Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 23, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:29

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #182

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Editors for the 23rd of July 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about the turf insurgency that's taking place in the UK. Also the Biden's nonsense speech.
	Not nonsense there, but just nonsense.
	But there are some nonsense.
	The German nonsense in the German pedo experiment.
	Yes.
	The state-sanctioned nonce experiment that went on for decades.
	Every bad idea comes from the continent as well.
	Yes.
	Anyway, first thing to mention is the new article Hugo has up on the website, lotuses.com, about taking over vacant houses.
	Now, this is kind of a messed up story, which is that the government decided they would buy a bunch of houses to build a freeway, and then cancelled the freeway, and it's been years since they cancelled the freeway.
	So, what do they do with the houses?
	Well, they just left them.
	So, a bunch of homeless people were like, well, we're going to live in the house then.
	So, they have to hire armed guards to guard the empty houses from the homeless people?
	This sounds like a tremendously good use of your taxpayer money.
	Yeah, but it's just that every single step of the way, like, the state is the thing to blame in all of this.
	It's just like, you guys are goddamn awful.
	So, go give that a read.
	That's free.
	Also, the book club.
	Just want to talk about this.
	Yeah, we had to delay a book club that was going to be recorded this week, which was going to be Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier, just because, honestly, we've been...
	It's a bit busy and strapped for time, but that'll be recorded next week.
	And interestingly, Zeev Sternhell's Neither Left Nor Right, his analysis of fascism, is actually going to be relevant to the German pedo experiment, believe it or not.
	If you can believe it, the Germans are like fascism, fascism, fascism, therefore pedophilia.
	I'm not even joking.
	So it's good to check out that book club because it gives you a really good understanding of the origins of fascism, how they're not in any way connected to protecting the sanctity of children.
	I know you might be thinking, why does he have to say that?
	But I'm actually going to explain why I have to say that.
	So this was the latest book club that we did, and I'm very, very proud of it, and we've got another one coming next week.
	And I think this is some of our best content.
	Do I mention the In Protection of Free Speech?
	Oh yeah, of course.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Sorry, yeah.
	We're going to be recording a sort of like free book club about Lawrence Fox's legal analysis of what the British government can do to protect free speech in the UK after the podcast.
	So that'll be up next week as well.
	But that won't be premium.
	That'll be free.
	But if you want to see our other premium stuff, you can check that out.
	Yeah, that's good news.
	It's going to tie in with that.
	Yeah.
	I'm reminded of you talking about this.
	There was a lady I met in UKIP who shall remain nameless.
	She said something really funny once, which is, you know, UKIP got accused of racism.
	There's not a racist bone in my body, but the goddamn Germans.
	I feel like that's going to come very true.
	Well, she would definitely agree with the view on it after we've finished today's podcast.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, let's get into the Turf Insurgency.
	I'm calling it that because it really does look like some kind of insurgency, and it's really funny.
	So I thought we'd just go through and have some fun with this.
	So the Free Speech Union, I'm a member of.
	They send me a weekly update of a whole bunch of things.
	And this was a huge section of their weekly newsletter because of all the developments.
	So let's go through this.
	So the first thing here is a bit of...
	Housekeeping to get into the story, which is Lib Dem trans activist hounded abuse victim.
	So a Lib Dem trans activist, you can see on the left there in that image, that's the trans activist for the Lib Dems, is accused of harassing and abusing a member of the Lib Dems who dared to say that women are women.
	How dare she?
	Yeah.
	So a victim of domestic abuse was removed as a judge of a radical thinking prize and hounded out of her role within the Liberal Democrats for saying that she did not believe that men who identify as women should have the rights to access women's refuges.
	I mean, makes sense.
	She's someone who has dealt with that sort of thing, therefore she has an interest in the refuges and wants to keep them female only because of the sensitive situation.
	And she probably has a philosophical belief that there is a biological component to the gender role of a woman.
	Not in the Lib Dems, you don't.
	So, Miss Bird was brought before a disciplinary hearing to face a complaint in the name of Zoe O'Connell on behalf of the LGBT plus Liberal Democrats.
	The correspondent says that Miss Bird had, quote, expressed troublesome views.
	I can see that she's being accused there of, quote, dangerous transphobia.
	For saying that women are women and men are men and therefore even if you say you're a woman you shouldn't be allowed in the women's refuge for abuse victims.
	Jesus Christ.
	So the hearing found no evidence to support the complaint of transphobia.
	Great.
	But Miss Bird lost her position as chairwoman of the Radical Association made up of party members following a vote of no confidence.
	So she lost her position within the party and also, as mentioned earlier, she lost her position as a judge on a prize award.
	The cost was her role as a judge at the Ashton Prize for Radical Thought.
	An ironic move, considering that Miss Bird had said that the prize aim was to reward, quote, big, bold, radical solutions for society's most daunting problems no one has the courage to argue for.
	And it turns out the radical solution here is a return to tradition.
	That's the radical.
	The radical part is believing that there's a biological component to human genders.
	As Liz Truss put it, the radical position of women have vaginas.
	Yes.
	So she says the allegations of transphobia were a smear by Miss O'Connell.
	Oh, never.
	No way!
	No way!
	Who was born male, but now identifies as female.
	If we can go back to the top of this article for the image, because it's relevant.
	So, Miss O'Connell is in a three-way relationship with Sarah Brown, a non-member of the Liberal Democrats' LGBT plus executive, and Miss Brown's wife.
	So, on the left there, you have the trans activist, who is alleged to have been the one who made the complaint, because their name is Zoe O'Connell, and then the two people she's in a three-way relationship with.
	I mean, I just happened to notice they all look related.
	Sure.
	Weird thing to notice, but there we go.
	So they asked Miss O'Connell, the one on the left there, the trans activist, about whether or not it was her that made the complaint, because the name on the complaint form was Joey O'Connell, which is their name, denied all knowledge of the case and that she was the complainant.
	When asked if there was another Joey O'Connell within the party, she did not respond.
	Yeah, because it's definitely her.
	Who is upset that this person has said that women are women and therefore have to be kicked out of the party.
	A Lib Dem spokesman said that it encouraged a wide range of debate within the party and was proud that we can have sensible debates with a wide range of views.
	Because you just hounded one of your own people out.
	And this isn't new either.
	But the development on this...
	Well, just before we move on, I just find this amazing.
	Miss O'Connell is in a three-way relationship with Sarah Brown and another member of the Liberal Democrats LGBT plus executive and Miss Brown's wife.
	So, just, I mean, that just strikes me as unorthodox.
	Highly unorthodox.
	To be kind about it.
	The development on this, which is really interesting, is that the lady who was hounded out is suing the Lib Dems for unfair discrimination because of her views.
	Because it seems to be that she's been unfairly discriminated against.
	So we're going to the next link.
	This is the crowdfunder she has going on for all that.
	And the argument in here is really interesting.
	Because you remember there was that lady who lost her job because she said women are women, and then one in the employment tribunal that it was her right to hold that opinion.
	Thank God.
	That is a protected opinion under the Equality Act, while in which case, in this case as well, the lady who has been kicked out of the Lib Dems were kicked out for a protected opinion.
	Wow.
	Because your opinions apparently are as sacrosanct as your race under the Equality Act.
	Because the Equality Act is a coherent piece of legislation passed by the Labour Party, Tony Blair.
	I am actually going to start making a chart of the opinions that I hold that are protected by law.
	Yeah.
	I honestly think we might need to do that.
	It's such a mess.
	The entire thing he's repealing, whatever.
	Yeah, I mean, I can have legal opinions.
	I have a list of them.
	Women are women is one of them.
	So the case she writes in here, in late 2018, Natalie wore a t-shirt saying, woman, adult, human, female, to a live-dead meeting.
	A Posey Parker fan.
	She dared to buy some of the merch.
	Good on you.
	So she says, there followed an investigation and in November 2019, Natalie was barred from holding or standing for election to any party office for 10 years.
	For wearing a shirt.
	She was banned from the party for ten years.
	With the dictionary definition of woman, which is a protected philosophical belief.
	Ten years.
	Not like a few months or the next election.
	Ten years.
	I mean, isn't that like what you used to get in the Soviet Union for a penal colony if you transgress against the Soviets?
	Probably.
	Like, I'm pretty sure in, what is it, Gulag Archipelago, like, the guy writing it mentions that there's the tenner, and you can get a tenner for violating this section, which just means offending Soviet...
	And apparently the Liberal Democrats have brought that back.
	Yeah.
	She was also banned from holding or seeking to be elected to any public office on behalf of the party for a period of ten years, as well as that earlier punishment.
	What was the reason, though?
	Because she had disseminated transphobic material over a prolonged time.
	That was the reason given.
	And allegedly speaking to a journalist.
	Because she wore the shirt.
	That's the transphobic material.
	Because remember, the statement she made before were not transphobic, according to the party.
	So it was the shirt.
	The Posey Parker merch.
	Yeah.
	Is what got her banned from the Lib Dems for ten years.
	Very inclusive.
	Okay, well, you know.
	So Natalie seeks to instruct lawyers to explore whether there has been breaches of internal procedures of the Liberal Democrats and whether there have been breaches of the Equality Act 2010 against her and potentially other women in the party.
	Because her opinion is sacrosanct.
	Her opinion that women are women is protected by the Equality Act, because the Equality Act is a coherent piece of legislation that protects, what was it, intrinsic characteristics?
	What was the wording?
	No, because it's more privileged than that.
	Immutable characteristics, which include your race, your sex, your gender identity, and then it comes to your religion, faith, lack of faith, or belief.
	It's like, right, what does belief mean?
	Yeah, well, this is actually one thing that Lawrence Fox's report addresses, is the question of philosophical belief and whether...
	And it has to be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
	Yeah, we'll talk about that when we record the thing later.
	You'll be able to see it next week.
	It is unbelievable trash.
	Yeah, I thought we'd just enjoy it again as well, in case people don't know the Lib Dems, the former leader, Joe Swinson, trying to name what a woman was, because this is probably the best moment in all of British politics for the last 10 years.
	So let's just play this clip to enjoy it again.
	Jo, my question for you.
	It's really great that your party promotes women's rights.
	So please can you tell me what a woman is?
	Well, I know I'm a woman and I think we know what we are and I think all women are important and their rights need to be protected.
	Whether they are cis or trans, whether they have a disability, we are all important in all of those different ways.
	So how can you tell what a woman is?
	Well, I mean, I'm just sort of trying to understand, you know, what you're getting at.
