were being stopped and questioned, Johnson said the police told her that her friend's son, who was wearing a distinctive yellow jacket, fitted a description they had been given.
According to Johnson...
When she told them that she was an MP, the officers just walked off.
Nice privilege you got there.
Yeah.
Just being able to say to the officers, I'm an MP, and they just leave you alone.
Suddenly not interested.
I might try that.
As if white people aren't stopped by the police and then have the ability to just say, oh, go away, I'm white.
That doesn't happen.
No.
But the question becomes, right, okay, is this a black person?
So if we go to the next link, I mean, just her versus the president of Sudan.
She's more white than black.
If all of society perceives her that way, how are the police stopping her for racist causes?
If they're not able to see her as a black woman, and then they stop her, how can they stop her on the basis of racial discrimination against black people?
Well, I mean, I would suggest they can't.
And it's again with all of society.
If all of society perceives her as white and not black, because she's evidently not black, she can argue what she wants about her one drop in her ancestry, but the skin tone speaks for itself.
Like, no one's going to perceive that person as a black person in the crowd.
She's got blonde hair, for Christ's sake.
Yeah.
So then, that has to raise a question, because the argument from the leftist on Rachel Dolezal is Rachel might be claiming that she's black, but she's never experienced blackness.
So this is the argument of being politically black.
So you can have an Indian person, we've seen this before, who lives in the UK. The Labour Party still classes them as politically black, even though they're Indian, because they experience racism on the basis of their race because they're not white.
The majority is white, therefore they're getting that racism.
In which case, what happens if you take that away?
What if you look so white that society doesn't perceive you as black?
Then are you black or are you white?
Well, according to intersectional logic, they would have to agree that this person isn't black.
Because no one perceives her as black.
Because they don't experience blackness.
The experience of being black is absent from her life, therefore she can't speak about her lived experience of being racially profiled or discriminated against, because why would you?
Which is why she's trying to claim that the police do it against her, because she's black, even though the police, in my guesstimation, probably in agreement with most people, would say that doesn't look much like someone from Sudan.
Looks far more likely for someone from France.
Yeah, I mean, she just looks like a Mediterranean.
So there was a response to this in which, of course, other Labour MPs...
She looks quite Italian now in that photo.
Yeah, I noticed how there's different photos and all of them are selectively picked, but this person here, I can't remember her name, the Labour MP, saying solidarity with Kim Johnson, a reminder that being an MP doesn't protect you from racism.
Oh, the poor oppressed MPs.
Won't someone please think of the MPs in their time of need?
But again, we have to accept that this woman is black, even though she is more white than most white people.
And then we have to also accept that Rachel Dolezal is white and not black because she's not experiencing blackness, but this person is even though they're not black.
I mean, what a mess.
What an absolute mess transracialism is.
And this is why I find this relevant to this topic.
Because it's like, well, what do we do now?
No one in their right mind sees this person as a black person.
I'm sorry if she doesn't like that, but that's the case.
All I'm putting in mind of is the meme where everyone's sat around at the desk at the office and everyone's giving stupid suggestions and one person's like, well, why don't we just not be racist?
And then he gets chucked out the window.
You're not part of the progressive group.
Yeah.
Funny thing is, she's actually been asked this question in the past, because of course a lot of people noticed at the time when she was claiming, I'm the first black MP of Liverpool, and everyone was like, you what?
So if we go to the next link here, this is her responding.
So someone was pointing this out.
So someone responded with, a lot of people in the comments erasing Kim Johnson's blackness, which is not cool.
Erasing it?
Or observing it?
Anyway.
So Kim Johnson says, yes, as Liverpool's first black MP, pretty fed up of people not being able to see a black woman right in front of them.
Apart from that being ridiculous, just having to demand your oppression.
I'm black, damn you!
Oppress me!
If you're not being racist towards me, you're being a racist.
So she also admits, like, the public don't perceive you as black.
Yeah.
In which case, you're not experiencing blackness.
And then under leftist logic, you aren't black either.
Is it just your self-ID that makes this true?
Yeah.
In which case, Rachel Dolezal...
Well, how can you argue?
How can you argue?
Sean King, Rachel Dolezal, Ollie London, they're all exactly as they say, if self-idea is the only standard.
But again, this is...
She's going to fall back on the one-drop rule, in which case, again, Rachel Dolezal, while all her ancestors are from Africa.
But even then, that's biologically essentialist.
And that means that a course of your life is kind of set in stone.
You are due to be that thing whether you like it or not.
And that's anathema to the left who wants self-identification to be the baseline of everything that happens.
But also the question arises, she's already pretty darn white.
If she had, I don't know what her partner or her family are, but if she had a relationship with an even whiter man, and then their child is even whiter than she is, is that child still black?
She's still got the one drop rule argument, that child.
Well, by that standard, I'm black.
Yes.
Enjoy your N-word pass.
I will!
I just have to persuade Jack Dorsey that I have an N-word pass.
You know what the funny thing is as well?
I looked up, before we started this podcast, the US legal standard on all this, and there was a section in the PBS article about it in which there was a conference of what was called the Negro African Writers Guild or whatever in Paris, and the American delegation turned up, and the black French guy looked at the American delegation and was like, hang on...
You're not very black.
How are you black?
And the American delegation defended himself on the basis that he was legally black.
I have a black license.
Yeah, I have a black license.
Because in the United States, I'm legally black, therefore I have the right to be at this conference.
And the French guy's just looking at him like...
LAUGHTER Yeah.
What a thing.
So, I have to ask as well, but if she's so adamant that she's black and she's so adamant that she's not white, why?
Why is that?
What is the thing she's running away from?
Why does she not want to be liberated from her chains of blackness and then thrown into the privilege of being white?
Yeah, why doesn't she check into that white privilege?
That's a good question.
You know, if white privilege is such a boon to people in society and it controls everything about your life, how, I mean, you know...
Instantly.
Her life expectancy will go up.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, everything.
Her wealth and all the rest of it and the way she's treated by the police will suddenly disappear as she likes to tell us.
It's so weird that someone would choose to not embrace this privilege.
Hmm.
Hmm.
It's almost like there is no privilege to be attained, and therefore is not desirable.
But there is a privilege by being an MP. The police will just walk off when you've done something.
And there is also a privilege that no one wants to talk about in being black.
Everyone knows it, and it's the privilege of being able to pull the race card in British society, as she did when she claimed that the police were stopping her because she black, even though...
Who says that?
Look in the mirror.
Even though she knows that nobody thinks she's black.
In fact, she knows it, and it's not just our speculation.
As mentioned earlier, she noticed that the public were not calling her black when she was first elected, and was like, look at me, I'm a black woman, even though the public were like, no, not.
So, I don't know how the police are meant to have a difference of opinion there, either.
So, the last thing to mention is just, well, how does this happen, again?
I mean, remember we spoke about Claudia Webb.
Turns out Claudia Webb, the lady we spoke about yesterday, shortlist.
Did she get on a shortlist?
She's also a shortlist.
She's on a black shortlist.
So I don't know the specifics of this shortlist, but...
She might be on a woman's shortlist.
Yeah, so the message here, Labour North West being like, congratulations to her as being selected for the candidate, and then she got the MP position after she was elected.
And she responds with, I am truly overwhelmed and grateful for the amount of support Liverpool Riverside members have given me.
Commiserations to the rest of the fantastic women on the shortlist.
So it's an all-woman shortlist.
She just Philipsed her way into...
She's a diversity hire.
Yes.
Just like Claudia Webb, who was a diversity hire.
And now she's an MP, getting paid like 80 grand a year.
Just like Claudia Webb.
Yeah, definitely not a privilege.
Definitely not a privilege.
Definitely oppressed.
Yeah, oppressed person who got on the short list to be an MP. Yeah.
Yeah, must be nice.
Wonder what the men in the Labour Party of the North West think about that.
Who cares?
Send that there.
Yeah, they should stop being oppressors, really.
God, what an absolute joke.
I love looking at the Labour Party.
I know some people might not care about the Labour Party, but trust me.
The best comment yesterday was, she's not even a clown, she's a whole circus.
But every one of them is like that.
Yeah, the Labour Party is genuinely my favourite part of politics at this point.
Oh.
Speaking of which.
So let's get on to the Capitol riot horror.
So the Capitol riots, the storming of the Capitol, the insurrection, the God knows whatever else actually did, if we're going to put it next to that word.
So the people who went into the Capitol on January 6th.
And the Democrats can't get over this.
Just not.
This is 9-11 to them, and they're never going to move.
Yeah, I noticed that a lot of them are on the position where America deserved 9-11, but didn't deserve the boomers walking through the Capitol having fun.