	What if a man wears a dress twice a week to see a woman?
	Not necessarily.
	But could he be?
	Well, I think people can understand their own identity and I think it's right to respect people in terms of their gender identity and that's for them to say.
	If you dress as a woman twice a week to go to work, whose gender pay gap do you count as a woman for the gender pay or a man?
	Well, clearly, in terms of the pay gap, members of staff will identify their gender in, you know, company records to HR, typically.
	But under self-ID, what's to stop a male sex offender walking into the changing rooms and say, do you know what, today I identify as a woman.
	Should we be kind and let him?
	So, I mean, in a sense, you know, I've gone into gym changing rooms, right, and I've never been asked for a certificate.
	It's because you're a woman.
	She goes on to rattle on, but it's politician answer after that.
	It's just amazing.
	A party leader doesn't even know what a woman is, can't define it, and knows that they're in a trap, and gets to the point where they're saying, well, even if you're just a transsexual, not a transgender person, but someone who dresses as a woman twice a week, maybe you're a woman?
	Maybe that's all it takes?
	Why not once a week?
	Why not just once a year?
	Why do you even need to dress as a woman?
	Why can't I just say it?
	There's literally no barrier to prevent that.
	I love that, like, how do we do the pay gap now?
	Yeah, okay.
	That's the thing.
	Like, all feminist ideology rots if you can't define what a woman is.
	Yes.
	So, that's the thing here.
	I just wanted to mention another development as well, which is J.K. Rowling getting pipe bomb threats for saying that women are women.
	Yep.
	The normal things.
	This is why I say it's a bit of an insurgency.
	Like, they really are under attack for this constantly, and also, they're winning, nicely enough.
	So, I think they are fundamentally winning.
	They're winning the battle in the long term, let's say.
	Okay, let's hope so.
	So, it says in here, Rowling, who has kept quiet about her views since last year, shared a message from a Twitter user called Sam, whose profile description describes them as gender-fluid lesbian and a cyber-Marxist.
	Oh, imagine my shock!
	I can't believe someone who seems to be deeply confused about their own identity would also be a communist and is sending threats to J.K. Rowling.
	She wrote a message to J.K. Rowling saying, I wish you a very nice pipe bomb in the mailbox.
	Hmm.
	Totally sane person.
	Rowling remarked, to be fair, when you can't get a woman sacked, arrested, or dropped by her publisher, and cancelling her only made her book sales go up, there really is only one place to go.
	Death.
	Very good response from Rowling, actually.
	The Islamic solution to criticism.
	So she also continued later on talking about this, saying, yes, but now that hundreds of trans activists have threatened to beat, rape, assassinate, and bomb me, I've realised that the movement poses no threat to women or welfare.
	Okay, well done, Rowling.
	Top quality bank.
	But this is what's happening in England, what's happening in the progressive rump state to the north, Scotland, being run by the National Socialists.
	Yeah, of course, there's even more nonsense up there.
	So this is the lady who's being charged with a hate crime.
	So she's had a delay on her court case.
	People were expecting it to be sooner.
	So the Scottish feminist campaigner is being defended by SNP MP after being charged with a hate crime under the 2003 Communications Act.
	I wonder what section that is.
	But it's also ironic she's being defended by the SNP, the people who passed hate crime laws.
	I just can't believe that I'm not cheering for feminists being criminalised by legislation they used to support.
	What a world.
	Anyway, so if you're wondering what this was, we have reported on this before, but I can't get over it if we go to the next link.
	She posted this image, this is her tweet, in which she just posted a suffragette I love the fact that it's got to be blurred out.
	The reason it's blurred out is because the police allege that this was a noose.
	I mean, oh god.
	And therefore she's threatening trans people with being lynched because she's got a suffragette ribbon.
	That's just such obvious bull.
	It's so stupid.
	It's ridiculous.
	Spotted at River City Studios Dumbarton because women won't weesh, which means be quiet.
	A suffragette ribbon.
	That's a noose.
	And this now is being, ah yes, that you want to hang the transgenders.
	What?
	No one else was thinking that but you, buddy.
	Yeah, exactly.
	If anything, I would have gone with that as in you want them to vote, which would obviously be normal.
	Anyway.
	Never mind.
	So if convicted, this 50-year-old accountant faces two years in jail, which is harsh.
	Just what?
	That's harsher than what you get in Kuwait for blasphemy, for reference.
	So the blasphemy laws against the politically correct orthodox of the UK are worse than the blasphemy laws for Islamic countries.
	That's ridiculous.
	Amazing, isn't it?
	So there was a show of support for her, which is the other development on this.
	A bunch of TERFs went up and supported her because the court case was meant to be done and has been delayed.
	I mean, look at this.
	Northern Radfem Network.
	Not normally my usual allies, the people I feel like I have to support.
	Look, fellow comrades.
	Yeah, but unfortunately, at this point, I have to.
	Yeah, it's amazing.
	So, hundreds of feminists gathered in Glasgow Green to support the businesswoman for being accused of transphobic posts because she posted an image of a suffragette ribbon.
	It's amazing.
	Just ridiculous.
	I also wanted to mention Posey Parker went up there.
	If we can get the next link, this is just her live stream she did up there.
	So, I mean, good on Posey for that.
	Yeah.
	And some good news for us and everyone in the freedom movement against leftists, that includes the TERFs these days, which is that the Section 127 has some news.
	So the Free Speech Union put out a press release today in which they said, the Free Speech Union welcomes the Law Commission's proposal to scrap Section 127.1 of the Communications Act 2003, but has reservations about criminalizing communication, quote, likely to cause psychological harm.
	This provision spawned trivial prosecution after trivial prosecution, including that of Count Dankula, the Nazi pug case.
	It also had a chilling effect on online speech and made a mockery of the principle that online and offline speech should be similarly treated.
	Absolutely correct from them.
	And the reason I'm giving them very good props, and I'm very, very happy with them, and all glory to the Free Speech Union, Allahu Akbar, is that they really did a good thing here.
	If we go to the next link, so I don't know if you can get down to page 234 on here, but the...
	The Law Commission put out a consultation and the Free Speech Union lobbied on behalf of the freedom-loving people of the UK that this is ridiculous.
	Everyone who signed the petition, thank you for that, because I wonder if this was mentioned.
	And the Law Commission, the people who advise the government, are just like, yeah, get rid of this.
	This is crap.
	This is obvious nonsense.
	So they've arrived at the Sargon position as well.
	Good.
	Yeah, criminalising gross offence is not a liberal or normal thing to do, or even possible.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	So they say in here that they want to replace it, and that's where the concern comes from.
	And you can make your own assessment of the difference here.
	But my view is that the difference here is very substantial indeed.
	So they say, So you have to have the intent there to a likely audience.
	And three, the defendant sent or posted the communication without a reasonable excuse.
	So you could argue a political view being a reasonable excuse.
	This is relatively strict, actually, because under these rules, Dank wouldn't have been caught for the pug thing.
	No.
	Because there wasn't, like, harm intended to a likely audience.
	It gets better as well, because you might think harm, leftists are going to abuse that to high heaven, and yeah, they will try, but the strictness they have in here is very interesting.
	Point four, for the purposes of this offence, C, harm is psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress, which is a much higher standard than I was offended.
	It sounds a lot more like it's to prevent orchestrated campaigns of online bullying.
	Worse than that.
	I'll mention that in a minute.
	So point six on here.
	When deciding whether the defendant had a reasonable excuse for sending or posting the communication, the court must have regard for whether the communication was or was meant as a contribution to a matter of public interest.
	So you could argue that it's a political point, therefore it's valid.
	And they also defined likely as real or substantial risk.
	So very strict standards.
	And you might think, okay, I still have some concerns, and the Free Speech Union still has concerns here, and I think they're right to because it could be abused.
	The law commission, the example I've seen them give in conversations about this is there was a case in which a mother, I believe her son died, either in a car accident or someone murdered her or something.
	And people, these little troglodytes, set up social media accounts of the dead son, like with his face and his name and Oh, that's awful.
	And then sent her messages constantly with multiple accounts being like, oh, I'm still alive or I'm in hell and I'm still burning.
	Why the hell would they do that?
	Yeah, so she could argue that caused me serious psychological harm.
	I'm trying to grieve for my dead son.
	And these people are making me feel goddamn awful about it.
	Yeah, that is a horrible thing to do.
	That's the standard they give as an example and that's why the definitions are strict here but still have the leeway of if you cause serious psychological harm that could be criminal is what they want.
	Good job, Free Speech Union.
	And that means that people won't be going to court for suffragette ribbons, or Nazi pugs, or saying that...
	Not until I'm in charge, then they'll definitely go to court for those suffragette ribbons, but not because they're nooses.
	Or jokes about their plane being late, or saying that Islam is satanic, or so on and so forth, saying that British soldiers should die and go to hell, as one British Muslim did, and then was given community service, because he had that opinion.
	Shouldn't have gone to any kind of court over that.
	Fantastic news.
	I'm really happy about that.
	Everyone who signed the petition should feel happy about that as well.
	Good job.
	Big white pill.
	Big white pill.
	Let's see it get implemented.
	Anyway, let's go on to Biden's nonsense speech.
	So Biden had a town hall situation.
	I don't know how often these things are.
	Yeah, it wasn't very well attended.
	Yeah.
	Famously.
	It wasn't good.
	It was quite bad.
	And we're going to go through some of the clips that came out of this.
	First one, him breaking his own rules by spreading misinformation and therefore should be banned from all social medias, I suppose.
	And that's how that's got to work.
	I believe so.
	Because, I mean, again...
	Jen Psaki advocates for the deplatforming of the president.
	You might say, well, he didn't do it on his social media.
	It's not the first time.
	Trump didn't say anything on social media that got him banned from everything.
	It was his speech outside of the Capitol that got that, apparently.
	Where he said, peacefully protest.
	Peacefully and patriotically.
	Biden didn't do that.
	He wasn't not breaking the rules.
	He did break the rules here by saying that if you get the vaccination, you're not going to get COVID. So let's play the first clip.
	The various shots that people are getting now cover that.
	You're okay.
	You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.
	Not true.
	That's a ban.
	That's what that is.
	If anyone else posted that, you would get banned for misinformation.
	If Trump had said that, there would be fact checkers under every single post about this.
	Did you know the information about COVID-19?
	Click here.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Didn't you know Trump is a liar?
	Yeah.
	Biden, nothing.
	Complete pass on the whole thing.
	So it's also obviously not true.
	We can just look at Gibraltar's cases if you're interested in that.
	99% of Gibraltar is vaccinated and yet they've had a small rise in cases there because that's the point.
	It's meant to mean that you don't die.
	If you can change that there, I don't know if you can, from new cases to deaths real quick.
	You can also see the number of deaths being zero because that's the advantage that's being proposed.
	No one dies.
	That's the point.
	But didn't say that, did he?
	So, there's also people who you might not expect calling this out, which I'm happy about.
	So, Ian Dale, for example.
	I actually have a soft spot for Ian Dale.
	I know some people don't like him, but I think he's...
	I think he's alright.
	I think he's honest.
	Yeah.
	From what I've seen.
	So, he's an interesting guy.
	He says, yeah, imagine the abuse that would have been dumped on Trump or Bush if they had said this.
	Yeah, Biden gets a free pass again.
	True.
	Absolutely true.
	But then there's also the other nonsense Biden has had to come up with.
	So, apparently, if you print trillions of dollars, that lowers inflation.
	Yeah.
	What?
	Yeah, so let's play the next clip and him trying to argue that.
	You seem pretty confident that inflation is temporary, but if you're pumping all of this money into the economy, couldn't that add to...
	No, look, here's the deal.
	Moody's today, when our Wall Street firm, not some liberal think tank, said if we pass the other two things I'm trying to get done, we will in fact reduce inflation.
	Reduce inflation.
	Reduce inflation.
	Because we're going to be providing good opportunities and jobs for people who, in fact, are going to be reinvesting that money back in all the things we're talking about.
	Driving down prices, not raising prices.
	And so I sincerely mean this.
	Prices are up now and they're up.
	For example, you're in a position where you're trying to build a house, try to find two by fours and lumber.
	Well, guess what?
	People stop working.
	Cutting lumber.
	They stopped doing it because their unemployment was so down.
	Now, all of a sudden, there's this need because people are coming back.
	And guess what?
	Instead of paying 10 cents, you're paying 20.
	You understand what I'm saying?
	It relates to what, in fact, is now needed because we're growing.
	No, that's not how inflation works.
	Well, I don't understand economics either, President Biden.
	I mean, what the hell was that?
	Like, he wants to pass multiple bills, which will spend trillions of dollars, now he's going to get that money, more taxes, now he's just going to print it, and therefore that will lower inflation.
	People aren't working because of the government.
	Yeah, we know.
	And his example for why the inflation is bull is because two-by-fours, people have stopped cutting, and therefore there's a shortage of them for a small period, and then it will go down.
	Right?
	Price of goods can fluctuate because of supply and demand.
	That doesn't affect the supply of money.
	Supply of money comes from one place, the government printing it.
	And if you print trillions of dollars through passing bills and then paying for it by just printing the money...
	And then just give it to people for no reason.
	That's what increases inflation.
	You wouldn't say when the 2x4s, like if a bunch of guys decide to make more 2x4s, then therefore there's more goods in the system, therefore we're experiencing deflation.
	No, it's just getting cheaper.
	It's getting more efficient or whatever.
	Jesus Christ.
	So the BBC has some cope on this, weirdly.
	So if we can scroll down to the first graph on this article, you can see 11th of May they published this.
	You can see there, this is the time they published it.
	They were like, oh, Biden's inflation is only 2.6%.
	What's the problem?
	Trump header was about here a couple of times as well.
	And they put in those little graphs to show Obama, Trump, and Biden.
	Just to make sure you had the context.
	And then they waited a day.
	And then the news figures came out, which were not so rosy.
	So let's go to the next BBC article.
	There should be another BBC article in there.
	If you can get the next one up.
	Sorry.
	New link in there.
	So they decided the next day to publish the new link.
	And the new graph, they decide to scrub away the Obama, Trump, and Biden bit.
	Because the context suddenly isn't important.
	The context suddenly makes Biden look bad.
	Yeah, so if we scroll down, this is the new one that you can see there.
	Oh, look at that!
	Died lines, all gone.
	Because it's suddenly 4.2% of the new statistics, and that doesn't make Biden look good.
	In fact, it makes Trump look good.
	And therefore, gotta go!
	What do you mean?
	What's a president?
	Never heard of it.
	If you scroll up as well, just to make the date perfectly clear again, like this is the day after, so right at the top, you can, yeah, see 12th of May.
	Yeah, ain't that funny.
	But it's not in the 10% yet, like the 70s, but you can always get there if you spend more trillions of dollars, which will totally cause deflation.
	Anyway, so there's also a clip in which he says he wants corporations to pay their fair share, and he gives the example of Delaware being a place that proves this.
	Let's play this clip.
	Can you ever think of a time, those of you who are economists, who teach here economics, can you think of any time when the middle class did better, the wealthy didn't do really well?
	I'm not being facetious now.
	I'm being deadly earnest.
	Can you think of any time that's occurred when the middle class does better?
	I'm tired of trickle-down.
	I come from the corporate state of America.
	And by the way, I think you should be able to rather make a billion dollars or a hundred million dollars if you have the capacity to do it.
	But ask one thing.
	Pay your fair share.
	Just pay your fair share.
	I really mean it.
	If you know anything about me, check me out.
	We have more corporations registered in Delaware than all the rest of America combined.
	Combined.
	Combined.
	I represented for 36 years.
	I've never seen a time.
	When we have the middle class growing, that the wealthy didn't do very, very, very well.
	So that's what we have to do, build it out and up, not just down.
	It's an interesting claim.
	I think that's baffling.
	Okay, I want the middle class to do well, then don't debase their money.
	Like, you need to pay the taxes because this makes the middle class do well.
	Funny.
	But this government inflation is literally just theft from the poor and middle classes.
	The only people who are really not very affected by massive amounts of inflation are people who already have millions of dollars.
	Oh no, my lumber costs and my fuel costs have tripled.
	I don't care, I live in a bloody mansion.
	What difference does this make to me?
	Oh no, I've got to pay three times as much for a Big Mac.
	Not my problem, I'll still take a thousand.
	But his example of proving this point, that you just need to make them pay their fair share, is that his state of Delaware is somewhere where there are loads of corporations registered.
	Why is that?
	Because it's a tax haven.
	Oh, well there we go.
	We go to the next link.
	I didn't know anything about this, but apparently it really, really is.
	So Investopedia, with an article here, why Delaware is considered a tax shelter.
	And they say in here, if a business does not conduct its operations in Delaware, the state's corporation income tax may not apply.
	Instead of paying income tax, those Delaware corporations instead pay a much lower rate franchise tax.
	Also, there is no...
	Biden's just such a liar!
	There is no sales tax in Delaware.
	Oh, lovely.
	It doesn't matter if a company's physical location is in the state or not.
	As a Delaware corporation, no in-state purchases are subject to the tax.
	The state also has no value-added taxes, VATs.
	It does not tax businesses' transactions, and it does not have use, inventory, or unitary taxes.
	There are also no inheritance tax in Delaware, and there are no capital shares or stock transfer taxes.
	Amazing.
	I love it.
	That sounds great.
	That's fantastic.
	But that's the thing.
	This is the nonsense of the situation.
	He's been in politics for, what, 50 years or something?
	Ridiculous.
	Like 30% of the United States' existence or whatever the percentage is.
	And he's got to know.
	I suppose it depends.
	He's got to have passed most of these things.
	Depends on which day you ask Joe Biden, doesn't it?
	Yeah, so the idea that he doesn't know that actually the reason his state has flourished with people sending up their corporations there for tax purposes is because, when are we registering there?
	I don't know.
	It's because of the low taxes, and he's like, yeah, you just need to pay your fair share, which apparently is zero.
	I consider that fair too, my friend.
	Yeah, I base Joe Biden, you know, anti-tax crusader.
	But before we start calling him too based, he has some things to say about sucking the blood from children.
	So this is Eliza Schaefer posting this clip.
	Someone went up to him and talked about defunding the police, and he responded by asking how many Republicans believe that he sucks the blood of children.
	I'm amazed that he knows about this.
	So let's go for the next clip in which he says this.
	Are there people in the Democratic Party who think we're sucking the blood out of kids?
	I'm not sure.
	Are there people in the Democratic Party who want us to suck the blood out of kids?
	Are there people who are on to us?
	It's not the first time he said that, though, is it?
	No, isn't that the second time or something he's talked about as well?
	Yeah, he's mentioned this a couple of times.
	It's like, why does this keep coming up?
	It's weird that you've got to deny it once, let alone twice.
	No, it doesn't actually disappoint.
	That's a good point, he didn't even deny it!
	Are there people who think it?
	No?
	Okay, good.
	Carry on then.
	Sorry, I just find it really funny.
	It's also a nonsense point if you actually want to take that conversation seriously.
	They defund the police stuff that comes from senators and congressmen and women.
	Yeah, we can name the people who want to defund the police because they tweet about it constantly.
	I'm unaware of any Republican senators or congressmen who have said that Joe Biden sucks the blood from dead kids or nervous kids.
	Although I'm going to check Ted Cruz's Twitter feed now.
	The Zodiac Killer would know.
	This isn't also the other gaffe.
	He decided to say that he's older than 150 years.
	Biden predates the Civil War.
	Yeah, so Biden says he was on the Judiciary Committee 150 years ago.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Way back 150 years ago when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we spent a lot of time working on...
	Yeah, he's talking about the filibuster there.
	Yeah, but I bet he sided with the Democrats as well in the Civil War.
	If anyone's got any old pictures that look like him, do send them in.
	Weirdly enough, this is also not the first time he's said that.
	So, he's talking about sucking the blood of kids twice, and also he's talking about the fact that he's older than the country twice, I suppose.
	So, this is the article Rory wrote a while back, in which he says, with regards to the filibuster, I believe that we should go back to the position of the filibuster that existed when I came to the United States Senate 120 years ago.
	I mean, is he admitting that he's a vampire?
	Like, what is this?
	Like...
	For God's sakes.
	I'm not saying that he is, it's just I don't know what to take from this.
	I try to be charitable with Joe because I found the Trump hysteria particularly absurd and therefore I'm wary that no one wants to do that because the left was so silly.
	But to say that this guy is coherent or normal or even able to string a sentence together for a speech doesn't seem to be true.
	I'm not even going to accuse him of lying.
	I'm going to accuse him of having dementia.
	About the sucking of blood from children?
	Well, just any of the things that he's saying.
	That printing money doesn't cause inflation.
	That he's 150 years old.
	That he doesn't...
	Well, maybe people think that he drinks the blood of children.