Hassan.
So, there's been a lot of stuff around this, and I want to go through it because it's good fun.
So, this is the first one in which someone points out the statistics of what happened.
So, they say, 183 days since the attack, 523 rioters charged, 13 guilty pleas, 1 rioter sentenced, 0 rioters sentenced to prison, source CNN. So it sounds proportional.
Because, I mean, I agree that for trespassing or something like that, they should be charged.
Aggravated trespass, vandalism, destructive property, whatever it is.
Sure, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Because that's what they did.
So, yeah.
What they weren't trying to do, clearly, is overthrow the government.
Because how was that going to happen?
Yeah, I mean, they didn't have any guns.
Go into the capital.
Step two.
Question mark, question mark, question mark.
Step two.
Call someone on Nancy Pelosi's phone.
Step three.
Steal her laptop.
Step four.
Steal the lectern.
Step five.
New Republic.
Declare autonomy.
Yeah.
Question, question, question.
Profit.
So here's the thing.
This guy's trying to show off as being like, oh my god, no one's been sentenced to prison.
Oh, boohoo.
They're being charged, so that's the process at work.
But also, yeah, it takes time to take people to jail.
But what's interesting is you can compare this to the D.C. riots under BLM. So if we go to the next one, this is just the data from the D.C. government in which they recall that between, what was it, May 2020 and April 2021, 449 unrest-related arrests took place.
So more people have been arrested and even charged with the Capitol Hill than were arrested in D.C. because of the riots.
And these rights burn down large segments of the city.
Yeah.
There's also the assaults on the Lincoln Memorial, in the name of anti-racism.
The assault on the World War II Memorial, in the name of anti-racism.
The statue of Kazimir Pozutsky, sorry if I butchered that.
Pulaski.
Pulaski, I don't know what you say.
And also the statue of Gandhi, in the name of anti-racism.
So, there's that.
I just love that they're going after Abraham Lincoln.
It's just Abraham Lincoln's the bad guy.
Yeah, who's he?
Oh, he's the guy who...
In the name of George Floyd, death to Lincoln.
Yeah, just...
Sorry, was he wrong, was he?
So there's been a lot of other strange developments from the state on this.
So the first one is the state claiming that they've seized a Lego set.
Riot leader had fully constructed US Capitol Lego set at home, says FBI. As opposed to a deconstructed Lego set, which would be totally legal.
Is this some sort of assault Lego set that we have to worry about?
You have the parts of a gun, that's fine.
Put them together, that's a crime.
You've got to take some points off the Lego.
I mean...
If he had schematics or something and plans drawn up...
For a Lego set?
No, no, to invade the Capitol building.
I might say, okay, fair enough.
That's more of an indication that something was pre-planned.
But having a Lego set, I think, falls outside of that.
So they're saying here, federal investigators have seized an unusual piece of evidence.
From Pennsylvania man.
evidence indicted last month for his role in the capital riot a lego replica of the building allegedly stormed according to court documents obtained by smoking gun FBI investigators seized an array of firearms at his home as well as the court filed in describing a fully constructed US capital lego set that's the wording Fully constructed.
Did it have little Lego figures going over the top like you did?
It had Wolfman.
The prosecutors didn't say whether Moss used his toy to help plan the capital insurrection.
Yeah, I imagine they didn't say if the Lego set helped in the insurrection or not.
Because...
Imagine being in court and the prosecutor say you had a fully constructed Lego replica of the Capitol.
This was you using it to plan your insurrection, wasn't it?
Wasn't it?
Could you imagine being the state prosecutor and the other guys have done all this and then you're the one who's got to present the case.
And they bring in the Lego set and you're looking at it and you look back at your guys and you're like...
Why are you putting us in this position?
This isn't key to our case, is it?
Did you construct this Capitol Hill Lego set?
Yes, we got him, Your Honour.
Yes, when I was 12.
John's making a good point.
Interesting he had loads of guns, but he didn't bring any.
Yeah, because they also mention another item seized from his house was a notebook containing step-by-step instructions on how to create a militia, instructions about ambush and battle drills, and reminders to bring an assault rifle in four magazines in his militia booklet.
It's actually part of the US Constitution to build militias, so it's not really an indictment to be like, hey, I'm following the Constitution.
Just doing what George Washington said.
So the only piece of evidence there is the Lego set.
They're going for the Lego set.
You're going down, boys.
So if anyone's got a Lego set at home, deconstruct it quickly.
Jesus Christ.
At least if it's a bit.
So of course there have been a lot of memes published in response to this stupidity.
So if we go to the next one, let's just go on.
Oh no.
Was that Joe Biden's...
Yeah.
So if we go to the next one, which is the main suspect has been named in this case, presumably.
Sorry, the Lego man himself.
Can we go to the next one?
See, police have already spotted the main suspect.
Gonna get him, boys.
So if you want to know what the Lego set in question is, I've mentioned it was a Lego set of capital.
The thing is, he reminds me of the Florida man with the lectern, just wondering, hi!
You know, that's how he looks.
Yeah, he does actually.
Like, genuinely happy.
Yeah.
Just...
Oh, me magic is real.
The guy storming the capital is just shouting, everything is awesome!
Anyway, so if you go to the next link, this is the set in question, just so people can know if you want to buy it or get rid of it.
Oh yeah, that looks like it's incredibly accurate.
How am I going to storm the Capitol?
I could get the blueprints from the Library of Congress.
Or I could get this Lego set.
$266.
The blueprint's probably cheaper.
I mean, as Disclose TV mentioned, at least it's got a five-star rating, so it must be very accurate.
It's probably great for LEGO's advertising, to be honest.
Now everyone knows about this LEGO architecture box.
Yeah, I didn't know you could buy one.
Yeah, I didn't know.
So there's also prayers being said for the journalists who had to cover all of this, as Jacob Sobiot points out.
Prayers up for the mental health of the journalists who have to cover the LEGO massacre.
And this is in reference, of course, to the Vice article claiming that journalists are having the worst of times in the world.
So, let's go to the next link, which you have Brian Stahler saying, I wish I thought to write this story, and then a link to the Vice article.
What?
Why do you think you, I wish I wrote this story?
You weren't even there, so...
So, this is the Vice article.
So, so angry.
Reporters who survived the Capitol riot are still struggling.
Well, all of them, because they all survived, because none of the rioters brought any weapons.
They didn't kill any journalists.
Or even attack anyone.
So, I don't know what to say.
The only person who died in the riot was Ashley Babbitt from...
I think, what did Officer Stinn...
No, yeah, he didn't die from being hit with a fire extinguisher or anything like that.
I know there were some lies about it with New York Times.
There were.
He died separately away from the incident.
So this is apparently...
And no one's been charged, of course, and so no, that's absolutely not true.
And yet it's a lie that has got such legs, it's continuing to go on.
The only person killed was Ashley Babbitt by some unknown security guard.
Yeah, as Trump said, who killed Ashley Babbitt.
Yes.
So, they say in this article, in which they are, you know, presumably lighting incense and saying prayers for the poor journalists, the reporters who survived the insurrection are still covering Congress, but things don't feel normal.
Oh god, but there's just flashbacks of little old ladies waving American flags as they're shepherded through the halls of Congress.
Between the rope.
Yeah.
Between the ropes, exactly.
Like they're on a day trip.
I just love it.
Reporters have discussed their personal experiences in the days immediately following the Capitol insurrection, but few have publicly talked about their lasting effects in the months since.
That's a shame.
I wish they'd talk about it a lot more.
It's really funny.
The toll that day took on them.
The difficulty some have faced in returning to the site where they experienced trauma.
And what it's been like covering a congress still steeply divided on the events till that day.
Oh, my heart goes out.
I am so sorry that you had to be there and watch some people smashing windows.
It used to be that journalists went to war zones and got shot at.
Imagine the guys who were reporting from Baghdad as it was being bombed by the Americans.
And it's like, yeah, but I was in the capital when someone broke a window.
Like, okay.
When someone dressed in black, who the crowd was yelling anti-fire at, broke a window.
Yeah, so they have a quote from one of these journos saying, I'm still not sleeping like I used to, even to this day.
Oh boy.
Wait until you go to Portland and start covering people breaking windows on a daily basis and then throwing firebombs.
Yeah.
And shooting people in the street.
Some of the reporters who were there won't go back into the building.
A number have sought therapy to deal with the trauma.
One long-time Capitol Hill reporter opted for early retirement shortly after living through the riot.
Living through the riot.
Many still aren't sleeping well.
And this goes on for 3,500 odd words, so I'm not going to waste my time.
You get the point.