	I love how he was like, yeah, it would cause deflation.
	Yeah, no.
	If I print more money, the money will be worth more.
	If I just keep printing money, prices will go down.
	Trust me, guys, this is going to work.
	Like, sorry, I actually don't.
	I don't know why I have to say that.
	President Mugabe over here.
	Anyway.
	Next year, Joe Biden's going to be like, could the white farmers come back, please?
	That tickled me.
	Anyway, we'll end that there.
	So recently there was an article, a very long and in-depth article published by Rachel Aviv in The New Yorker that was really eye-opening about a German state-sponsored experiment to place foster children, this is children who are either taken from their parents by the state or orphans, with paedophiles.
	Now, you might think, well, that sounds ridiculous.
	That can't possibly have been true.
	But all things are true when everything that's not leftist is Nazi.
	And that honestly is the framing of this entire thing, and still is to this day.
	Even with the AFD who are like, hey, maybe there should be some recompense paid to these poor children who are put with pedophiles.
	They're all like, yeah, well...
	Are you sure that's not a Nazi talking point?
	Literally.
	And it's like, I'm sure that's not a Nazi talking point.
	I'm sure that's a perfectly reasonable, middle-of-the-road, centrist talking point.
	Moderates can get behind that.
	But anyway, so let's get into the details of this case.
	It's a very long article.
	I'll do my best to summarize it.
	But it's honestly wild that this is...
	Something that we're going to talk about and horrific, obviously, right?
	So this began in 2017 because a man named Marco recognized a newspaper photograph of a professor called Helmut Kempler.
	We'll get into who he is in a bit.
	They say he was one of the most influential sexologists in Germany.
	And if there's one thing I trust more than anything, it's a German sexologist.
	Wait till you find out that he was a Marxist.
	Right.
	The article described a new research report that investigated what was called the Kentler experiment, his experiment.
	Beginning in the late 60s, Kentler had placed neglected children in foster homes run by paedophiles.
	The experiment was authorised and financially supported by the Berlin Senate, and in a report he submitted to the Senate in 1988, Kentler described it as, quote, a complete success.
	He knew those appeals.
	He was a pedo.
	And a communist.
	This was in East Germany?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	In Berlin.
	Yes, visible disgust is the response, right?
	But it gets worse, right?
	So Marco...
	Seeing this picture, he contacted a political scientist called Teresa Nedwig at the University of Gottingen, Institute for Democracy Research, who had written the report on Kempler.
	And he told her that she thought that these experiments had ended in the 70s, and he was like, no, I was in this foster home until 2003.
	Wait.
	That's after the reunification as well?
	Yes.
	After the reunification, for some reason, communists weren't prescribed.
	Don't know why.
	Should have happened.
	He also...
	I mean, the chap who they were fosters with was a man named Fritz Henkel, and he had many different foster children, all boys, throughout this period of time.
	And so he's got a foster brother called Sven, who he was close with.
	The ones he wasn't close with...
	Well, they weren't even close, actually, but they were just like...
	Of reasonably the same age, right?
	Seven, right, when Sven got into this home.
	He lived in Fritz Henkel's home for 13 years, and he told Sven that they'd learned they'd been part of an experiment, and Sven seemed basically unable to process this.
	So the government is paying some perverse social scientist to experiment on these children by placing them in paedophiles' households.
	What the hell was the experiment?
	To see if pedos are real or not?
	No, it's to see if that doesn't turn them into Nazis.
	What?
	I'll get to it.
	You've got to understand the German mind, Callum.
	I don't think it needs to exist.
	Caseworkers assigned Marco to live with Henkel, who was at the time 47 years old and single.
	He was the 8th foster son in 16 years.
	This is a quote from the article.
	When Henkel began fostering children in 1973, a teacher noticed that he was, quote, always looking for contact with boys.
	Six years later, a caseworker observed that Henkel appeared to be in a homosexual relationship with one of his foster sons.
	It's not a homosexual relationship.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's a paedophilic relationship.
	Yes.
	I mean, it may be a pederastic gay relationship, but either way, why wouldn't a caseworker be like, hang on, should we really be given this gay paedophile poise under his care?
	Is that sensible?
	Is that wise?
	Is that prudent?
	Probably not.
	Well, Rotherham tells us that...
	The people in charge are demented, yes.
	When a public prosecutor launched an investigation, Helmut Kentler, Kentler himself, the famous psychologist, and you have to understand, this guy was massively famous in Germany, sort of Freudian levels of fame in Germany, right?
	He intervened saying that he was Henkel's permanent advisor.
	So they say, the newspaper Die Zeit had described him as the nation's chief authority on questions of sexual education.
	Amazing.
	On the university letterhead, Kenley issued what he called an expert opinion.
	Ah yes, I love hearing from experts on their opinions about what their opinions on the sex lives of my children should be.
	The answer is obviously none.
	And he had explained that he had come to know Henkel through a research project.
	So he was closely tied with Henkel in a research project.
	And later on we find out that...
	Sorry, it's a research project like Code for Noncery or something.
	Yes.
	But the children were being used in a research project.
	What happens if we put vulnerable young boys with paedophiles?
	I mean, it sounds like Brass Eye.
	Yeah, I mean, this is the one thing we didn't want to happen.
	That meme is real here.
	I don't mean to laugh because it's horrible.
	It's so ridiculous that it literally is an episode of Brass Eye.
	The one thing we didn't want to happen.
	Eight people and a boy on an island.
	Unironically, this is just awful, right?
	And so, he commended Henkler on his parenting skills.
	The idea that this would stop Nazism.
	Henkler.
	We'll get to how it's going to stop Nazism, okay?
	It's just...
	Sorry.
	Effing absurd, right?
	He commanded Henkel on his parenting skills and disparaged a psychologist who invaded the privacy of his own home, making wild interpretations of their relationship.
	Sometimes, Kentler wrote, an airplane is not a phallic symbol.
	It's simply a plane, and the criminal investigation was suspended.
	Obvious lies, right?
	So every few months, Henkel would drive the nearly 200 miles with his own foster children to see Kentler in Hanover, where he was teaching.
	The visits were an opportunity for Kentler to observe the children.
	Marco had been living with Henkel for a year and a half when Sven was assigned to him.
	And for some reason, Henkel seemed ideally suited to this task, said doctors at the clinic.
	Sven was a Romanian orphan who was on the street begging.
	And so they're like, right, OK, you can come with us.
	Can't have been good.
	And so Henkel regularly abused these boys and they simply accepted it as normal because they didn't know any different because they were seven.
	All of the institutions and professors and people of note around them, the social workers, people like that, they all accepted it.
	They all thought it was normal.
	He says, I accepted it out of loyalty because I didn't know anything else.
	I didn't think that what was happening was good, but I thought it was normal.
	I thought of it a bit like food.
	People have different tastes in food the way people have different tastes in sexuality.
	If Sven's bedroom door was open and he wasn't there, Marco knew what was happening, but the two boys never talked about what Henkel did to them.
	It was an absolutely taboo subject.
	This was obviously deeply damaging for these boys.
	I mean, Marco himself seems to have been...
	He says in there at one point that essentially his emotions are always coming up against a brick wall, so he can never emote, and so he's a very cold, very distant person because of what's happened to him here.
	But this is obviously deeply damaging, and there are incidents from his childhood that show it.
	So, for example, one night Marco took a knife from the kitchen and slept with it under his pillow when Henkel approached his bed that night, discovered the blade, he withdrew quickly, and then called Kentler, who handed the phone over to Marco and persuaded him to surrender the knife.
	Marco's mother and brother.
	Marco comes from something of a broken home.
	But I think I'll get to that in a minute, actually.
	But the reason Marco ended up in this man's care is because when he was five, he was playing in the street and was hit by a car.
	Not serious.
	It was just a minor injury.
	But this brought him to the attention of the social workers who were like, oh, well, his mother and father are divorced.
	His father was a Palestinian immigrant, refugee, it's said in the...
	And the thing.
	And his mother worked on a hot dog stand and obviously was trying to make money to pay for her kids.
	And so the state was like, right, we're just going to take your boy away and give them to this paedophile.
	And so the mother and brother were allowed to visit roughly once a month, but Henkel often cancelled the visits at last minute or cut them short, saying they were disruptive.
	And then afterwards, Marco would sometimes urinate in his bed or lose focus in school, writing numbers and letters backwards.
	Again, all signs that this is an abused child and that there's something wrong.
	The father was not allowed to see him at all, because Henkel claimed that Marco was so terrified of his father, he suffered from fearful fantasies whenever he noticed people of Arab appearance on the street.
	Sure.
	Marco began seeing a therapist who said that Henkel was holding Marco prisoner.
	Therapist is saying, well, this guy's holding this boy prisoner.
	Henkel always sat close by an adjacent room, and once, after a session began without Henkel realizing it, he barged into the room and punched the therapist in the face.
	Nothing to be concerned about.
	So when Marco was nine, his mother petitioned a judge for access to her son.
	The father did not understand why he was growing up in a strange family deprived of an Arabic education.
	Well, you're in Germany now, mate.
	In 1992, there was a hearing, and Marco seemed to have been coached on what to say to the judge, saying he wanted to avoid contact with his birth parents, which, of course, Kentler strongly advised.
	After the hearing, Kentler sent a letter to the judge saying,"...for the best interests of the child, I consider it absolutely essential that contact with the family of origin, including the mother, be completely suspended for the next two years." So your mother and father are not allowed to see the boy that we have placed in the custody of a pedophile who has a bunch of other boys that he molests.
	It's like German justice.
	Kentler also emphasised that Marco needed to distance from the men in his family because they set a bad example.
	And this is the eye-opening bit that really ties into why Kentler is doing this, but we'll cover that in a minute.
	So he said that Marco's mood changed when he spoke about his father.
	Though Kentler had never met Marco's dad, he characterised him as authoritarian, abusive and macho.
	Oh look, he has a problem with men and masculinity.
	Marco's mother lost her plea for access to her son, and a year and a half later Marco's father moved to Syria and wanted to say goodbye to his son, but wasn't given any access and there was no record of anyone responding.
	Anyway, as Marco hit puberty, he began to fight back against Henkel.
	He started lifting weights, making himself stronger so he could actually resist what was happening to him, and once he actually struck him on the hand when he was trying to molest him, and he stopped molesting him at that point, but started instead physically abusing and starving him.
	Which, honestly, I think would be a step up.
	I'd rather be physically abused and starved than molested by a paedophile.
	But because of the way that he was raised, he was obviously raised not to have any critical thought, and so he didn't really think about what was happening to him and didn't move out until he was 21.
	So, in summary, the boys were trapped in a foster home with a paedophile with the permission of the Berlin authorities and had no particular way of escaping.
	So why did this happen?
	Well, obviously, Kentler is the prime mover behind this, but this can't happen without a certain set of cultural attitudes permeating the society that permits it to happen.
	And, well, of course, it's after World War II, so you know what any opposition to communist subversion means.
	That's right.
	If you don't like this, you must be a Nazi.
	Kentler's father is very interesting, actually.
	He was a World War I officer and stern disciplinarian.
	There was a particular theory from Daniel Gottlob Moritz Schreiber, a best-selling German author who's called the spiritual precursor to Nazism.
	Just about how people should be incredibly strict with their children and essentially break the fear out of them when they're children and things like this.
	And it's like, right, okay, this is obviously awful.
	This kind of monomaniacal view of what a person is.
	Basically, be loving and kind to your children.
	Don't molest them or treat them as if they're defective machines.
	Don't know why I have to say that.
	Anyway, Kentler's career was framed by his belief that the damage wrought by dominant fathers.
	An early memory of his was walking in the forest on a spring day and running up to keep up with his father.
	He says, I had only one wish, that he should take my hand and hold it in his.
	Which is really sad that his father didn't do that.
	Don't get me wrong.
	And I've got to say, as a dad, right, I take the opportunity to hold my kids' hands whenever they try to hold my hand.
	It's nice to do.
	You know, because it shows that you're there for them.
	And it is wrong to withdraw this kind of affection from your kids.
	But anyway, he wrote that in a parenting magazine in 1983.
	And his father was a lieutenant in World War I and believed in Roddenbatten Pedagogy, which just means a very strict disciplinarian German upbringing.
	So this led him to deeply resent his own father.
	His father was called back to active duty during World War II. He rose to the rank of colonel, moved the family to Berlin, where he worked in the high command in the Nazi army.
	My father's authority was never based on his own accomplishments, but on the large institutions in which he snuck into that rubbed off on him, Kendler wrote.
	He was 17 when the Nazis were defeated, and his father came home a broken man.
	I never obeyed him again, and I felt terribly alone." So Kentler began to identify Nazism with sexual repression, and then, naturally, he thought, well, anti-Nazism means sexual liberation.
	You can see where that train of thought's going.
	You absolutely can.
	Total inclusivity, as the RAF called it.
	That's exactly right.
	And so anti-Nazism means...
	Total inclusivity.
	Kentler himself was gay and felt he always had one leg in prison because homosexuality was criminalized in Germany until I think it was the late 80s.
	So he's worried that he will be arrested for being gay, which I don't think we should arrest gays or anything like that.
	But I also don't think that any of this has any reflection on what is and isn't Nazism.
	Don't know why I have to say that.
	In 1960, he got a degree in psychology, which he felt would, quote, allow him to be an engineer of the soul.
	That's what you want, isn't it?
	A gay communist engineering your soul?
	What could go wrong?
	He was, of course, a leftist activist, if you can believe it.
	He became involved in a student movement when at university and in a meeting of the Republican Club, and for Americans hearing the word Republican, they're not thinking of your republic, they're thinking of the French Revolution Republic.
	A left-wing republic, basically.
	A group of...
	Which was a group established by left-wing intellectuals and publicly identified himself as gay for the first time.
	He was inspired by the Marxist psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich.
	Marxist psychoanalyst.
	Thank you.
	What an awful combination of pseudo-scientific nonsense that is roundly debunked now.
	No one thinks Marxism or psychoanalism is scientific in any way, shape, or form.
	But back in the 70s, they doubtless did.
	And so he was like, yeah, I'm a Marxist psychoanalyst as well.
	Who had argued that the free flow of sexual energy was essential to building a new kind of society.
	The kind of society in which paedophiles would be given access to children.
	Kentler's dissertation urged parents to teach their children that they should never be ashamed of their desires.
	Once the first feelings of shame exist, they multiply and easily expand to other areas of life.
	That's right, if you've ever felt ashamed of something, you're a Nazi.
	Kentler's goal was to develop a child-rearing philosophy for a new kind of German man.
	Sexual liberation, he wrote, was the best way to, quote, prevent another Auschwitz.
	If you aren't giving children to paedophiles, you want to kill the Jews.
	It's merely the first step.
	I mean, I don't mean to laugh.
	It's absolutely ridiculous.
	Most people's reaction to that, you sick, is that they'll build one for you.
	Suddenly, it seems as if all relationship structures could and must be reconfigured.
	And if there was any hope of producing a generation less damaged than the previous one...
	Ah yes, that's what this is going to do.
	Produce a generation of young men who are not damaged.
	That's right.
	That's what that does.
	In the late 60s, educators in more than 30 German cities and towns began establishing experimental daycare centres where children were encouraged to be naked and explore one another's bodies.
	Brave New World.
	Go and check out our book club on Brave New World.
	That's exactly where that's going.
	Exactly where that's going.
	It's unbelievable, right?
	Hyper-scientific, total inclusive world.
	Yeah.
	So Kentler...
	I keep saying Kentley because our web developer's name is Kentley...
	And Kentley obviously does not sign off on any of Kentler's ideas.
	Kentler became a star and Germany's foremost expert.
	He then befriended, and this is where it gets really, hmm, mask off, he befriended a 13-year-old named Ulrich, whom he described as, quote, one of the most sought-after prostitutes in the station scene.
	So this is around the Zoo Station in Berlin, right?
	13-year-old prostitute.
	He thinks he's a 13-year-old prostitute.
	Now, I would describe a 13-year-old who is being taken advantage of by adults as a rape victim.
	As a sexual slave.
	Yes, but then that's because I'm not German.
	When Kentler asked Ulrich where he wanted to stay at night, Ulrich told him about a man called Mother Winter, who fed boys from the zoo station and did their laundry.
	In exchange, they slept with him.
	I said to myself, this is Kentler talking, if the prostitutes call this man Mother, he can't be bad.
	What a leap of logic that is.
	Later he noted that Ulrich's advantage was that he was handsome and he enjoyed sex so he could give something back to paedophile men who looked after him.
	Remember, all through the late 20th century, the sort of latter half of the 20th century, leftist organizations in Germany, in France, in Britain, and presumably in America, in fact, we know in America as well, the Nambla.
	Nambla, guy in charge, communist.
	All of them tried to normalize paedophilia.
	They either had the paedophile information exchange, of which Harriet Harman was connected in Britain.
	You had Foucault, Derrida, de Beauvoir, and all the other French intellectuals signing a letter to the French government to get them to reduce the age of consent to 13.
	Foucault himself was accused of being a paedophile rapist in Algeria or Tunisia, somewhere like that.
	And here we have Kentler, who himself was a paedophile rapist and orchestrated a state-sponsored program to put children in paedophiles' households.
	The left cannot ever be trusted with children.
	Ever.
	It's not even just they're a communist and a pedo.
	The pedoism they justify by their communism.
	Yes, it is informed by the communists, by their left-wing beliefs.
	Kentler formalised Ulrich's arrangement.
	I managed to get the Senate officer to approve it.
	So the German Senate signed off on Kentler's formal prostitution of a child.
	He wrote in Borrowed Fathers, Children Need Fathers, Kentler found several other paedophiles who lived nearby and helped them set up foster homes too.
	At the time, the Berlin Senate, which governed the city, one of 16 states in the country, was eager to find new solutions to the life problems of our society in order to confirm and maintain Berlin's reputation as an outpost of freedom and humanity.
	If you want to be considered an outpost of freedom and humanity, you have to be putting children in paedos' homes.
	Otherwise, you're a Nazi.
	The left.
	Yes, signed the left.
	And so he just, I mean, it wasn't surprising that he just admitted what he was doing to the Berlin Senate.
	I mean, he just told them out in the open.
	Everyone was fine with this, right?
	In 1981, Kentler was invited to the German parliament to speak about why homosexuality should be decriminalized.
	But he just strayed unprompted into a discussion of his experiment.
	We looked after...
	He's talking about this experiment in front of the German parliament, right?
	We looked after and advised these relationships very intensively.
	We held consultations with the foster fathers and their sons, many of whom have been so neglected they never learn to read or write.
	These people only put up with these feeble-minded boys because they were in love with them, he told the lawmakers.
	Intersectional pedo rights is going to come.
	His summary did not seem to provoke concerns.
	Perhaps the politicians were receptive because the project seemed to be the opposite of the Nazis' reproductive experiments, with their rigid emphasis on propagating certain kinds of families, or perhaps they were unconcerned because, in their opinion, the boys were already lost.
	Or, maybe it's because they were a bunch of pedos.
	Who do you think is right there?
	Do you think it's the author, or do you think it's me?
	I think they're leftists.
	It's of course me.
	Therefore the evidence is...
	A 2020 report commissioned by the Berlin Senate, scholars at the University of Hildesheim, concluded that, quote, the Senate also ran foster homes or shared flats for young Berliners with paedophile men in parts of West Germany.
	These foster homes were run by sometimes powerful men who lived alone and were given this power by academia, research institutions and other pedagogical environments that accepted, supported or even lived out paedophile stances.
	The report concluded that some, quote, Senate actors had been part of this network.
	While others merely tolerated the foster home because icons of educational reform policies supported such arrangements.
	There were pedos in the German Berlin State Senate.
	They were part of this organized, orchestrated, state-funded pedophile network specifically designed to put vulnerable, very vulnerable, in fact, young boys, take them either from their parents or take them from the streets and put them with pedophiles who would rape them.
	Welcome to leftism.
	This is leftism.
	Kentler himself, of course, abused the foster children in his own care.
	Can you believe that he also fostered a bunch of these boys?
	No way.
	What a shock.
	He adopted three boys and several...
	The father of...
	He was, of course, single.
	Three adopted sons and several of the foster children appearing to be conducting his own informal version of the experiment the Berlin Senate had organised.
	So he was doing it himself.
	Karen Deseret, the co-author of a book called Sex, Lust and Life, told Netwig that two of Kentler's foster sons had come to her for therapy and divulged that Kentler had sexually abused them.
	He'd obviously sexually abused all of them, because the point of this was sexual abuse.
	Institutionalised, state-funded sexual abuse.
	Kentler seemed to consider himself to be in a romantic relationship with one of his foster sons.