Like, it's just a eulogy of being like, oh, would you please think of the poor journos who have to watch windows be broken.
So the politicians are victims, the journalists are victims, and the public, the individuals who are in the public are the victimisers.
Yeah, yeah.
So there's also a great quote by one of these journos who retweeted the story.
I find really funny.
So sometimes it feels like one of those horror movies, like the end of Jaws.
Everything feels...
Copacetic.
Copacetic on the beach, but you wonder if there's anything out there.
What are you talking about?
So, no, no, they're complaining that there are still right-wingers that exist in America, and they're still worried that any day now they might rise up and storm the Capitol like the prats that they were.
And that's traumatizing.
I mean, I love it.
I mean, I can't get over the optics of the people storming.
I mean, we have Bear Man there, the great Khan himself.
Yeah, who is this guy, the QAnon shaman?
Yeah, so the journalist covering this says on her bio she's a journalist covering gender and sexuality for Vice slash a wannabe cat lady.
Right.
I saw the Florida man still scares them to this day.
Just look at him!
Just look at him!
He's obviously just having a laugh.
Yeah.
They're still having nightmares about the old lady as well, of course.
So we go to the next one.
This is just the old lady.
Still having nightmares about her.
Just can't sleep.
Can't sleep, my friends.
I gotta retire.
I can't go back to this building.
I saw an old lady there with a flag.
It's just so obviously normal people.
Yeah, so that's not the only thing that's absurd.
There's also one more absurdity, which is the clothes people wore on the day apparently are important now.
So this is some guy saying six months ago, I wore this blue suit as I cleaned the capital after the insurrection.
Now I've donated it to the Smithsonian.
Okay.
What the f- January the 6th must never be forgotten.
While some try to erase history, I will tell the story so it never happens again.
We've got George Washington's clothes he died in, we've got the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Jim's suit.
Why does he think he's so important that his suit needs to go to there?
So I laughed at this originally because I was like, imagine the Smithsonian getting his suit and just being like, what the fuck?
Lost and found.
But it turns out apparently the Smithsonian requested his suit.
Oh, really?
Which, I mean, the Smithsonian publishing that thing on whiteness, I'm not really surprised.
So if we go down, he says, when the Smithsonian asked me to donate the blue suit.
So it's like, okay, they called him up.
So if we go to the next link, he says in here, people wrote saying the blue suit gave them a sense of resilience and hope.
What?
Who?
Your kid?
I mean, by those drawings, it's got to be your kid.
I assume it's not an adult.
Well, no, that's a millennial.
I mean the ones on the right.
I meant that too.
That could also be a millennial.
You're quite right.
Millennial Californians wrote to them in their crayons.
If you're wondering who the hell this is and why his suit is important, he's the chap whose meme went a bit viral.
So if we go to the next one, this is the AP reporting on the time, what else can I do?
And then Representative Kim helps clean up the capital.
There's a picture of him in his blue suit, there's a mask on, with a garbage bag, picking up plastic bottles.
The damage.
We will never recover from this.
I can't help but notice that nothing's smashed.
Like, this is the thing as well.
I remember, and I'm not crazy, I swear this was the case in which this image went viral at the time it was published, because everyone in the Trump camp was like, man, the damage done to our democracy, whatever we do, he's got to pick up little bottles, don't you know?
Like, it's over.
Like, I know you've got, like, everything burning down all over the country for the last year, but I mean, look, plastic bottles?
Some of them have still got water in it.
Truly, this is the end of the republic.
Yeah, it's just like, I'll never recover from this damage.
The damage that rioters have done.
I mean, rioters.
What did they leave?
Plastic balls.
Not fires?
Eh.
Alright.
So, it was just like, if you've got to do this, at least take images of the broken windows and doors.
Why would you choose this?
And just to make the point even more clear, if we go to the next link, this is just the BLM riots last year.
Remember this?
This is what a riot looks like.
I mean, literally entire streets seem to be on fire.
That's a riot.
A man with a blue suit picking up Cups of water are not comparable.
Those are not the same thing.
So the horror show that is the capital, Insurrection, Riot, 9-11, 2.0, or whatever we're calling it now.
Yeah, the horrors don't seem to be as bad as the journos are.
I don't know, actually.
I think they are comparable, and I think we should start comparing them.
I think, in fact, we should start comparing the amount of money it costs to clean them up, in fact, and to fix all of these things.
Because I bet the capital riots are picking up some bottles, not very expensive...
Replacing all the damage here probably cost millions.
So, there we go.
So, it turns out that all of the Conservatives were correct about the gay agenda according to San Francisco's Gay Men's Chorus.
And I mean that literally.
They literally say the Conservatives were right.
I'm not happy about calling these people gay.
No.
I don't think they should be in the same category as people who are attracted to the same...
Political leftists who are weaponising their gay sexuality.
So the way Douglas Murray would refer to this in his book Madness of Crowds is there's gay people like me who have a husband and we do our thing and that's it.
And then there are queers.
And the way Douglas Murray defines queer is people who are entirely about their sexuality and leftist activism.
Sort of monomaniacally, politically active in this way.
So this video was published in honour of Pride Month, and it's called A Message from the Gay Community.
So again, they're trying to assume that they speak for all gay people here.
And I'm pretty sure there are going to be lots of gay people on the other side of this issue, because they say this.
You think we're sinful.
You fight against our right.
Gay leftists who are like, hey, we're going to corrupt your children.
I mean, could you think of worse optics?
No, I couldn't think of anything that sounded more predatory.
I suppose if they used the word rape, that would have been worse?
I mean, if you're genuinely concerned that a substantial section of your society is homophobic, is not tolerant of homosexuals, and you want to increase tolerance of that, why would you say to them, we're here to take your kids?
Well, that's because you're the one in charge.
That's why.
You sound very much like the Turks going into Eastern Europe saying, hi, we're here for your children.
I mean, literally that's what they were doing.
So it's quite awe-inspiring how arrogant this is.
Will convert your children happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly, and you will barely notice it.
It's another lyric from it.
I mean, I'm just glad the mask is off.
I'm just glad that there's been like, yeah, hey, we're going to subtly corrupt your children.
Again, I'm not convinced that these people are like, we're going to have your children be homosexual if they want to.
It's leftism.
Yeah, they are talking into the ideology of leftism.
But that doesn't change it from having this generally predatory sort of gloss over it.
And it really does seem pretty awful to us.
Because, I mean, at the end of the day...
That's not what a liberal would say.
No.
That's not what a person who wasn't...
A predator, I would say.
Because this is predatory.
Saying that, look, I'm going to indoctrinate your children covertly without you knowing it, and we're going to make them...
I mean, the thing they're trying to say is, we're going to make them tolerant and fair.
It's like, sure.
I'm sure that's where it stops.
I'm sure that's the place that you stop at.
I believe you.
I trust you.
I don't think that you're just looking for converts and recruits for your political movement, which is what you're obviously doing.
And frankly, I'm kind of worried about what your intentions are on kids otherwise than that.
But we'll talk about that in a minute.
I figure that what we do is watch a clip of it, because you have to see it for yourselves.
Do we?
Yes.
We'll convert your children.
Yes, we will.
Reaching one and all.
There's really no escaping it.
Cause even Grandma likes RuPaul.
And the world's getting kinder.
Gen Z's gayer than Grindr.
Learn to love.
Learn to vogue.
Face your fate.
We'll convert your children.
Someone's gotta teach them not to hate.
We're coming for them.
There we go.
We're coming for your children.
We're coming for them.
We're coming for your children.
We're coming for them.
We're coming for them.
Right.
How do you think homophobic parents in the South are going to feel about that video?
Dude, I'm not homophobic at all, and all I'm seeing is a bunch of, you know, adult men who are looking to predate on my children.
I know.
I'm sorry, when a bunch of adult men go, we're coming for your children, my response will be working, I'm armed.
But even if you want to take it at its most charitable...
Why would I do that?
Just for a second.
Even then...
Communist snakes!
I know.
They're literally like, we're going to corrupt your children, you were right, we're definitely going to ruin them.
But even if you're someone that's...
I'm not going to use Stonewall because they've been corrupted by leftism, but a gay rights organisation, no one in the gay toleration camp would ever endorse making something like this.
Well, that's where you're wrong.
Lots of people seem to have endorsed it.
It was very popular.
Well, they're not in the gay toleration camp, are they?
They're in the queer leftist camp.
Well, okay, yeah, fine, yeah, that's fair.
But yeah, I mean, like, you know...
This, to me, seems to be an entirely predatory thing.
If just a bunch of men are just saying, we're coming for your children, that sounds really pedo-ish to me.
And then they've all got their pride flags and things, which we'll get to in a minute.
And so, sorry, I'm just, just no.
I mean, especially when you just look at the quality of the people.
I mean, this is the main singer.
I just took a screenshot from it.
He looks sallow and sickly, bags under his eyes, looks like he doesn't sleep.
Why would I want this person having anything to do with any children at all?
He doesn't look like a good role model, does he?
And this is the thing, right?
Children need good role models.
Let's go on to the next picture.
So I blew up just a bunch of the background things to look at them.
I mean, what am I looking at?
Would you trust these people around children?
Imagine if a guy was like, yeah, I want to do some babysitting I'm doing around the neighbourhood, and then just started singing, I'm going to take your children.
I'm coming for your children.
And it looks like that guy, or that guy, or any of them.
I mean, these all look like, this looks like a Nambla meeting, you know?
These are not the best that masculinity has to offer.
They're not sending their best.
Let's go for the next one.
Even worse...
What's with the soy boy?
Because they're singing.
They're singing, yes.
So you've got to forgive the soy boy faces, but look at this guy down on the bottom left.
Look at these guys.
They look like crack addicts.
There is no way I would allow any of these people around any of my children.
I don't think you should either, especially when they've got such an obvious and open agenda, right?
And that's really the problem.
It would be enough if they were just being like, look, we just want tolerance and stuff like that.
I'd be like, yep, totally damned that.
That's fine.
Obviously, you know, people don't choose to be gay.
No good reason to persecute people for being gay, obviously, right?
But it's another thing saying, look, we have designs on your children.
We're going to convert your children to being like us.
No, sorry.
I want my children to be happy and healthy and not whatever is happening to that guy down the bottom left.
Whatever you're doing with your life as well.
Yeah, exactly.
Whatever you're doing with your life.
I don't really want this for my children.
I want my children to be happy and healthy, to get married, have kids, get a normal job, not be weird predators on the internet, which is what these people are.
I mean, they are expressing avowedly predatory intentions to the children of other people.
These people who can't have their own children, who are gay and therefore are not going to be reproducing anytime soon.
These people are going, we're going to steal your children.
How about you leave my children alone?
How about you leave other people's children alone?
And this is particularly an important point for the authors of this video, the people who wrote it.
Tim Rosser and Charlie Son are the two main singers that you saw at the beginning there, because they are not new to this weird promotion and fetishization of paedophilia.
Boy is a compelling musical on an repellent tradition.
So in 2016, the pair of them, Tim Rosser and Charlie Son, wrote the compelling musical called Boy.
This is about an Afghanistani tradition called Bakar Bazi.
Now, if you don't know what Bakar Bazi is, maybe you should Google it, just so you can confirm what I'm about to tell you.
Because what it is, is the practice of sexual enslavery of dancing boys in Afghanistan.
And so pre-teen boys are sold by their families to just whoever can afford them, and then they're used as sex slaves, and they dance around and they get raped.
They made a play about that.
Condemning it?
No, not condemning it.
No, they weren't condemning it.
They were fetishizing it.
Clearly fetishizing it.
This is the way that the San Diego Tribune describes it.
The boy who danced on air, which made its world premiere on Saturday, makes a compelling case.
Co-written by V2, the musical touchingly, thoughtfully and surprisingly explores this ugly centuries-old Afghan tradition.
It was inspired by a 2010 PBS documentary on the recently revived practice of baka bazi, which means boy play, where wealthy warlords and merchants buy boys as young as 10 from poor families.
They dress in women's clothing and they dance with the men and pass around for sex.
US soldiers stationed in Afghanistan were allegedly told to turn a blind eye to the practice, which I've heard from British soldiers as well.
We've seen it.
This is what winning looks like documentary has demonstrated this.
I haven't seen that.
The police officers in the rural towns themselves are engaging in this.
Not just corrupt men, the police do this.
Uncivilized part of the world.
Yeah, well in 2016 a Green Beret was apparently exonerated for striking one of the child rapists who had kept a boy chained to his bed in 2011.
But they end this with Bakabazi's repellent practice, but...
Whatchipper?
Whatchipper?
But it's approached in The Boy Who Dances On Air with nuance and sensitivity.
It clearly has a future ahead and so does Awata, who seems to be a Broadway star in waiting.
So what happens in this?
I haven't watched this, I've read a synopsis.
Right.
But I don't really want to.
This, of course, created a great deal of outrage.
The outrage didn't happen until 2020, though.
We can go to the BBC one.
The musical mostly made a good impression on theatre critics.
It was called...
Oh, I bet it did.
Yeah, of course it did.
Theatre critics, yeah, I bet they loved it.
Of course they did.
It was called Courageous, Thoughtful and Beautiful.
Yeah.
Same theatre critics who were reviewing Cuties.
Yes, indeed!
The same theatre critics who were reviewing Cuties.
One review in the New York Times called the subject matter troubling, but said that Son and Arosa had taken the challenge of difficult source material too far.
Hmm.
Hmm.
The New York Times is saying, hmm, you've gone too far here.
Hmm.
Also, I'm late for a check with Epstein.
Exactly.
And so, the reason this became a scandal in 2020 is because of the lockdowns.
Obviously, this couldn't be performed in theatres, and so it had to go online on streaming services where normal people will see it.
Because, of course, in a San Francisco theatre, everyone is probably on the same page on certain things.
But, of course, when you are getting on a streaming service, parents are like, well, hang on, what is this cutie's 2.0 garbage that I'm forced to watch.
And unexpectedly, the move provoked a wave of outrage and criticism from Afghans living around the world, who, learning of the musical for the first time, accused it of romanticizing child sexual abuse and child rape.
So, people who are Afghanis, so I guess they'd be the best people to be able to make a moral judgement about this.
Left Afghanistan because it's an uncivilised part of the world.
They saw this on streaming services, watched it, and said, oh, this romanticises child sexual abuse and child rape.
And they're coming for their children.
Coming for your children.
Yeah, and this guy's coming for your children, by the way.
In his own words.
Bakabazi is a harmful practice that should not be in any way romanticized, says one Afghan actress.
To have another piece of art focused on Afghanistan completely through the white lens shook up our community.
So leftist Afghanis are like, this is disgusting.
You don't know what you're doing.
You don't know what you're actually romanticizing here.
And this is very sus.
And now with the We're Coming For Your Children musical.
Same guy.
Same guy.
Of course, he had to apologise for this.
He apologised for being pro-Peter.
He says, just wanted to post an apology.
In no way was our intention to glorify Bacabazzi.
Then why'd you do it?
Yeah, why'd you do it then?
We agree that it's abuse plain and simple.
Did you fall asleep and write the script?
What are you talking about?
Exactly.
We agree it's abuse plain and simple.
Yeah, but you were glorying it.
And we're really sorry about that.
Some of our show came off as an endorsement.
It was meant to do the opposite.
Sure it was.
Sure it was meant to do the opposite.
Just like the rise of cuties.
Yeah, the New York Times is like, yeah, you've taken this too far.
That's meant to be a condemnation of it, isn't it?
Bull.
Absolute bull.
But anyway, so in other news that I found on Pink News, incidentally, there was just council backlash in Scotland because someone on the Scottish council was accusing three LGBT plus groups of wanting to lower the age of consent to 10.
Like that's ever happened.
Accusing or pointing out?
Well, accusing.
So three LGBT plus groups withdrew from Scotland's Perth and Kim Ross Council after one of its staff allegedly spread smears claiming they were working to lower the age of consent to 10 years old.
So if that's all we have to do to get rid of the communists, get cracking lads, you know.
What's your views on the age of consent?
LGBT, LAP, LFF, you know, organisation.
Yeah.
Then they get offended and walk out.
Well, they weren't asked.
The member of staff was saying it.
They were asserting it.
But they've said, oh, how could you?
I'm leaving.
The politically gay movement has never had anything to do with age of consent.
Anyway, so they've ceased all equalities work for Perth and Kim Ross Council for 30 days in protest at the shocking comments.
Based.
The staff member who cannot be named for legal reasons was also linked to calls to defund LGBT organizations and refuting queer theory.
So, not a communist.
The person on the council is not a communist, and he doesn't like the communists who are the intersectional communists who are weaponizing these identities, and pointed that out.
And just to be clear, it's not like there isn't a history of Politically active leftists being pedos.
I mean, Foucault was a pedo, it seems.
According to one man who saw him soliciting child prostitutes.
The guy in charge of Nambla, communist.
Yeah, the guy in charge of Nabla, communist.
Foucault, of course, in his writings, he's quite explicit about his advocacy for paedophilia.
He signed a petition to legalise sex with 13-year-old children in 1977, along with all of the other French academics on which leftist intersectional ideology is built.