	When Kentler was 57, he wrote a friend of his called Schmidt a letter explaining why he was aging happily rather than becoming lonely and resigned, and he said it was because he and his 26-year-old son were part of a very fulfilling love story.
	That had lasted 13 years and still felt fresh, so he'd been molesting him since he was 13 years old.
	To understand this state of mind, Kentler wrote, his friend should know his secret.
	Of course, Kentler was an open paedophile advocate.
	For much of his career, Kentler spoke of paedophiles as benefactors.
	They offered neglected children, quote, a possibility of therapy, he told Der Spiegel in 1980.
	This is like going to the Times.
	Der Spiegel is a very left-wing outlet.
	Of course it is.
	But it's also very mainstream in America.
	And this is the point.
	It's like going to the Times.
	Sorry, in Germany.
	Sorry, Americans.
	It's like going to any major newspaper now, in any country.
	It would be The Guardian, actually.
	It would be the perfect example.
	Well, I suppose it would be, yeah.
	It's probably more mainstream than The Guardian, though.
	But when the Berlin Senate commissioned him to prepare an expert report on the subject of homosexuals as caregivers and educators in 1988, he explained there was no need to worry that children would be harmed by sexual contact with caretakers as long as the interaction was not forced.
	The consequences can be very positive, especially when the sexual relationship can be characterised as mutual love.
	I'm just amazed that along this entire line of events, no one he spoke to killed him.
	Like, no one.
	Well, they killed themselves.
	He changed his mind on all of this after the 13-year-old he'd been abusing for such a long time committed suicide.
	In 1991, he seemed to rethink his opinion after his youngest adopted son.
	Again, I can't believe we even describe it that way.
	The youngest rape victim.
	His youngest sex slave.
	Yeah, youngest sex slave.
	The one he praised in the letter Schmidt committed suicide.
	Then he read the paper Confusion of the Tongues Between Adult and Child, The Language of Tendness and Passion by...
	Someone called Sandor Feranzi, a Hungarian psychoanalyst and a student of Freud, who described how sexual relationships between adults and children were always asymmetrical, exploitative and destructive.
	Why would we need a paper to know that?
	Oh, thankfully, science has finally said that molesting children is bad.
	Now I know what to do.
	Unbelievable, right?
	And so, what's ironic is it comes from a psychoanalyst, so it's not even the science, you know?
	This is Freudian nonsense, but Freudian nonsense happens to have hit upon a truth.
	But your peer-reviewed study that noncery is evil.
	Yes.
	I don't need one.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You don't need a study to tell you noncery is bad, right?
	A flamethrower.
	But anyway...
	He warns that to give children more love or love of a different kind that they seek will have just as pathogenic consequences as denying them love.
	Which I think is true, obviously.
	But why do I even have to say that?
	Children's personalities are not sufficiently consolidated in order to be able to protest.
	They will subordinate themselves like automata.
	They become oblivious to their own needs and identify themselves with the aggressors.
	So yeah, it's nice that science has finally told us that being a pedo is wrong.
	But he never took responsibility for the abuse that he gave, of course.
	In an interview with a German historian in 1992, he spoke of his grief for his adopted son and said, Unfortunately, I only read the Forenzi essay after his death.
	If only I'd read that before he committed suicide, maybe I would have stopped molesting him.
	He did not confess to abusing his son.
	Instead, he said that the boy had been sexually abused by his birth mother.
	Sure.
	He hung himself because of that, he told the historian.
	I've experienced it in the biggest way, in a close way, and I'm certainly partly to blame.
	Yeah, you are definitely to blame for this.
	I don't think that...
	I mean, I don't know whether he was abused by his mother or not.
	Who knows?
	But, like...
	God, it doesn't even matter in the case of him.
	Yes.
	Like, his responsibility.
	I mean, it's not like he didn't abuse another bunch of boys as well.
	And orchestrated the institutional abuse of...
	I mean, we don't even know how many it is.
	There's dozens at least.
	Fucking Senate.
	Probably hundreds.
	Yes, yes, fellow senators, I'm engaged in this.
	Yes, just open...
	Here's some money.
	...pedophile sex slavery.
	In what was likely his last recorded public statement about pedophilia in an interview in 1999, he referred to it as a sexual disorder and alluded to the impossibility of an adult and child sharing an understanding of sexual contact.
	The problem, he said, is the adult will always have the monopoly on definition.
	Well, bravo!
	Bravo at the very end of your life after having caused suicide.
	It takes socialists 40 years to get to the goddamn point that everyone gets a birth, which is the pedos of death.
	It's just unreal, isn't it?
	And so the AFD offered to help Marco, but when he accepted, he was forced to distance themselves from his politics.
	As if it's the AFD's politics, the sort of conservative...
	I mean, in a way, they're libertarian, aren't they?
	From what we've met of them, yeah.
	From what we've met of them.
	They don't seem to be collectivists.
	But also, what's their politics?
	Anti-Pedo?
	Yeah, well, we would like to have the German government be held accountable for the pedophile network they set up, is basically the thrust of this.
	But that's a political stance that can't be you to be seen with, is it?
	Yes.
	You've got to defend the left, but the AFD, the Conservatives, you're not allowed to...
	You've got this...
	Oh, well, I'm just working with them because I need help.
	I don't agree with their politics of not molesting me.
	From the perspective of the AFD, and then we just get a hit piece on the AFD, and this is like, what?
	The AFD are the problem here, aren't they?
	From the perspective of an AFD politician, Marco's life story was expedient, a tale about the ways in which the German left had got sexual politics wrong.
	Well, that's a very charitable way of putting that.
	It really is the meme of, at least I'm a pedophile, but I'm not the far right.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
	Stupid meme, and it's not what they're doing here.
	It's just like, well, okay, the left might be full of pedos, but at least they're not the AFD, who think that pedoism is bad.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's wild, isn't it?
	But, like, I love it.
	They got sexual politics wrong.
	No kidding.
	But they always have, and they always will, in every time and in every place.
	they get this wrong.
	At meetings of the German parliament, members of the AFD rallied around the Kentler case, if you can believe it, as a way of forcing left-wing politicians to address history that did not reflect well on their parties, but also as a barely disguised vehicle for impugning homosexuality.
	If it's only the AFD rallying around it, that is a failure of every other party.
	The CDU, the SDP, or whatever the hell else is rising in Germany.
	An advocacy group affiliated with the AFD held Stop Kentler's Sex Education rallies to protest the way that sexuality is currently taught in German schools.
	Kentler's criminal paedophile spirit lives on unbroken in today's sex education, said one brochure printed by them.
	I believe them.
	I definitely don't believe the left-wing defenders of Kentler.
	I don't believe them.
	I believe the AFD are probably right here, right?
	And so literally, they say in this article, history seemed to be looping back on itself.
	Right-wing politicians were calling for a return to the kind of, quote, terribly dangerous upbringing against which Kentler had rebelled.
	So if you're not a pedo, you're a Nazi.
	Literally what this New Yorker article is alleging is that the AFD want to return to Nazi upbringing of children, and if you don't do that, then you must be pro-pedo.
	It's wild.
	I don't think the AFD are like, yeah, what you should do is abuse your sons by denying them love and affection as a father, and so they grow up weird and warped.
	No, what you need to do is have your sons put in a home with a pedo so he can molest them instead.
	Unreal.
	Unreal, right?
	Unreal.
	At a hearing in February 2018, an AFD representative called Thorsen Weiss complained that the Senate had not taken responsibility for Kentler's crimes.
	This is a case of political importance which requires some political action.
	The Senate is double-crossing the victims and that is a scandal.
	At another hearing seven months later, Weiss criticised the Senate for being slow to gather information about Kentler's experiment.
	We will not allow government-sponsored pederasty to be swept under the rug.
	Because the AFD are concerned primarily about families...
	They're concerned about the principles of family values.
	Again, conservative, not Nazi.
	Anyway, Weiss, the representative, told him, I would be surprised if she had said anything nice about us at all when they were like, oh, the AfD is just doing this because they're Nazis.
	He believes that there is still a pedophile network in Germany and that those connected to it use their political influence to make sure the network remains under the radar.
	Well, I suppose that's at least a step up from when they're just openly doing it with taxpayer money.
	So that's the story of how the leftists in Germany not only condoned paedophilia, they endorsed it and used the state and state funds to mandate it.
	We don't know how many victims there were.
	At least dozens, probably hundreds.
	This happened in 30 different cities.
	That's the left.
	This is why I wanted to do this story last, because I knew it would make me angry.
	Yep.
	Anyway.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	You'll have to forgive the quality of this camera.
	I've done all I can with the settings, but I still look as bright as an Oompa Loompa.
	At least where I'm seeing it.
	On that note, I have a question to ask.
	If you had a choice, or if you couldn't live in the UK anymore, what other country would you like to live in?
	Don't say North Korea, don't say North Korea, don't say North Korea!
	Of places I've been to, I quite enjoyed my time in Russia, but we didn't really see enough in the country to make a decision on that.
	Not France.
	Death to France, Jesus Christ.
	I quite liked Austria.
	Austria seemed to be alright, but again, I was only there for a small period of time.
	For places I heard about online but never been to, it's got to be Texas or Florida, surely.
	Florida, well, I've been to them, they're both very warm.
	Ah, that's not good for me.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, they're absolutely based on freedom-loving places, and the people are all absolutely lovely.
	But they're incredibly, insufferably hot.
	Personally, I would actually live in Greece.
	I actually really liked Greece.
	I really like the temperature.
	And Poland, actually, yeah.
	It's warm, but not too warm.
	And I like the sort of culture.
	The only negative about Poland was the language.
	It drove me insane.
	I like foreign languages, and I can't make heads or tails of that goddamn thing.
	I'm sceptical of whether Polish people can even speak Polish.
	Just joking, lads.
	Russian's fairly easier to understand than Polish, and that's the weird thing.
	It's the same alphabet, basically, and it's still worse.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	How do we get people to stop balking from paths that seem boring or seem too hard and get them to understand that going through those paths are a means to an end?
	The end being having the resources and the money To create something truly valuable and important, like a family or a business or a book.
	How do we get people to see that?
	I think, fundamentally, it's got to be that we reframe the things that are important in life, because the left has been very good at framing every benefit and good in your life as being immediate, material and hedonistic.
	And we need to be able to reframe and say, well look, actually you're going to live a long life and there are things in this life that will bring you deep satisfaction, much more than any immediate material pleasure, that you can't buy and can only be obtained by a certain kind of behavior and certain way of living that is good for you and makes you feel That you actually don't need the constant, addicted craving and satisfaction of those cravings.