So, no surprise.
And, of course, the Washington Post published their, yes, we do need kink at pride article.
They want their kids to see adults being sexual.
And this quote, I think, aged really, really well in the light of the we're coming for your children.
Children who witness kink culture are reassured that alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid, no matter how they become as they mature, helping them recognize that their personal experiences aren't bad or wrong and that they aren't alone in their experiences.
Wow, that really sheds a new light on the back of Bazzi thing, doesn't it?
Put that next to that sentence.
Exactly.
Their personal experiences aren't bad or wrong.
No, I think it is wrong when a bunch of Afghan men rape children.
I think that's wrong.
I think you can say that's wrong.
The thing that happened to that child is wrong.
Can we have literally the first thing you have for a civilization?
Raping children, bad.
Level one.
Washington Post.
Well, hang on a second.
Level zero, even.
Just foundational.
Yeah.
Raping kids, illegal.
Should we have that?
Can we agree that one?
Leftists.
Or do we have to come into Afghanistan?
The LGBT organizations have left the room.
I wonder why.
This is why I also hate these arguments like, oh yeah, the British went around the world to civilised places.
What a bunch of imperialists.
Look at Afghanistan.
Look at what they're doing.
Do they need some civilisation?
Didn't they used to burn to death Indian wives after the husband died?
That was in Bengal, I believe.
Which we fixed by hanging the men who did it.
Good.
And we should have hung more.
Anyway, this, again, browsing Pink News is pretty much one of my hobbies at this point, and so I just thought I'd go on and, you know, why it might actually be not good to encourage children to be gay.
And I'm not saying it's good or bad to be gay in and of itself, but But there apparently has been a landmark study...
The liberal standard on this is meant to be...
Sorry, no, it's meant to be genetic, right?
Yeah, I mean, when I was growing up in the 90s, it was that you didn't choose to be gay, and therefore it's not something that you have moral control over, and so...
It's not morally good or bad, it's neutral.
Exactly.
But there are things that you do have moral control over, and it seems that the way that the left approaches ethical structures is to essentially abolish any kind of personal responsibility.
And this is being reflected in the gay community in Britain.
Now...
When I say the gay community, this is an average.
This is not all gays.
This is, of course, not those who are politically opposed to the LGBT movement.
But it is something that is real and it is something that you have to deal with.
So this report was published by NHS Digital based on a survey of 1,132 people.
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults who participated in the health survey, and they found that these adults are more likely to drink more, smoke more, and have worse mental health than the straight population.
This is being framed as health inequality.
Your vices...
But those are choices.
Exactly.
Their choices to indulge in vices are being framed as health inequality, as in they are not responsible for their own choices.
That's what they're framing this as.
I wonder how this intersects with having children.
Good question.
I mean, I can say that I've given up vices since I've been a father.
But that's the thing in my mind.
If you take the population of straights who never had kids, do you get anything similar or not?
Do they mention that?
They don't mention that, but I would put money on the fact that you do.
I think this is about having a sort of freewheeling lifestyle that you have no responsibilities under.
And if you don't have any responsibilities, why wouldn't you just indulge?
What's holding you back?
I don't have kids.
You do.
You've spoken about this before.
It's like your things you're interested in change?
Yeah.
Like you're not interested in getting drunk?
No.
You've got to be on patrol.
It'd be the worst thing to do.
Not zero.
I mean, less so than your kids being well, I should say.
Sure, sure, sure.
But anyway, so despite LGB adults being 12% less likely to be overweight or obese than straight people, a higher proportion of LGB people, 7%, reported...
Bad or very bad health compared with heterosexual adults.
The prevalence of limiting long-standing illness was also higher at 26% compared to 22%, and the trend found that smoking was much higher among the gay community, with 27% rather than 18% of heterosexuals, with lesbian women being the most likely to smoke at 31%.
And the lowest being among heterosexual women at 16%.
Very interesting, isn't it?
That's weird.
How can the lowest group be women and also the highest group be women?
Because there's obviously something about the mindset that informs the decisions that they make.
The attitude they have to life is different.
The NHS's digital chief statistician, Chris Roebuck, said one of the biggest benefits to collecting and publishing health data is to highlight the health inequalities.
Well, I mean, that's technically true, but the answer is either we encourage...
Health differences.
These are free choices people think.
They're not inequalities.
Well, I agree.
But the solutions from this framework would have to be then either we...
What are we going to do?
Put deterrent images on the packaging?
Well, either we prohibit these things for gay people, or we encourage the straights to start drinking and smoking.
Yeah, that is going to have to be the solution.
Also getting the more bad mental health situations as well.
The people who are coming for your children want you to be a slovenly alcoholic with lung cancer.
Change my mind.
I want to see the solution here, because you put deterrent images on packaging, for example, to stop people smoking full stop.
But if you're some weird communist who wants to collectivise different groups and then go after those groups individually, so we're going to stop lesbians from smoking, what do you put on the packaging?
Presumably male gay porn, isn't it?
Well, yeah, I suppose.
But I think it's worth being clear that we don't think this represents gay people as a group, as a demographic.
We think this represents politically left-wing queer people.
That's how they describe themselves.
Yeah, exactly.
The word they use is queer.
And this obviously describes the sort of permissive left-wing ideological stance that That is rampant in these communities because of the powerful activism that they have in their favour.
There, of course, are going to be many conservative or, well, we'll just call it conservative.
Even left-wing, to be honest, just gay and then leftist.
Not left-wing gays, right?
I think even you can find left-wing gays were not like this.
It's leftist gays.
Yeah, like politically leftist queers or gays, whatever you want to describe them.
Queers is better.
There are going to be lots of homosexual people of various different stripes who are not part of this particular movement.
And if you are one of those, leave us a comment.
Do something.
Speak out against this.
Because these people are going to end up becoming the face of being gay.
Because that's what they're trying...
I mean, the video was called literally A Message from the Gay Community.
As if all the gays just got around the side of, yeah, we want to tell the straights we're coming for their kids.
That's not a bad idea.
I can't think of a movement that is going to destroy gay toleration and lead us in the direction we were before than a group like that.
Oh, absolutely.
But then, on the other side, the Conservatives, I think, are just the right to be concerned that there is a group of people with active designs on their children, a group of people themselves who can't have children, who have active designs on their own.
The gay community has to be like, look, we have nothing to do with children.
That's basically their opinion.
We're not for kids.
We're not interested in, like, taking your kids.
You know, there are going to be gay couples who get married and adopt, that's fine, obviously, but...
I'm not a leftist.
Yeah, exactly.
I'm not a leftist, is basically what the gay community need to do, I think.
But this awful idea, awful, predatory idea from people who seem to glorify child molestation.
That wasn't a fun one.
It's gross.
It's absolutely gross.
That was horrible.
Let's go to the video comments.
Yeah.
To Lotus Eaters.
C'est bon.
I consider this to be an investment into my future freedom, although return on this investment will be ephemeral.
That's true.
But I think that we're doing good work.
One of the comments on the vagueness podcast that we did was, this was, because there were some people like, I don't see the point of this.
Like, you know, it's like, yeah, well, it's kind of hard to pin down something that's vague.
And that's the point.
But one person was like, oh, this is great.
Because listening to this, everything started, you know, various things started falling into place.
Because he had obviously had this problem where they were like, oh, define British values or something.
It's like, what do you want to do?
Draw a hard boundary around it.
You know, you can't do that.
I had this experience while we were doing it as well.
Me getting annoyed being like, you know, when can I use this?
And then we get to it.
But it's very important.
Define what, as you said, British values.
That's an unreasonable demand.
You can say that.
Or you can say, well, look, I'm going to define it in a way that you might not agree with, but that's true for me and those people who agree with me.
And that's a flexible, permeable membrane that's around that.
It's not a hard boundary that keeps one on one side and the other on the other side.
I love the Polish flag too.
Good day, Lotus Eaters.
Callan, why are you using this article time and time again like it should be shocking or disturbing?
The saying, don't drop the soap, exists for a reason.
You have a higher chance of getting STDs in prison than catching COVID. If you want to avoid being raped, don't go to prison, male or female.
It's an interesting point.
I didn't know about the female rape part.
I suppose I use it because we're talking about transgender rape, and people on the left-wing side seem to think that transgender people are angels who can never do anything wrong.
And we've seen this even with court judges in this country, thankfully not in Poland, in which they will say someone who's come before them, they've got child porn on their electronic devices, and the judge is like, you're a very vulnerable person, so I won't give you jail time.
In fact, I'll let you go back to the community.
It's like...
Right.
Mad.
Because they're transgender, they can't be a pedo.