	I think that's the best way to do it, but I mean, I might be wrong if anyone's got any better ideas.
	Do let me know.
	Any thoughts?
	No, I was thinking about the last story still.
	I know, it's insufferable.
	The AFD, and what a bunch of Nazis.
	Why?
	Because they don't want pedos fiddling kids at the public expense.
	I don't know why the AFT gets such a hard time.
	That's goddamn normal.
	That's the thing.
	It's because the Germans.
	They're terrified of their own psyches.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Yeah, looks does help high guys initially when getting a guy's attention, but it isn't going to help you form a meaningful relationship.
	And the issue really is that a lot of women just doesn't mature because they're being told that they shouldn't have to mature.
	By the way, guys, don't be a simp.
	Being a simp is a turn-off, but concentrate on yourself.
	Build yourself up, be independent, and the women will come to you.
	That's exactly my view on it.
	I was thinking about whether I was going to do a segment on simping today, because after doing the one about the woman the other day, I did want to be like, okay, now, men, this is what you need to do, but I wanted to do this one instead.
	So next week I will do something similar that essentially comes to that conclusion, because she's absolutely right.
	I'm not sure I entice...
	She's correct that looks extremely potent on the first instance.
	The idea that they don't have an impact on long-lasting relationships, I'm not 100% sure about.
	Because the thing that comes to mind is someone gets in a relationship and then they just let themselves go.
	That, I don't think, can help.
	I think there has to be some kind of standard that you hold yourself to.
	Sure, sure.
	You know, you should try and take reasonable care of yourself, obviously.
	Otherwise, I'm absolutely correct.
	But the thing is, I think that women place a lower value on looks for prospects in a relationship, whereas I think men place much higher value on looks for relationship prospects.
	Women are concerned, I think, about other factors about the man, as John is furiously typing.
	Is that why it's always so difficult to get women to define what a good-looking man is, whereas for a good-looking woman, it's easy-peasy for that definition?
	Yeah, I think so, yeah.
	So I've never done an ancestry before, but I do know that my great grandparents on my mother's side came over here from Italy.
	This is why I hate identity politics because you can definitely tell that I am Irish, but you cannot tell that I am Italian.
	I think also that technically means you're not white, so enjoy your pass, I guess.
	Got it back!
	Although the Italians also were declared white by everyone involved in the football, so...
	Disavow.
	Although the Irish stuff...
	There is a weird amount of Irish genetics, if that makes sense.
	Like, there's a lot of factors.
	There's a weird amount of Irish genetics in a statement.
	It's easier to tell someone who has Irish genetics than trying to find, like, I don't know, French or German genetics and a random person put in front of you, I feel.
	Like the freckles, the...
	I mean, ginger's a big one, of course.
	After having lived on the continent, I'm actually the leading phrenologist when it comes to identifying Europeans.
	Defining a...
	I can honestly tell the difference between a French person, a German person, a Polish person by looking at them.
	What about a Wallonian and a Dutch?
	No, I can't really tell the difference.
	The Dutch are unusually tall, but the Germans are tall as well, so it's hard to tell there.
	Germans and swamp Germans.
	It's unironically the German facial structures compared to French facial structures.
	I can tell the difference.
	Hmm.
	I feel like the Irish stuff, though, is more...
	Oh, yeah, you can see the Celts wherever you go.
	The woke progressive says, that didn't happen.
	And if it did, well, it's not a big deal.
	And if it was, well, it wasn't that bad.
	And if it is, well, then I didn't do it.
	And if they did, then you deserved it.
	And if you deserved it, then it was a good thing.
	I love that meme.
	That's a good thing.
	Let's go for the next one.
	So after driving 1400 miles or 2200 kilometers in two days, I originally had a romantic expectation of what the country would look like, but after experiencing the tolls and the roadwork and all the idiotic drivers on the roadways, it was very quickly shattered.
	What is it about having theoretical expectations about something that are so easily shattered by actually experiencing something on the ground for yourself?
	I actually have a very good answer to this.
	So, all theory is the simplification and subtraction of information.
	That's all theory is.
	All theory in all times and all places is someone removing detail and information that is necessary for an actual experiential understanding of something.
	And so if someone will tell you, here's theoretically this, they'll point out, they'll highlight aspects of reality, abstract those away from reality.
	This is why John Locke said all abstraction is subtraction.
	And he's absolutely right.
	And so once you subtract a load of information, you're left with whatever's left, and if you start building a complex theory, a latticework of ideas, On top, well, you're not taking into account large sections of reality that you have deliberately discarded, and then you've built this theory on top of it, and of course then, when you bring your shiny new theory to reality, oh look, it doesn't look anything like reality.
	Doesn't resemble the thing that you're talking about at all.
	And this, in fact, I think is the real essence of the problem of continental philosophy.
	It is so theoretical and so abstracted that they can't seem to understand why reality doesn't match what they've said, and also reality should match what they've said.
	This is in opposition to the English empirical tradition of observing what's there and being like, wow, this is a really complicated mess.
	I mean, there's some of this, there's some of that, and there's some of the other.
	I don't have a clear structure here, but that's definitely something there.
	And there we go, right, on to the next subject.
	And so you get this meandering, sort of diffused view of the world through the sort of English philosophical lens, whereas from any German or French lens, you come along with, ah, these are hard truths that are intersecting at every point, and I have a structure here, and now I've got to change all of the world because it doesn't match my structure.
	That's why.
	I've been thinking about this a lot.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Good afternoon, gentlemen.
	I looked at your YouTube page and I found this.
	These videos in the bottom right are the last two segments from Thursday the 15th.
	These are from Friday the 16th.
	And these are from Monday the 19th.
	The problem is, is what day's podcast are these four videos from?
	You released these on Saturday the 17th.
	But there's no Saturday the 17th episode.
	I'm a bit confused.
	He's got us there.
	Yeah, we don't do a podcast.
	We have to do little clips because that's just what works.
	It helps with numbers go up one more good.
	So we do little clips and then just put that out.
	It's stuff that we wanted to cover during the week, but we didn't really have time to cram into the podcast because of other things.
	And so rather than just letting them fall by the wayside, we figured we'd just record four or five segments, whack them up at the weekend, so you guys have a bit of extra content, really.
	Yeah.
	I love his microphone.
	I don't know what it is.
	I don't know why, but the bad quality really gets nowhere.
	I just like the fact that he's got us.
	It's like, oh, damn!
	We're totally caught out of here.
	Yeah, we did some extra work.
	We're really sorry.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Yeah, they're not on the website either.
	They're in YouTube, well, clip exclusives.
	The English flag may not have any meaning, but that's only because the English suck.
	The Scottish flag is the flag of St Andrews, and it looks like this because he was crucified.
	Like this, not like this.
	And it's blue because we would paint ourselves blue going into battle.
	The English are actually just Frenchies, in denial about being Frenchies.
	And then one day, we took their crown and made the whole thing Scotland.
	Sorry, I mean, United Kingdom.
	And then we created this flag, because, you know, my representation.
	You know what?
	I agree.
	The Scots are completely responsible for the British Empire and all of the terrible things it did.
	I think we've found out who we need to blame.
	I think you got them right.
	Yeah, exactly correct.
	That was a true...
	Nothing to do with us, Gov.
	It was the Scots the whole time.
	Let's get to the next one.
	When are we going to point out the obvious irony of all of these people protesting...
	You know, the Black Lives Matter and they're doing the Chauvin salute by taking the knee?
	Is that what that is?
	It is very strange.
	There is chauvin pride worldwide, apparently.
	Well, it's really interesting, isn't it?
	Because the people who are critics of Christianity are like, you think if Jesus ever comes back, he's going to want to see a cross again?
	If George Floyd comes back, he's going to want to see people taking the knee?
	You know, sorry.
	What are you doing?
	You're calling a panic attack every time.
	Exactly.
	He's probably in heaven going, I don't know what they're doing.
	You know, why are they doing this?
	But yeah, so there we go.
	You know, the Chilean team endorsed Derek Chauvin and Nelson.
	Same with the Swedish team and the British and the American team.
	It also seems that God opposes George Floyd and Black Lives Matter.
	Yeah.
	The George Floyd mural got struck by lightning, but also the Rashford one got ruined by rain.
	So it's like God's against Black Lives Matter.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Any Pox suggestion?
	Marcus Tullius Cicero.
	Lawyer, orator, writer, senator, consul, pater patriae, and the last Roman Republican.
	Obviously my favourite Roman.
	Yes, we will indeed get around Cicero.
	One of the things we're trying to do is kind of avoid the cliché, like, pop history bits, and Cicero, unfortunately...
	There's a reason the classics are classics.
	Yeah, but there's also nothing else talked about apart from that.
	And so, oh, the fall of the Roman Republic, oh, this would be exciting.
	You know, I haven't heard this story a million times.
	And so it's not out of any lack of love for Cicero.
	We're trying to do things that are just a bit more interesting than the same thing we've seen over and over.
	But you are right, Cicero does deserve his own episode, and I will recommend it to Beau, and we'll see if we can get around to it.
	Wasn't he just really salty about Caesar, though?
	Understandably so.
	He's setting himself as a dictator for life.
	Based.
	Let's go for the next one.
	It's a joke.
	The pattern is, left says do something insane.
	The right says it's crazy, very critical, but does nothing or isn't able to do anything.
	The Democrats are the real racist line is a good example.
	Anyone paying attention already knows.
	It's clear this is ineffective as a strategy and the left doesn't care.
	Sure, calling it out has its place, but as things stand, I'm becoming more sympathetic to the perspective that calling out hypocrisy is often a virtue signal.
	It's a complaint that they're able to set standards that are enforced, and you are not.
	Carl Callum, thoughts on this perspective?
	Basically correct, I think.
	And, I mean, notice how I don't tend to use hypocrisy as being the primary method of attack on someone else's argument, because at the end of the day, a charge of hypocrisy is not a charge of being incorrect.
	Because if I'm there smoking like 10 cigarettes every day or every podcast, I'm sat here chain smoking constantly, constantly.
	And I turn around and say, Callum, do you know smoking is bad?
	You can't exactly say, no, it's good because you're doing it.
	It is bad.
	Even if I'm a chain smoker, it's still bad.
	That's a true statement.
	And a massively obese person saying you need to lose weight because eating sugar is bad for you.
	That is true.
	I mean, you might not want to take that person's advice.
	I actually had this experience with Richard Brine.
	Oh, yeah?