It's unbelievable.
So I suppose that's the reason, but that's a great point.
Listen here, Boris!
You're turning into a globalist PUFTA! Here's what you need to do before the next election!
Return to Potlary Shards!
Return to the Kingdom of England!
Return to grammar schools!
Return to the gold standard!
Return to the constabulary.
Return the winters to the kitchen.
Simple as.
I mean...
What do you disagree with there?
That's all I'm saying, Boris.
I'll post on that afterwards.
Yeah.
That's why I want the Conservative Party to be.
I want every MP in these TOFs from, if you've gone to Ian and then Cambridge and Oxford and whatnot, I want them and their poshest accents and their lovely suits to come down to a Conservative Party meeting at a branch.
That's just loads of North FC. Yeah.
Let's talk about White Boy Summer.
Because I find this to be a very, very interesting social phenomenon.
Let me know if you guys can vibe with that and get ready.
I have no idea.
I think that was an advert for this guy's Twitch.
Very creative.
To the guy who said only ever watch a sub anime, no, I have dyslexia.
Reading that much, I can't read fast enough so I have to pause and rewind and pause and rewind to find out what someone's saying, I effectively watched the episode seven times.
Watching the sub is suffering.
I'm not masochistic.
People like you put me off anime.
You read the manga, all when there is no dub.
End of discussion.
However, that being said also, I will say this.
There is a manga called The Record of Ragnarok, where every religion is canon, and humanity and gods must fight each other in...
Just go with it.
The father of mankind, Adam, and the father of the gods, Zeus, are fighting each other, and there is the most daddest quote imaginable, which I think Sargon will like.
Why would a father require a reason to defend his children?
Why would a father require what?
A reason to defend his children.
Well, I mean, because it's necessary?
Why would you have to make a reason?
Oh, well, the reason would be obviously contingent, as in there's a threat to my child, therefore I'm going to defend him.
I don't need to find an a priori reason for it.
I mean, because they're my children is the justification.
Go for the next one.
So, I've made a terrible, terrible mistake.
Uh, much in the same vein as that oil guy.
I shaved.
Why did I do this to myself?
Now I can see my double chin, and I'm all baby-faced.
I hate it.
On a positive note, I have started doing keto, and I've already lost three pounds in the first week, and I'm soon to be adding some intermittent fasting alongside to help me actually lose that weight a little quicker.
But, uh, I do not like seeing my face like this.
I know exactly how you feel, Carl.
That's exactly why you need to continue with the diet.
Why was everyone shaven before?
I have no idea.
The old guy shaved because he had a job in fuel or something, I think?
No, no, no.
I mean, when you look back at footage of people in offices in the 90s and the 80s, everyone's clean shaven in all the movies, and these days people don't.
Why was everyone shaven?
I don't know.
I'm old enough for it, so...
No, I mean, my dad was in the military, so he had to shave.
Yeah, it makes sense there.
Well, actually, the argument there was with the gas masks, and that's not really the case anymore, but...
Oh, he had to wear something for work on his face.
But I don't know, it was just common.
Just the way things were.
Return to tradition.
Return to Anglo-Saxon beardage.
Well, yeah.
Not returning to the 90s tradition.
Let's go for the next one.
Y'all were talking about the pro-life ideas.
Y'all couldn't quite put a name to type of cell that the pro-life folks want to save.
And the name of that cell is the zygote.
You see, when the sperm meets the egg, it turns into a zygote.
And that zygote turns into another human being.
Think of it as, like, the tadpole that turns into the frog.
That's correct.
I'm no scientist, I have no idea, but again, I'm a bit like...
Is there not a point in which the zygote becomes the baby?
Is that not an argument?
What are we saying about vague concepts?
Exactly.
You are literally demanding that a hard line be drawn on something where there cannot be a hard line drawn.
But again, the zero pile of sand is not a heap of sand.
I agree.
So this is essentially your version of one grain of sand equals a heap.
But that's silly.
We all know it's silly.
Well, don't you remember that Unger's acceptance, we can just accept the premise?
Yeah, but I don't want to.
I don't know.
I have no opinion on abortion.
Well, that's the point.
No one is.
No one's got an answer to any of it.
So this is why the conservative right are like, well, look, life begins at conception, which is technically true, or the woman's right to have the abortion on the far left, where it can be up to the point of birth, which, I mean...
They're both absurd.
Yeah, they are.
But that's the point then.
Okay, so at some point in the middle, you have to draw a boundary.
And I mean, it's like 16 weeks or something.
So it's pretty young.
I mean, it's pretty early in.
But even then, it's still not a very nice thing to do, which incidentally, we'll be recording a video about after this, because I have some thoughts on it.
But...
Look forward to that one.
Yeah, it'll be good.
I posted a French song earlier, which we'll talk about later.
Yeah.
A king without greed is not fit to decorate the throne.
A king must lust more, laugh louder, and rage longer than any other.
Every aspect good and evil must be beyond the extremes of any normal person.
A king must be thus: to inspire envy and admiration in his followers, he must light a flame in each of their hearts.
King of Knights, perhaps your justice and ideals once saved your kingdom and delivered its people.
What became of the subjects you saved?
You saved your people but never led them.
You never showed them how a king should act.
They lost their path and you left them to it.
You were content to walk alone and composed.
You preferred your petty little dreams.
You are not a genuine king.
That sounds like the world's worst king ever.
An insane extremist who goes from one position to another at the very, very extremities of beyond what all of the other people can do.
Yeah, that sounds terrible.
I mean, just historically, if you're going to have a king, you want him to be quite moderate, which is good for you as a person.
Let's get to the next one.
Love it.
Absolutely love it.
I was watching a clip earlier of some guy.
He got in his boat.
He put firework launchers all over the boat.
So around him, they're just going on.
Peak American.
There is something about hyper-nationalist Americans that you would never be able to do it here with Britishness without coming off a bit strange.
Oh yeah, like the hyper-nationalist Americans that come off as a bit strange.
Well, no, they come off as based.
They are, I agree, but they are also a bit strange.
But that's fine, because it's based.
Hello.
First of all, I'm Danish, so that's why my accent is strange, and I hope you'll be able to understand me anyway.
I love the Danish accent.
Anyway!
Football!
I'm filming this before the match, so I don't know who won or who is going to win in the future.
But yesterday, Karl said that he hoped that the English would win the football match just so the English football fans wouldn't be upset.
And I have to tell you, No!
You don't deserve to win!
On one of our official newspapers, one of our biggest newspapers, this was the front page.
And on our version of the BBC, we had this.
And that is saying, we'll eat you for breakfast.
Well, now I'm glad they lost.
And it feels like at this point, maybe England or just London is asking to be conquered.
But obviously, the Danes are more than happy to do that for you.
I mean, out of all of the options, I think this is one of the least worth one.
We share some common values and so on.
But yeah, no, you don't deserve it.
Just so they won't get upset.
Mm-mm.
I hope we crushed you yesterday.
Well, Cnuller Day, Denmark, you lost.
But I kind of wish...
There's a bit of me that's like, eh?
Because especially...
Who was it?
Mr.
Bubbles, I think, said yesterday in the chat, in which it's Italy versus England now, and Italy's conservatives are proposing to ban communism, so it's like, right, so base, base, base, base, base versus the cringe team.
Let us kneel with our rainbow armbands on.
Yeah.
But yeah, I mean, to be fair, she makes a good point.
I mean, if someone's going to conquer London, they could do worse than the Danes.
Yeah, I really love that poster that it's not coming home, we're coming home.
That's quality bans.
That's amazing bans.
Also, even better when they lose.
Go for the next one.
A bit of a black pill today, guys.
80% of young people think that capitalism is to blame for Britain's housing crisis.
So let's see what the state does.
It is illegal to build on green land.
To get a housing project approved, you have to go through this mess.
Interest rates are manipulated artificially low by the state-sponsored fractional reserve banking system.
When a money supply goes up 10%, so do house prices.
Sounds like capitalism, doesn't it?
Yeah, and not to mention mass immigration that creates competition for houses.
I really like that guy's voice as well.
The fact that your microphone makes you sound like it's kind of wrong.
Broadcasting from the 1930s?
Yeah, I kind of miss it from YouTube.
You know, like the old animated videos from early YouTube where everything sounds a bit...
Everything sounds terrible.
But I actually kind of miss it.
So I look forward to more of those videos.
It was great.
Hey, you know that guy plugging his novel, or those guys plugging anime, including garbage like fate?
Yeah, screw those guys.
Read my s***ly drawn webcomic, Reversed Wins, on Instagram.
There's one little recurring strip about a merchant penguin that has good ol' capitalist values, so yeah, go with that.