	Yeah, because when I was helping him out, I'd buy him cigarettes because you could see it was stress, and I don't smoke, so I just had him a cigarette because it's just a nice thing to have.
	And he'd light up and be like, Callum, don't smoke.
	Well, he's right.
	Yeah, so a charge of hypocrisy is not an accusation that someone's wrong, it's an accusation that they're morally inconsistent, which, as he rightly pointed out...
	It's actually saying, well, I'm actually annoyed that I can't hold you to the same standards I'm held to, which is an admission of inferiority.
	So I tend to avoid away from charges of hypocrisy.
	As you say, they don't win arguments.
	Let's go for the next one.
	Good day.
	To Mr.
	Posh Spoon, there's a lot of trash in anime, as well as some good ones, just like in any other media.
	To Mr.
	Vulkan, despite most of Naruto being garbage, the Zabuza arc was okay, plus Haku Best Girl.
	And to you, Lotus Eaters, we can't force you to watch anything.
	Still, I like hearing others' recommendations, even if they are mediocre, like Attack on Titan.
	Cheers.
	I think shots were fired there.
	Alrighty, so the last one?
	Right.
	So Matthew Hammond says, Are the Turks going to assist in saving the West by demanding proper gender roles?
	Or will they be excluded from society and eventually fall in line with the left's current ideas on gender?
	Now, I think that it is core to the TERF ideology that women are adult human females, and this is an essentialist position, and this means they will forever be outside of the intersectional tent.
	So I don't see how they can ever fall in line with the left's current ideas without losing their own movement.
	I don't think they're going to prepare to give up their own movement.
	So I think the TERFs have joined the far right.
	It is very weird though because they are clearly left-wing.
	Like when you watch them, the way they speak, all the rest of it, it's not through a right-wing or conservative mindset that they get to their conclusions.
	No.
	But their conclusions are rejected by the left and therefore they're part of the rightist movement.
	Yes.
	Welcome aboard!
	We were speaking earlier about Brandy Love on porn stars being a bit of a weird ally in the rightist movement in the US. I mean, the fact that we have clearly left-wing feminists, I mean, even radical feminists, being part of the rightist movement in the UK is probably a weird ally, but I kind of like them.
	Well, it's because there's no arguing the case.
	If you think that there is an essential component to being a man or a woman, then if that's being challenged, you have to agree with the people who also agree with you on your point.
	If they're saying no, there is actually no biological connection between gender and sex.
	And it's like, okay, well, then we can't have a conversation, can we?
	You're a lunatic.
	Radnor says, remember when gay people said they just wanted to be allowed to exist, and so he gave them civil partnerships?
	Then they said that wasn't good enough, so he started forcing churches to hold gay weddings.
	Again, I don't like the framing of the term gay, because it's not about gay.
	There are right-wing gays who are not doing any of this thing.
	It's all left-wing.
	It's all left-wing gays who are doing this.
	And non-gay leftists will do this.
	They're all in support of it.
	And so I don't think it's about being gay or being straight.
	I think it's about your political persuasion.
	How do you view things that are sacrosanct, for example?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Do you think that children's innocence should be considered sacred?
	And someone like Douglas Murray would say, yeah, of course.
	Why are you even asking me that?
	But then someone on the left who is gay would say...
	Or straight.
	Or straight.
	Or they, them, or whatever the hell they want.
	Would say, I hate children, probably.
	So anyway...
	Student of History says, here's an observation.
	Historically, the left loves its circular firing squads and purity spirals, and judging by that video, it doesn't take much to be the catalyst for a purity spiral.
	Why don't rightists start poking and prodding these sort of things, like please define woman?
	Well, they should.
	They should be making the left define everything.
	Yeah, and it's also really funny, as we saw with the clip of Joe Swenson.
	Like, no political leader in the UK, I don't even know if Boris Johnson could define a woman if he was asked, because he would splutter and splurt about, you know, trans women, I can't say that they're not women.
	Yeah, we need a more gender-neutral, feminine approach.
	Yeah, it's just really funny, if nothing else.
	We're not erasing women.
	We're just changing the definition into something meaningless.
	We're not, wait, I feel a deja vu.
	Am I repeating myself?
	Yeah, I mean, I saw a definition of woman the other day that I might do a video about because it was really good, but I can't remember exactly how it was framed.
	But the framing basically meant that anyone was a woman, or maybe even everyone was a woman.
	I like her framing the slippery slope as essentially a lack of reasoned argument, because the point is that they have no end point.
	Total inclusivity is where they're going to have to go, and what does that mean?
	Well, that means exactly what the German nonce decided, which is the legalization of paedophilia is just part of society.
	Yeah, I mean...
	Whereas, you know, take Douglas or something.
	Like, if you could...
	Like, the early argument about homosexual toleration being a slippery slope to paedoism...
	Douglas Murray would say, no, I have an end goal here.
	It's just toleration.
	Leave me and my boyfriend alone.
	That's it.
	I mean, there are two ways of arguing it, and it comes from two different routes.
	And on some things, they'll overlap.
	It's exactly the same with us on the TERFs.
	I mean, honestly, if the intersectionals didn't exist, the TERFs would be our primary antagonist, probably.
	Talking about the wage gap.
	Yeah, they'd be screeching about men oppressing women, wage gap, all these sort of theoretical unfairnesses that are happening to women in society.
	Socialist in nature, that there's an equal outcome, therefore.
	Absolutely.
	But as it is, even though we both disagree on almost everything because of the way that things have aligned, we've had to overlap.
	But the slippery slope, it's not really a fallacy.
	I don't like it being described as a fallacy because it's not really.
	I'll probably do a proper video on this, but basically...
	Well, in summary, right, there are two types of fallacies.
	There are formal and informal fallacies.
	It's not a fallacy if there's no stopping.
	Like, if someone comes to you and they're like, yeah, I want to go total inclusivity, that includes, you know, where that goes, and then, well, there's no slippery slope there, and it's definitely not a fallacy.
	They are directly pushing you along a path.
	Well, fallacy when used in formal definition is a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises, which means it has to be definitionally true or false, right?
	And so it's either there's a problem with the structure of the logical structure of the argument, right?
	But that means that this is not contingent on reality.
	It doesn't matter what anything else is.
	So 2 plus 2 equals 5 is obviously wrong because of the information that the conclusions were reached is incorrect.
	But an informal fallacy is one that can be informed by a lack of information, and so it's definitionally contingent, right?
	So you have to check reality to see if that's correct.
	And so the slippery slope is, you know, if we do X then we'll do Y, then we'll do Z, then we end up at the unfortunate conclusion.
	And so basically it's just the number of premises that you put in that gives it inductive strength.
	It's not true or false, it's likely or unlikely.
	And I'm sorry, but at this point I think we can say we have more than enough evidence to say that it is likely That the left will try and sexualise children.
	We have lots of examples of it, so it's a strong inductive argument.
	You can't say it's definitionally true or false, so it's not a formal fallacy.
	It's an informal one, and only when you don't have enough premises to really make it a likely end statement.
	In this case, we definitely have enough to say yes, the left are going to try and sexualise children, no question.
	I would say it's true, though.
	Like, if you make the premises of, I want total inclusivity, any restrictions on relationships, it's oppressive, where does that lead you?
	It's just true that that person...
	But then that's not a slippery slope argument.
	Yeah.
	That's a cliff.
	Yeah, but it was, again, a definitional one.
	But in the form of a slippery slope argument, it's highly likely that the left will do all these things because they have done them before.
	They're saying, essentially, they're going to do them.
	There's no reason to not believe them.
	Sure.
	Anyway, Andrew says, should the term Biden regime be used if Biden has little to no influence in it?
	I'm starting to see many parallels to the Bush administration here.
	Well, I mean, we could always call it the, um, what's the name of the Saki?
	Saki regime.
	Not Kamala?
	I don't know how much control she's got.
	Like, she doesn't seem to be very involved.
	Again, she seems to be cackling by the border or something.
	It seems there's like a group of people behind the throne that are orchestrating these things.
	But I don't really know what else we can call it other than the Biden regime for now.
	Duffy says, the parallels between Biden and the fictional Senator Islinn in The Manchurian Candidate is striking.
	I've never actually read or seen The Manchurian Candidate, so I'm actually not familiar.
	Which leads me to ask, will that novel be part of the book club?
	Just hide the Queen of Hearts from the Department of Justice when you do.
	Well, I guess it's going to have to be at some point then, isn't it?
	I don't know.
	Supreme Duck says, who ordered one of those fake audience sounds?
	Biden did not have that many people cheering.
	Yeah, we should have got a picture from the back of the auditorium that was going around, because it's an incredibly small section.
	I mean, our live shows get more people than Joe Biden's.
	Henry says, Biden's reputation is so bad that I thought the stream had broken.
	But hey, at least he doesn't drink a glass two-handed like Trump did, or the media might be worried about his mental competence.
	Yeah, exactly.
	What about my two scoops?
	God, I miss Trump's Twitter feed.
	Catastrophic Regression Threshold says, Perfect example of inflation.
	It used to cost me $30 to fill my tank.
	Filled it from about empty the other day, and it was $50.
	The $30 was less than a year ago.
	It's the same with food prices and everything else.
	It's all doubled and tripled.
	It's mad.
	Anyway, I think we're out of time there, man.
	Yeah.
	So if you want more from us, go to lowseers.com.
	We'll have some clips going up over the weekend on YouTube, Facebook, and Noltec.
	If you want to get premium access, please do go and sign up.
	That's how we keep the show going.
	And there is loads of stuff on there now.
	Oh, yeah.
	And we will be doing the review of...
	In protection of freedom of speech from Lawrence Fox after this, I believe, right?
	Yes.
	And next week we'll have the Road to Wigan Pier.
	And also we've got a Critical Race Theory premium podcast coming because there's so much stuff that the mythicist Milwaukee guys, and again, big salute, have dug up.
	And to people who haven't read their texts, they seem weird and alien, but I can actually put them in context and show people what they're trying to do with the things that they're doing.
	That doesn't make them justified or good, obviously.
	But I think it's worth us actually understanding what they're saying rather than...
	Because in any other respect, they'll just be like, well, you're strawmanning, you're strawmanning.
	You don't understand what I'm trying to do.
	I've read your Bible.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm halfway through their Bible at the moment.
	And it's literally like this.
	It's awful.
	But I can see from what I've read so far what they're trying to do.
	So we're going to go through it in detail.
	And that'll be good.
	Anyway, other than that, we'll be back on Monday.
	Thank you.

▲