Conservatives need to start caring more about entertainment and stories.
Write them.
That's correct.
I think I've found you.
I'm going to give you a follow.
Don't mind some SLE-drawn webcomics.
Hello fellow learners, so I'm a medical laboratory science student and I study at university and I've just made a channel called anti-propaganda.
The first video that I made goes over many reasons why it's almost certain the COVID-19 virus was made in the Wuhan lab.
But the question that I want to get to is what do you think the consequence of the institutions like the WHO and the CDC burning their credibility are going to be?
What do you think the fallout is going to be?
Honestly, I think that the systems involved are so complex, I dare not actually make any assertions.
I don't know what's going to happen.
Like, who thought that we'd be in a position where the World Health Organization would be covering up for China, for the communists?
Like, who thought we were going to be there?
One development that I am hopeful about is, so this morning, what was it, the Lancia?
Like, a hundred scientists had written to the Lancia to be like, hey, the UK government's evil for- The Lancet.
Yeah, Lancet for getting rid of the coronavirus restrictions.
And just everyone was just like, sod off.
Like, you're the guys who published the article saying there's no evidence.
Yeah.
It came from our lab.
Why would we trust you?
Yeah.
So, I mean, their reputation is being burned, at least, for every lie they tell.
So there is a cost, which is nice to see, at least.
Who was it that said, if the truth kills it, let it die?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think it was cunt.
Someone like that.
If the truth kills it, let it die.
That's, I think, a good standard, to be fair.
You kneel down for slavery.
It's a standard for lippity.
I'm not really one for, you know, these chants, but, eh, if you see some kneelers, I think you just chant that.
I mean, I agree with the sentiment, yeah.
Just an update from yesterday's video comment.
I actually think we've got a kind of reverse Monophysite-Diophysite thing going on just now with the SJWs.
The heretics are the ones that think people can have two natures, one black and one white, or it can be changed at will.
And the Monophysites think that you can only be one race.
You can't change because it kind of rests, the whole foundation of their ideology rests on that.
It's not exactly analogous, but you can kind of see the similarities where there's kind of heresy going on just now, and they're being treated like heretics.
Hmm?
He's not wrong that there's definitely a parallel there.
Which faction's gonna lose?
Well, the SJWs don't really have any opposition.
The Conservatives don't understand what they are or what they would build in the absence of social justice.
So remember how you had feminists and then they engaged in intersectionality and now there are TERFs and intersectional feminists.
Oh, the intersectionals will win everything.
So intersectional racists or the racists?
The two strands of the left.
The intersectionals will win everything, yeah.
So we are going to get Oli London is a Korean.
And Hasan Paik has already declared himself for the...
Yeah, the TERF position on that.
What would be the acronym?
The Biologically Essential position.
No, it's got to be with the TERFs, because that's funny.
Trans-exclusionary radical racialist.
But yeah, well, I mean, that's, yeah, I mean, Hassan's already declared for the Biological Essential camp, and so he's out of the club.
Anyway.
I look forward to him being cancelled, I guess.
Yeah, Alexander says, when the left is playing more stupid games, they need to win more stupid prizes.
If you can't be racist if you're privileged, and you can't be transracial because you don't have the lived experience, then how about you can't be oppressed if you're rich?
Which I agree with.
Azrael says, has anyone bothered to ask the Koreans what they think of transracialism?
Yeah, they don't think he's Korean.
No, they don't.
None of them buy this.
I don't know any personally, but I do know a fair few Japanese and Chinese people, and they all seem to consider their nationality, let alone their race, to be a rather exclusive club.
And the funny thing is that it's essentially the argument of the left as well, because if they're like, look, the environment you grow up in informs your character and your unconscious biases, then you can never be trans anything.
You can never assimilate into another culture.
You are a product of a culture, whether you know it or not, and this is built into you.
So...
But you can hear the feminists arguing about this with the TERFs arguing with the Insectionals, where it's like, well, they don't know what it's like to be a woman.
They don't know what it's like to find out you have periods and whatnot, because they don't have any.
Yeah, and they've never had the experience of being a woman prior to transitioning.
Or the fear of pregnancy, when you don't want to be pregnant.
Yeah.
And to be honest with you, that's quite a strong argument.
Yeah.
How do you refute that?
Well, the TERFs are right on all of this.
They're not going to lose it, factually.
They're just going to lose it politically.
Yeah, absolutely.
They're not going to lose it ideologically because they've already lost it ideologically because literally the foundations of the argument just changed.
And so the TERFs are sat there going, so no one's listening to us.
And they're like, yeah, we hate you.
Death to TERFs.
Even though you're right.
Eric says, if transracialism is rising, that's great.
Black people can just identify as white people and then they can benefit from white privilege too.
I see this as an absolute win.
But they don't want to!
Why don't they want to?
Why does that MP don't want to take her white privilege by their reins?
Look, you know, as white people who can't identify white privilege, maybe you can come into the white race and show us where the white privilege is.
Are we white, though?
Technically.
My last name's Irish, and you've got a grandfather who's not white, so...
Well, I mean...
Under US law, I'm probably not white anyway.
No, yeah, in America, I would be legally black, wouldn't I? Wait, so I could go to that conference?
Licensed as a black man in America.
I've got my black license.
LAUGHTER Get a t-shirt, blacker than Sean King.
Which I am.
But yeah, no, we're all screwed.
Omar says, the amount of double-think involved in holding onto the leftist narrative, it's a wonder that anyone can take them seriously.
Even if you don't have all the facts, it should be at least self-evident that they are untrustworthy when the narrative flips and contradicts itself.
What do you think are the biggest factors for lies being perpetuated or maintaining cognitive dissonance?
I think a lot of it is people refusing to just engage with the contradiction.
Because essentially it's just the Pironian sceptic view of it.
It's like, look, if it's not self-evident, I don't accept it.
Goodbye.
And just walk off.
And it's like, okay, but then that allows them to carry on doing whatever they're doing without any challenge.
So essentially we have to kind of force people to start addressing the issue.
You know, as in, okay, so if that person's transgender, why isn't that person transracial?
And what's their short circuit?
Because the Conservatives have already done this as well.
You remember when 9-11, the war on terrorism started growing up and then Islamism started growing up even more.
The Conservatives in the UK took the position of just not engage with it.
And as Sam Harris points out, look, if you're in an ideological war in which you've got to defeat Islamism, not fighting the battle isn't going to win.
No, it just allows them to continue taking territory.
Yeah, and the UK paid the price dearly for that mess.
Eric says, Accelerationism will likely be our best way out of the clown decade.
If things get bat-esque crazy enough, then maybe, just maybe, normal people will push back.
Transracialism will be a good canary in the clown mine.
Well, I mean, what else?
Let the intersectionals go as far as they can go.
Just let them go.
Just keep your own children protected from them, and let them destroy themselves.
Hello.
She's not a clown.
She's a whole circus.
For any of them.
Luke has come to your position on this.
We're going to need a term like turf that we can throw at the race grifters, just like the LGBT, etc.
Lobby to do the old school feminists, yes.
Alexander says, ask Plebitt about transracialism.
Apparently race doesn't belong in LGBT because race isn't a sexuality.
But neither is trans.
So what happens from here?
And why is there a brown stripe on the trans pride flag?
Did you see the Deliveroo thing, in which they've added alphabet soup?
They're selling alphabet soup now.
Well, just the letters, LGBT. It's L-G-B-T-Q-Q-I-A-A-P. You tell me what the P stands for.
I can guess what the P stands for.
But with all of them, the A, for example, is apparently meant to stand for ally, so that's also not a sexuality.
Yeah.
And the I is meant to stand for intersex, which is also not a sexuality.
Yeah.
So, yeah, I mean, okay, but I mean, I agree that race doesn't belong in because it's not sexuality, but then you really are slicing off large sections of the LGBT acronym.
But anyway, yeah.
Chase says, if race, sexuality, and gender are based off something biological, the natural state to this is born race, gender, the matter of sex, being straight.
Anything that isn't, this is a form of dysphoria.
Homosexuality is sexual dysphoria and is just naturally occurring.
As gender and race dysphoria.
The other option is that all three are a choice and not based on genetics and you can be whichever you want.
This is the intersectional position by the way.
It's pretty much the trans ideology going against what the LGB people have been claiming for years.
Yes.
And I've seen the arguments taking place where you've got older gay people saying, listen, listen, the reason they stopped oppressing us is because we said we didn't have a choice.
And if you're like, yeah, but I do have a choice, then just choose not to be and shut up, you know?
But why not?
Why can't the conservatives just say, well, just choose not to be?
Well, I'm choosing to be gay.
Okay, well, I'm choosing to oppress you.
Well, that's not fair.
I haven't got a choice.
Yes, you do.
You just told me you had a choice.
The whole point of liberation is it's your genetics.
It's unfair to criminalize your genetics.
Absolutely.
And so, yeah, exactly.
So it completely undermines the very argument that was made to not oppress them in the first place.
That's a stupid thing to do.
Anyway, Marcus says, I did one of those 23andMe tests and discovered I'm 5% Nigerian and 95% Scottish, so you are also blacker than Sean King.
I had a great few weeks running around accusing everyone of being racist against me.
My friends eventually had to sit me down and say, Marcus, stop asking people if it's because you're black, you're going to get in trouble.
Have you tried using your pass?
Yeah.
Brad says, if being black is such a hardship and blacks are victimized so much, then why are there so many white people, a.k.a.
Sean King, Talcum X, trying to disguise themselves as black?
Well, that's a good question.
Yeah, and why is the clearly white lady claiming she's black?
Yes.
Core Wizard says, I'm still struggling to sleep thinking about the insane riot on January the 6th.
To think AOC was practically lynched by her security guy two blocks away.
Scary insurrectional times.
Yeah, I love that.
Not even in the same building.
Oh, I was in danger.
Come on.
George says, what blows my mind about that gay propaganda song is that nobody thought it would be bad optics.
Yes, that's the thing.
They're in San Francisco.
And it's like, yeah, well, we are, of course, in favor of converting gay children.
Let's go and brag about that to the straights, the conservatives.
They made that play.
Yeah, they made that play.
Exactly.
It's like, okay, look, just saying, if you want people to be in favor of gay conversion therapy, play them that video.
Just play them that video.
We're going to convert you, but you can't convert us.
And it's like, well, why would we agree to that standard?
One of the interesting advantages I think the right has is the fact that they're acutely aware of what the left thinks about them, if through no other means than from their interactions with social media, because their standards are all leftists.
In which case, they get that advantage, whereas leftists have no interaction with what the right thinks of them, and therefore will just come out with...
Well, they did end up taking the video down off their YouTube channel, because everyone was like, this is awful.
And they were like, hmm...
That's right, we did make a play glorifying boys being raped, and now we're saying we're coming for your children.
That might look bad, mightn't it?
Is it me or the audience?
Yeah, it is the audience that is wrong.
M1ping says, the US Capitol Police are apparently opening offices across the country.
Yeah, I heard about this.
Only a government agency could have an incident where they shoot an unarmed woman in the neck and not only face no consequences, but expand their authority.
Yeah, and it looks like the...
The powers that be behind the throne that are controlling the capital are, as you say, branching out and infiltrating, infesting, I don't know, other areas of the United States that should be autonomous from them.
What can you do?
Two number nine says, cost of capital rights, $1.5 million, which is probably inflated.
Cost of BLM rights, $2-3 billion.
Capital rights still come up in search results when searching for BLM rights.
Brian said, I was told it took F-15s and nukes to overthrow the government, not a bunch of unarmed boomers.
That's a good point.
Cindy says, some of the people arrested for Jan 6th are being kept in solitary confinement with no bail and no court dates.
The US currently literally has political prisoners.
Yeah, I haven't looked into it, but I heard that, and that's awful.
It's true.
Zeus points out, though, the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the existence of Lego Technics.
Good point.
I love the idea that every big criminal from now on, before they go and commit the big crime, they should reconstruct everything in Lego.
Just to throw them off and just to make a lifelong meme that will just keep coming up.
It's like this guy who stole a million dollars from the bank.
He had a Lego version of the bank.
I don't think you get Lego going, how are we implicated in this?
Lego's going to have to stop doing anything that looks like a real world thing.
Alexander the Swede says, Oi mate, you got your Lego building license?
I said, have you got an effing permit?
Well, I got a permit for me license.
Is that...
Anyone who buys a copy of the Capital Lego set buys on our watch list.
Yeah, absolutely!
Like, how is that not the case?
Edward says, So earning Lego sets is admissible in court now.
Malud, we did not find any weapons, but we did find a Lego Star Wars Death Star set, which we confirmed was fully constructed and have therefore determined it was his intent to blow up Alderaan.
Luca says, My 12-year-old sister came out as bi this week because of the woke stuff at school being forced on the class.
We had to explain to her what it actually meant and she realised she wasn't.
My daughter's in exactly the same position.
She apparently has a girlfriend.
Is that okay?
Doesn't talk to her.
It's just been indoctrinated by leftist crap at school.
That's what it is.
Weird.
It's sufferable.
T.F. Hallspark says, Sure is a lot of gay in today's videos.
Have been the last two months, honestly.
I wonder what has poked this damn hornet's nest.
It's not gay.
It's queers.
Yeah, it's just queers.
Queers all the way down.
Big people are getting on with their lives.
Yeah.
Matthew says, More and more parents in the US are entertaining homeschooling their children to control what they're learning, and that's wise.
What is the state of homeschooling in the UK? Is it even an option to prevent groups from indoctrinating the youth?
I believe we can do it.
I've never looked into it, to be honest.
Dan says, Yeah, you should write to your representatives.
They're just people.
And they're actually quite sensitive to these things as well.
I assume it's because nobody ever writes to them.
Because everyone's like, well, they're not going to listen.
The only person I've had bad experiences with is writing to Labour MPs who either don't respond.
I remember with the lady in Canterbury, you know, I phone called her multiple times, sent her multiple letters, physical and electronic, and just didn't want to talk.
Yeah.
That's because it was an issue that she knew was just a landmine for someone in Labour, which was countenacular.
Yeah, it was absolutely...
Alexander again says, Yeah, that's the thing, isn't it?
It looks like a Babylon Bee caricature video or something like that.
You know, something like, aha, this will really show them.
And it's like, what, a bunch of nonsense have got together and made a video called We're Coming For Your Kids?
Well, I can't imagine...
Imagine being someone who was gay in the 80s and 90s or whatever, and, you know, without marching and being like...
I just don't want to be persecuted.
Yeah, I'm not a pedo.
And then you're relaxed, 20-20, I've got the freedom, and then you turn on your computer.
You and your husband turn on the computer and then suddenly...
You just look at each other like, what are they doing?
Well, that's why I think there really has to be some kind of organised pushback from what I guess we'll just call conservative gays.
I mean, like, non-leftist gays.
No one chooses to be a conservative, everyone's made one.
Yeah, well, that's what happened to me!
But they've got to start pushing back and saying, look, not in our name is what you've got to do.
Because when they're coming out, a bunch of noncers come out and be like, we're coming for your kids.
You've got to be like, not in my name!
You've got to!
Yeah, we're part of the gay community.
No, you're not!
You're part of the wood chipper.
Exactly, and that's what they did.
You know, they spent decades trying to get Nandler out of their circles.
Anyway, Small L Libertarian says, just going to float out there, is there any kind of website that can compare that choir mugshot to a collage to a sex offender registry?
I am not surprised that that's a request.
A request, yeah.
Spudgeon says, on the quiz coming for our children, the sad truth is that when leftists weaponize gays, we then have to disarm the leftists, meaning the entire group catches the hammer when it falls.
And it will fall.
That's the scary part.
The same people go to the defense of their children.
Justifiable, but scary.
And that's...
Really?
Really?
So one of them...
Get this on screen.
So this is one of the people...
Lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age from one of them.
Presuming that's a correct match, of course.
I mean, it does look like the guy.
A lot like the guy.
Bunch of San Francisco nonces.
Want to speak on behalf of the gay community.
Gay community, how do you feel about that?
I wouldn't accept them as my spokespeople, especially when what they're doing, as Spadroon here says, is pointing out that the entire group is going to catch the hammer when it falls, because at the end of the day, I can't imagine for a second that any American Republican is going to accept you coming for their children.
You're going to guarantee that they're going to be like, nope, I know what the agenda is.
They're just telling us the agenda.
I can see the intent in their desire and their demands for rights and equal treatment and all this, and we know that they're going to try and slip all of this in in the back door, under the carpet, whatever it is, and they're going to be like, nope, just ban it all.
Ban it all, return to the Handmaid's Tale-style Christianity or something.
And it's like, it's not what I want, but that's what you're going to get because of what they're doing.
And on that bombshell, it's time to end the show.
So, we'll be back.
What is it?
Thursday?
Yeah, we'll be back tomorrow, 1 o'clock.
Yes, we will.
If you want more from us, go to lotuses.com.
Plenty of content on there.
Loads are a premium.
That's how we keep the show running.
Please do sign up if you haven't already.
Otherwise, thank you for tuning in.
We'll be back tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection