Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

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

01:32:25

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #206

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast, The Lotus Eaters, for the 26th of August 2021.
	I'm joined by Josh.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about how gender ideology has come crumbling down in the UK. It's good to see that there's been some movement on this that's very positive.
	Also, UK climate mania, especially in response to Extinction Rebellion and their...
	Playful attempts to try and get attention, should we call it that?
	And also the bizarro responses to COVID. I thought we'd just go through a few of them, because they're a bit of bunch.
	They don't really tie in together that well.
	But they're all very weird, like the outdoor mandate for masks in America that's coming in.
	I think it's Oregon that they're introducing this.
	It's like, why?
	Of course it's Oregon, though.
	Of all the places, that would be the one.
	I reckon.
	Anyway, so let's get into the stuff on the web.
	You don't get that reference to you.
	Let's go to the first thing on here.
	So just to mention the gold tier Zoom call, 4pm today.
	We're doing that today, not tomorrow.
	Reason being, because of the academic agent conference that we're going to go to tomorrow, we want to head off as soon as we've done the podcast and upload the clips because we want to be there in time.
	So we won't be doing the gold tier Zoom tomorrow.
	We'll be doing it today, 4pm.
	Hopefully I made that clear.
	Alright, also the next one being Carl's new direct video he's done called Why Do People Cheer the Destruction of OnlyFans?
	Because sex at work is not real at work.
	No, his argument is basically that this is online prostitution, and that's bad.
	And everyone knows it's bad.
	I mean, regardless of your thoughts on what people should be able to do, everyone agrees, you know, no one make it illegal, but they should be able to do whatever the hell they want.
	But that doesn't mean what they're doing is moral or good.
	So, anyway, go give that a watch.
	Also, last thing to mention being the live events.
	So the live events we have on the 24th and 25th of September.
	24th of September being South London, 25th of September being Central London.
	If you buy a ticket, you'll get sent the location via, I think it's email.
	We're sending people the tickets for the live event.
	Is that correct, John?
	Yes.
	Yes, okay.
	So, that's how you get the details.
	Other than that, we're going to get into the story.
	So, is everything okay on your end?
	I can see, John?
	Yeah, the stream is not streaming properly on the end, but it's open.
	Okay.
	If people can hear me, there's some problems we're going to try and fix on the back end, but otherwise we're going to get into it because we have to.
	So, first thing to talk about, gender ideology is coming crumbling down in the UK, which is good to see.
	The story being from Ofcom, and that's one of all people.
	So Ofcom have decided they're not going to buy into gender ideology for people who are abroad.
	Ofcom is the regulatory body of the UK government for offline communications like TV, radio, that sort of thing.
	I think they do expand themselves into online communications now.
	But they're like trying to get in the door, which, worry.
	I think that's the online harms bill where they're trying to get Ofcom more involved with the internet, aren't they?
	But they've actually done something good, so I thought we'd go through it.
	So this is Ofcom's tweet.
	We've recently reviewed our relationship with Stonewall and have decided to withdraw from its diversity championship scheme.
	They're getting rid of the diversity champion scheme, because they don't want to be involved in that anymore, because Stonewall is obviously an insane organisation run by lunatics, and yeah, who would want to be involved with that?
	It's good to see that the Conservatives are actually doing Conservative things.
	Yeah, the Conservative government, this being a government body, need to do the right thing, which is to get themselves away from these kind of extremists, and this is a way to do it, which is to stop giving them money.
	I mean, it's weird that the Conservative government effectively is subsidizing leftism through these means.
	Anyway, so if we go to the next link on this, this is the full statement, so I'm just going to go through this.
	So, Ofcom says...
	First, having laid the foundations that will help us improve support for LGBTQ plus colleagues, we're confident that we can move ahead positively without continuing with the Diversity Champions program.
	I do love that.
	Turns out diversity does have an end.
	You know how the progress never ends meme?
	Apparently they're done.
	They don't need the advisors on diversity anymore.
	Well, in which case, every company presumably is at a point where they are supportive of LGBTQ plus people.
	Therefore, you can fire everyone in your HR department who wants their lives on this stuff and put them somewhere where they're actually productive.
	That would be so good for the economy, just all of that wasted, inefficient money that a company could divert to making products cheaper or services cheaper.
	It's just being sucked up by these HR people who are just dead weight in companies a lot of the time.
	Sorry if you're a HR person, I'm sure.
	If you're watching, you're probably one of the better ones.
	If you're a HR person who spends all your time on...
	What is it?
	Identity ideology, then yeah, you are kind of wasting your life at this point, especially.
	I mean, you're always kind of wasting your life with identity ideology, but whatever.
	What's done is done.
	So if you're a company that wants to move forward, I guess you can point to Ofcom and say, that's the way.
	We no longer need to pay for these people because surely we are an inclusive company.
	Oh, we are.
	Then we don't need to pay for this anymore.
	Done.
	They say, second, in recent months, there has been a significant scrutiny of some of Stonewall's policy positions.
	In Ofcom's case, we have considered whether our relationship with Stonewall poses a conflict or risk of perceived bias.
	Because, of course, they're a government body.
	You know, they can't be biased.
	That is number one.
	I really hope that the British police are listening and start taking off their seven bits of flair that they have.
	Oh, you can move up to 23, I guess.
	Stepping back from the Diversity Champions program in light of this is the right thing to do.
	As the communications regulator, an important part of our responsibility is to ensure that we remain impartial and independent at all times.
	Good!
	I mean, being grown up, being sensible...
	These people are clearly very partisan with gender ideology.
	I'm amazed that it's taken this long, really.
	It's entirely obvious, if you look into Stonewall, what they're all about.
	They're not exactly secretive about it, are they?
	No, they're clearly far left on this sort of stuff, and in which case you should not be involved if you are a sensible organisation, particularly for a government organisation, British police.
	Anyway, the last part of this statement makes me confused.
	Our commitment to supporting the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ plus people is as strong as ever.
	We will continue to participate in Stonewall's Workplace Equality Index, which is widely recognised as a strong benchmarking tool for employers to measure their progress on LGBT plus inclusion in the workplace.
	Right, if Stonewall are clearly a partisan organisation, have you have said in this, then why would you want anything to do with them at all?
	I mean, it's right for them to say, well, stop giving them cash, but then you shouldn't be involved with them at all, otherwise that is, of course, an act of bias, said by yourselves.
	So, that doesn't make any sense.
	Yeah, I don't really understand why they wouldn't just sabotage entirely if they're admitting that they're biased and then also admitting that they've got some degree...
	Responsibility.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's very strange.
	I suppose they're just trying to cover themselves, like, public perception-wise.
	Like, they're not severing their ties entirely, where it might look like they're being somehow discriminatory, at least.
	It does make me scared that they're prepared to just cut the money for now, and then as soon as we get a Labour government sometime in the future, they'll just put it right back to being funding them.
	Oh yeah, it's very dependent on the Conservatives remaining in government, isn't it?
	I don't know whose remit this comes under, but whatever minister is responsible should make sure that every department underneath them has stopped funding all ties with Stonewall, not just the money ties, let's say.
	They shouldn't even be a charity, really.
	They're a political activist company.
	Yeah, so in case you're wondering why this is such a great victory and good, because Stonewall is crazy.
	So if we go to the story on this, this was a while back, Stonewall boss defends new strategy amid criticism.
	So she said, comparing TERFs to anti-Semites in a statement, with all beliefs, including controversial beliefs, there is a right to express those beliefs publicly and where they're harmful or damaging.
	Whether it's anti-Semitic beliefs, gender critical beliefs, beliefs about disability, we have legal systems that are put in place for people who are harmed by that.
	Saying that freedom of speech had its limits, such as saying that women are women or that Jews don't deserve to exist.
	Those are the same thing.
	Those are the same category of speech.
	I imagine if you just asked the average person on the street whether those were comparable things, they would think you're on your way to an insane asylum, probably.
	Yeah.
	So this was the head of Stonewall.
	And this was in an interview after they were getting questioned for some of their extremism, and she was like, yeah, let me double down.
	Like, that was the interview she gave to the BBC, and then they refused to take any calls after this interview for quite some time.
	And they were just like, oh, you want us to come on and debate something?
	No, not now.
	Not feeling it.
	All of a sudden.
	Yeah, so Liz Truss did the right thing.
	So if we go to the next one here, we have the Times article.
	Liz Truss urges official withdrawal from Stonewall Diversity Scheme for all government departments.
	Good.
	She didn't have the power to do this.
	She only has power under the Equalities Department that she's in charge of.
	But it's up to the Cabinet Office to do it for all government departments.
	And the Equalities Department she's in charge of did pull this funding.
	It had nothing to do with them.
	It's not going to be like the diversity training where it's going to sneak into the different departments again under a different guise, though, is it?
	Maybe, but I mean, this in specifics is about money.
	So the money the equality department was giving to Stanmore, gone.
	And now with Ofcom...
	Gone.
	I mean, sure, there's the stuff they mentioned that still will be part of the index, but the money is gone, which is important, and it's a very good step, so they deserve applause for this.
	I also love how all the, like, front-bench conservatives who are going to be, like, the ones you'd expect to rise up are kind of, like, women, which I find funny.
	Like, Liz Truss, Kevin Baden-Ock, Priti Patel.
	I mean, these are, like, the front-runners of, like, who's based.
	I just find that really funny.
	Anyway, moving on.
	So in here, the scheme counts for 250 government departments and public bodies among its 850 members, which pay for guidance on issues such as pronouns and gender neutral spaces.
	Piss it up the wall.
	That's what they do with our money.
	These government departments, 250 of them, off comes one, there'll be a bunch under the Equality Department and whatnot.
	I mean, all these different bodies, they're all signed up to ask Stonewall, what pronouns should we use?
	And Stonewall goes, use Dedem.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	Bye-bye.
	Have some cash.
	That's the interaction.
	It's not even good value for money, even if it was a worthwhile endeavour, which it isn't, but...
	Which is why it's been described and is obviously a racket.
	It is one where Stonewall says, we're the chiefs of good and virtue because we're tolerant and diverse.
	And if you're not on our list as an employer who's good for gay people or whatever else, they have all these indexes, as mentioned, therefore you're bad.
	So they're going to use that as a stick to beat government departments.
	So they've been doing it very well, getting quite a lot of cash out of it.
	So, if government departments were to do this, as we've shown before, if you actually look at Stonewall's income, they would go from a net positive, I think it's like £800,000 a year, to a net negative of £200,000 a year.
	The government is the thing propping them up.
	They would be burning through their cash reserves if the government just went, yeah, we're not going to be partisan.
	So, hopefully it's going to be, what, a matter of a couple of years unless they find other funding before they just have to admit, yeah, we can't run this anymore.
	Yeah, the extremism is extremism, and therefore had no role to play in government, specifically under a conservative government as well.
	Like, if you are going to be partisan, as the Labour Party has in the past, they've made all these organisations openly pro-Labour ideology, or therefore you do it for conservative ideology, right?
	But the conservatives don't do that.
	The best they can do is at least be non-partisan, by just saying, we're not just going to give out cash to nut jobs, we're just going to do the government thing that we're paid to do, instead of just handing out...
	Subsidies.
	Anyway, so if we go to the next one, we have some other messed up stuff.
	So this is the recording of the story.
	Media Watchdog Ofcom quits Stonewall diversity scheme.
	Stonewall said it fully respects Ofcom's decision, but it's sad that the scheme is seen as unimpartial.
	I'm not sure that's a word, but okay.
	I don't know why they're sad about it, because it obviously is crazy.
	I'd be sad too if I was missing out on easy money, to be honest.
	Fair.
	Hundreds of private and public organisations, including the BBC, writes the BBC, are members of the Diversity Championship Scheme.
	Well, there's another one.
	Liz, in case you're wondering, if you've got an afternoon and you're a bit bored, call up the Director General of the BBC and be like, pull.
	Pull this money out because this is taxpayers' money.
	This is not for you to piss off the wall for your own ideology.
	Or just don't fund the entire BBC, frankly.
	But, you know, another reason.
	In return for the annual payment, members receive advice on issues such as the use of personal pronouns at work and whether single-sex toilets should be accessible to transgender people.
	Again, yeah, this is not going anywhere.
	These are definitely questions that need an entire organisation to answer.
	A million pounds, or whatever it was, they're getting from the taxpayer to tell you about pronouns.
	Oh, it's beyond parody, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Ofcom is the latest organisation to leave the scheme.
	In March, the Equality and Human Rights Commission announced it would also withdraw, citing cost issues, which is wonderful.
	Thanks, Liz and Kemi.
	In December, Ofcom's chief executive, Dame Milan Dawes, appeared to suggest at a parliamentary select committee that the BBC should not talk to a charity called LGB Alliance, which has emerged as a rival to Stonewall.
	Because, of course, there are people who are activists for gay tolerance and all the rest of it, you know, the traditional types who are coming at this from a liberal angle of equality under the law, they've all split off from the communist equality of outcome folks, and they've made their own organisation, LGB Alliance, and then you've got Stonewall who are like, yeah, but what if everyone who's gay is trans?
	I was like, right, no, you people are crazy.
	I'm not going to interact with you.
	At least that's a lot easier to say, the LGB Alliance, than all of the letters that I'm...
	Finding it impossible to remember now.
	We have a cut-off point.
	It's about the sexuality of being gay or straight or bi.
	Although I do, I love John's comment on this, which was that the L and the G's are the same thing, because it's just gay.
	Like, gay women are lesbians, but that's just gay again.
	So technically it's the GB Alliance, so it's Great British Alliance, which is great, I know.
	So afterwards, Ofcom said that the dame had not meant to imply that broadcasters should not talk to gender-critical groups, and today they told me that her comments at the time had been misinterpreted, and that she was simply seeking to make a point that all in-air debates must be balanced.
	By saying that you shouldn't talk to the opponents of gender ideology, that keeps it balanced.
	Right.
	No one believes that.
	Perfectly sane view.
	I'm glad that she has effectively been pushed into the position that, yeah, we should be impartial, and now she has got the funding to Stonewall.
	In May, a barrister-led report into two incidents from the University of Exeter, where female academics who were accused of transphobia had speaking engagements withdrawn, found that Stonewall may have given incorrect and potentially illegal advice to the university, something Stonewall denies.
	That was the University of Essex, by the way.
	Sorry, Essex.
	Sorry, got me messed up.
	But the fact that they're also just giving out potentially illegal advice to these universities to get their opponents deplatformed from public spaces.
	I mean, you cannot get a more perfect example of these people are insane, far left on gender ideology.
	They are also happy to use leftist tactics of suppression.
	They're going to take money from the government whenever they can, and they're also going to censor anyone who disagrees with them.
	Isn't encouraging deplatforming now something that goes against the actual law?
	Because I know Gavin Williamson was protecting speakers at universities, wasn't he?
	Yeah, the new guidance got published that you have to protect the speakers at universities in response to this kind of bullying from these extreme left organisations.
	I mean, again, the evil right-wing being like, yeah, universities are a place for everyone.
	Radical position.
	I know.
	When that's being portrayed as the bad and kind of immoral position, you've got to question it.
	Just like, yes, we want to include everyone.
	We don't want to de-platform people.
	Just because they're...
	So evil.
	You're such a bigot for doing so.
	Yeah, whereas Stonewall were giving advice that you should de-platform people because they're transphobes.
	Transphobes?
	What does that mean?
	Well, apparently it just means that women have vaginas.
	That's the position that is transphobic.
	The Liz Truss position.
	The UK government position.
	The majority of psychologists' positions as well.
	Also biology's position, but never mind.
	Let's go to GB News.
	So there was a clip of GB News talking about this on Woke Watch, which I'm always glad to talk about because I like Woke Watch as a concept, especially.
	So let's play the first clip of Andrew Doyle talking about this.
	I think a lot of people are going to be confused as to why it seems to be prominent gay figures who are coming out against Stonewall.
	And the reason for that is Stonewall of today is not what Stonewall once was.
	What sort of happened is after gay marriage in 2013, you suddenly have this situation where all of the major victories have been won and we have complete gay equality under the law.
	That's not to say that homophobia was eliminated, but on paper everything was great.
	And that gives a kind of crisis of purpose.
	To Stonewall and a lot of people, some cynical people or maybe just sensible people now think that Stonewall pivoted into the trans issue and trans ideology because they had nowhere left to go and they needed to justify the continuance of government funding.
	I think there's a good argument for that.
	I think that also is misunderstood because I think a lot of people think, well hold a minute, if all they're doing now is campaigning for equality for trans people, what's wrong with that?
	And there's nothing wrong with that because we all agree with that.
	That's not what Stonewall is about now.
	It's not about trans equality.
	What they're about now is pushing gender identity ideology.
	I mean, everything's sensible from Andrew Doyle there.
	And a correct assessment.
	The only thing I would maybe bring him up on is the idea that, you know, some people, as you say, argue that it's a cynical move from Stonewall.
	I wouldn't really, I mean, the rigging of money from the government certainly looks like you're just trying to get cash out of them.
	But generally speaking, I would not say that these people are grifters in the sense of just saying, like, I think they are genuine believers of their nonsense.
	I I 100% agree.
	I mean, it's not anything that's too extreme from the current dialogues on the left, is it?
	It's not like it's a massive anomaly where you could say, okay, they're just grifting.
	I mean, it's in keeping with the ideology that they surround themselves with.
	The Stonewall types, the people who are the activists who run Stonewall and are the extremists who propagate things like gender-critical beliefs is the same as anti-Semitism and should have you sent to prison if you say it, because that's what happens in the UK if you say anti-Semitic things online, for example.
	Yeah, these people are nuts.
	And they're also in line with just Labour Party speeches.
	So I think they genuinely do believe it.
	But other than that, I mean, I love how he mentioned as well The fact that you can see the liberal split, as he mentioned.
	So him making the point that, well, we kind of won all of our victories under the law, the liberal position of equality under the law.
	Then everyone just kind of left.
	You know, all the liberals were like, well, job done.
	Go home now.
	Go home and be gay.
	And no, the socialists are not interested in that sort of thing.
	They all stuck around.
	Of course they would, though.
	So anyway, hoes mad, hoes very mad, so this is another thing to be very happy about this.
	If the hoes aren't mad, then we've done nothing.
	When the hoes are mad, I think it's a good barometer of if you've actually hurt the left, is how butthurt they are about the thing.
	You see it?
	What are you, some rapper now?
	No, I just like saying hoes mad.
	The hoes being the left.
	So I've got the first one here.
	This is Joe.
	I don't know who Joe is.
	To my trans followers, please remember there are many, many people who don't believe your mere existence is divisive, or that you're in danger to women, or any equivalent nonsense, and that the T is as important and valued as all the letters in LGBTQI+. He's a comedian, by the way.
	I went to the comedy store in London, or whatever it's called, and he was one of the people that was there.
	He's actually one of the better comics as well, which is a shame to see.
	Yeah.
	No one is arguing that the existence of trans people is divisive.
	No one said that.
	Also, no one said that the existence of trans people is necessarily a danger to women.
	The argument is whether or not you should put men who identify as women in female changing rooms, refuges, and so on and so forth, prisons, and we don't have to speculate in the UK. I know the US might not be there yet, but we have the cases, of course, as we mentioned before, of Karen White, Gotta respect that name, because she is definitely a woman who sexually assaulted the female inmates in her prison with other women.
	Great.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's just obvious nonsense.
	People don't live in reality land.
	Instead, they live in this fantasy where trans people are some kind of perfect angels.
	They're not human.
	I mean, they are perfect angels, never do nothing.
	But also the idea that the T is as important and valued as all the letters in LGBTQI+. Well, there is plus.
	I don't even know.
	I mean, we look at this kind of stuff quite a lot throughout the day, and I still don't know what the plus stands for.
	Anything.
	No barriers.
	I mean, no barriers whatsoever.
	I mean, when they talk about inclusivity, they're talking about destroying all barriers, and therefore the plus has to include everyone, surely.
	People who are into bestiality.
	They're included.
	They're just as valid.
	If leather fetish is a sexuality, the sick Fs who engage in, let's say, illegal activities, they can also argue that that's their sexuality, as they do when questioned on this sort of thing.
	So...
	I want to rethink the plus there.
	I mean, this is why I quite like the LGBT line.
	So they're like, no, here's the line.
	Like, here's our definite line.
	People who are attracted to the same sex and or different sex.
	That's it.
	That's all we are.
	You know, we're staying there.
	We're not steering into any other territory of this is totally a sexuality, I swear.
	Yeah.
	Mr.
	Leather.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	So there's some people being mad that apparently not being partisan is a partisan position, according to the left.
	So really, Ofcom, we have considered whether our relationship with Stonewall poses a conflict or risk of perceived bias.
	This is astonishing and unsurprising.
	At the same time, if the regulator of comms doesn't support all people, isn't that itself bias?
	Hashtag trans rights or human rights.
	So if you're non-partisan, if you're inside, we're not going to touch the gender ideology debate because we're here to regulate radio to make sure no one's swearing on the radio.
	You weirdos can have your debate elsewhere.
	Yeah, no, that's them engaging in bias because they're not endorsing our position.
	I like how the left always act as if their opinions are just a given fact, whereas quite often the right can at least recognise that their opinions are opinions and that there is some existing debate.
	They're so far gone that they're just like, yeah, there's not even a debate, even though there is a debate and they're participating in it right now.
	It's a fantastic point.
	Rightists always do have this perception that they're at war with the left about their ideas, but there are two different ideas.
	They think the lefts are absurd, but they are ideas.
	But the leftist position is always, we're right.
	If you don't agree with us, that's you being partisan.
	Even if you're in a non-partisan position of saying, I'm not touching this with a 50-foot pole.
	So we have another one of someone doing this, another ho who's mad.
	Ofcom stated they pulled out because they, quote, need to remain impartial and independent at all times.
	Completely sensible.
	You can't possibly create an inclusive workspace and be neutral in the context of upholding equality.
	It's just utter nonsense to suggest otherwise.
	We can't achieve socialism without being neutral.
	Yes, that's the position he's arguing here.
	It's also very strange to see inclusive workplace, because if you work for any kind of competitive business, it's not really inclusive, it's a meritocratic institution, right?
	Every job is exclusive.
	There's only one person who can have it.
	Mm-hmm.
	And quite often, if you're not up to scratch for the job, they'll get rid of you.
	That's not inclusive, because they're not including people who aren't as competent as others.
	You can read through the lines here.
	He's just like, yeah, we need to uphold equality.
	Equality is not a liberal value, it is a socialist value.
	And yes, you will not uphold equality by being neutral.
	Because you have to be a socialist to uphold equality.
	And therefore, if you are neutral or liberal, you're the enemy.
	That's the position of him.
	And that's why no government body should be involved.
	Doyle also mentioned there were the high-profile gays who keep leaving Stonewall to attack him.
	I thought we'd go through some of this, because it's great.
	So Simon, if we go to the next article here, Simon Cowell, the actor and veteran gay rights campaigner, has condemned the strange turn to the tyrannical taken by Stonewall over self-identification for transgender people.
	Cal, who was involved in the anti-government protest that led to the foundation of Stonewall in 1989, said, quote, I mean, would stir up with his comments for simply expressing his views
	i mean the people who founded stonewall the liberals as doyle was pointing out who went with it for the gay toleration movement and uh and then achieved that and were like going home got husband bye-bye uh they're undisgust of what it has become because of course it has been taken over by leftists who are obsessed with this sort of thing i love where he also points out the idea that you have uh Gay people turning trans, which is a criticism a lot of gays have been leveling at Stonewall because it seems to be true.
	So Stonewall has been accused of also using a workplace equality scheme to coerce publicly funded organizations and companies to lobby for changes in the law.
	Yeah, so the top 100 employers for LGBT or top 100 employers for Muslims or any of these kind of organizations.
	You always see the little badges, especially on government websites.
	It's a con.
	It is them coercing public bodies and becoming agents for them, especially with the changes of the law.
	They're getting paid to influence the government as well, which is the real travesty here, is that the government and the taxpayers, so us, are paying these organisations to then have undue influence against our own interests.
	I mean, it's all kinds of sickening on a democratic level.
	So if for some reason you're not convinced that this is doomed, I thought we'd take a look at cutting-edge gender ideology from libs of TikTok, giving us an example.
	I thought we'd just end on this.
	This could be fun.
	So the point here being that, well, if you for some reason are in agreement that Stonewall didn't do nothing, well, then you have to come up with a counter-argument for everything coming out of TikTok libs.
	Otherwise, your ideology has to end somewhere, bro.
	So I thought we'd just enjoy some cringe.
	Let's play this.
	People who identify as a Lexi gender fall under the gender fluid umbrella, which falls under the non-binary umbrella.
	What on earth is that?
	Which falls under the trans umbrella.
	People who identify as a Lexi gender are fluid between different genders, But never know exactly what gender they are at a certain time.
	Some Alexi gender friends, however, may understand that they feel more feminine, masculine, androgynous, or neutral at a certain time, but not the exact term for the gender that they feel.
	And they might not ever feel any of those things, but still not understand what that means.
	Either way, not every Alexi gender friend is the same as another Alexi gender friend.
	Booey lover!
	Lexigender friends!
	I mean, besides the obvious cringe, but the point there, they're making up new genders, as usual.
	A Lexigender, which means literally anything.
	If they don't know what gender they are, surely that is just...
	You can call that gender dysphoria, right?
	That's just the condition gender dysphoria.
	It's not its own thing.
	It's not controversial.
	But I remember yesterday there was a clip Carl played of some girl had gone up to a teacher and be like, are you messed up?
	And the teacher started laughing because it was, you know, she found it rude.
	And it was like, look, when even your position is, I messed up.
	I don't know what gender I am at any given part of the day.
	And it can also be all three of the ideas that I've made up in my head.
	Then, yeah, you're looking messed up.
	Anyway, I thought we'd just end on this.
	Nice little meme.
	So my response to this, if there was any weather, by Allah, you people are dogs.
	I will go on as usual.
	You don't know those memes?
	No.
	Oh, I love memory TV. Anyway, that's that.
	Anyway, let's go on as usual.
	Sure.
	So, I wanted to talk about the UK's apparent infatuation with climate extremism, I suppose, is the word for it.
	I've titled it Climate Mania.
	But we've just been doing loads of really crazy things despite the fact that as far as green technology and all of that sort of thing and being carbon neutral, we're probably one of the furthest along in the Western world.
	I know we've got loads of businesses in particular that are based here that are developing Like, renewable energy and things like that.
	But never mind that.
	One stupid thing that I've seen is that the National Trust has now offered staff Mediterranean working hours with the option of siestas to cope with the harsh heatwave conditions of Surrey in England, southern England.
	We've never had heatwaves before, have we?
	It's just so absurd.
	Mediterranean working hours.
	What?
	They do kind of love it.
	It's clearly just the guys in charge are getting a bit old and they'd like a siesta.
	I mean, I do appreciate that they are just offering them the choice.
	They don't have to do it.
	Yeah, everyone's going to do it.
	Yeah.
	Do you want a nap at work?
	Well...
	But this is just obviously ridiculous.
	Like, anyone who lives in the UK, to refer to any aspect of our climate as Mediterranean is patently absurd.
	Well...
	I mean, to give them their fare, we do have that one week a year where it gets kind of hot, and then it rains, and then it's back to normal.
	Yeah, we have one week a year where the sun comes out.
	Other than that, it's just clouds all the time.
	I mean, it's like Tacitus' description of Britain, which I mentioned in An Epochs with Beau, where he just says, yeah, it's a gloomy and grim island, basically, where it just rains all the time.
	And it's not changed.
	2,000 years later, the climate is more or less...
	The same.
	As the Romans described it.
	Yes.
	It is grim.
	It is definitely not Mediterranean.
	I wish it was.
	But alas, it is grim and miserable.
	So this is a little bit needless.
	And the fact that we haven't even had a proper summer either.
	A little bit.
	Yeah, we've not even had a proper summer.
	It's rained a lot.
	We've had a couple of days of heat, maybe a week or so, and that's it.
	And it's almost the end of August.
	So we've had that one week of sunshine, and we're back to oppressive darkness once more.
	But supposedly siestas may be introduced into 500 National Trust heritage sites, because of course the National Trust manages these old properties.
	Sorry, I'm just seeing the chat doing self-park impressions.
	You know, I'm so sleepy.
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	But yeah, they manage lots of old heritage sites, lots of stately homes, lots of lovely gardens and stuff.
	I've been to lots of National Trust places.
	They're otherwise doing good things and preserving our history.
	When they're not whining about there being too many white people?
	Yeah, well, the politicisation stuff is bad, obviously.
	But the main aim, the reason for existing, is good, I think.
	And...
	So, for example, Ham House in Richmond will be one of the first to try out these supposed changes, and apparently it was forced to close after there was a heatwave in 2019 where the temperature reached 104 Fahrenheit for Americans, or 40 degrees Celsius for the rest of the world, which isn't really that hot.
	Have you ever been to Spain?
	It's kind of that temperature all the time.
	Yeah, it's pretty hot, 40 degrees Celsius.
	Yeah, well, that's probably one day of the year.
	That's really the point, is that it's not unprecedented or even a long streak.
	And it's not like you can't prepare.
	If it's going to be hot, just wear a hat, put on some sun cream.
	I bought a fan.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you can't really do that if you're a gardener in the National Trust to carry around a van with you.
	But if you're out in the elements, there are things you can do to deal with the heat.
	I mean, if you're like a Spanish roofer or something where it's like 45 degrees and you're on a scalding hot roof, you don't see them complaining.
	Just like, you know what?
	Well, they take the siestas.
	That's true, but they're still working in very hot conditions that are definitely not British.
	To compare the two is just absurd.
	So, this was just something I thought was worth mentioning, but the main thing I wanted to look at was the Extinction Rebellion protests.
	So, they put out on Twitter here these two weeks of protests that are centred in London and They're supposedly, they started at 5.30 on Sunday and they were already climbing on structures and causing mayhem, letting off smoke, climbing on old buildings which they probably shouldn't be on.
	If we could move on to the next tweet, they're saying, I don't know what citizen assembly they mean.
	Like a parliament, maybe?
	Yep, we've got one of them.
	Yeah, I mean, they want to subvert the democratic process, basically, is what they're admitting here, isn't it?
	Yeah, and the main tactic is, of course, as you can see there, that they shut down central London.
	They essentially just sit round and block all the traffic for ages, and if the anti-lockdown protesters did this, they'd be battered with clubs.
	Of course, yeah.
	But because, of course, Extinction Rebellion, oh no, the media will kind of have a go at the government and the police if they do it.
	And there they are for some reason outside of Harry Potter world or whatever it is in London.
	This is another great advertisement for just not living in London.
	I mean, another one of the problems with London is just the endless stupid protests that are nonsense that block everything down.
	And these guys being the worst.
	Because they're not just protesting and they're like, right, many of us have heard, fair enough, we'll go home.
	It's no, we're going to sit around and make everyone's lives miserable until you listen to us.
	We're like, right.
	I really doubt they're going to convince many people who they're probably holding up for work and stuff like that and getting home from work and, I don't know, doing things other than standing around.
	But I think it is another argument for going to the countryside rather than living there.
	Yeah.
	So if we can move on to the next one, I've got a tweet from David here who always watches our stuff.
	If you could scroll down to the image, you can see them loading stuff out of a 4x4 in the middle of London.
	Is it a electric 4x4?
	No.
	And of course, anyone who knows London at all, it's completely unnecessary to have a vehicle like that.
	Well, I mean, they've got a lot of stuff in there.
	Yeah, well, I mean, you could just get a van, couldn't you?
	Yeah, but then again, that would be diesel, wouldn't it?
	Yeah, but it's just a little bit more hypocrisy.
	And although I will say that the criticisms of environmentalists, just like, yeah, well, they've got smartphones, they live in a house and stuff like that.
	I'm kind of a bit sceptical of that criticism because if they were like a hermit in the middle of the countryside, they're going to be even more easy to dismiss.
	I don't agree with that, though, because there's different kinds of environmentalism, obviously.
	There's the ones who are like, yeah, we should preserve our countryside and all the rest of it, and there's the ones who are concerned about change and whatnot.
	And then there are the weirdos.
	The Extinction Rebellion largely come under the weirdo section, and the best example of this was probably with Greenpeace.
	I think I've told this story before, but I'll tell it again.
	Which is, I was in the car with John, and we were listening to the radio, and a lady called up LBC because she said she had left Extinction Rebellion because she had co-founded it and worked with Greenpeace.
	I think it was two days of the work week.
	What?
	Like, no electricity for two days of the work week.
	And then her response was, right, that's a terrible plan.
	That's not going to work.
	Of course.
	And the response from everyone at the board was, no, no, that's how we're going to have to do it.
	There's no other way.
	And she went, right, you guys are nuts.
	I'm out of here.
	I'm going to go work with some sensible people.
	I imagine the people in hospital would have a thing or two to say about shutting down electricity.
	Yeah, so when they do drive around in diesel cars, I think they are deserving of criticism because their solutions are usually, no one should be able to do this, but we're going to do it now.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	I mean, I'm convinced.
	So I've got a few videos here of what's actually going on.
	The first one of which is from GB News, talking to one of the Extinction Rebellion people.
	So if we just have a listen to that.
	The general vibe is that everyone is carrying chairs and tired from that.
	And everyone's really excited for the next two weeks.
	It's going to be awesome.
	And we're looking forward to disrupting London in general.
	Yeah, we're here to disrupt.
	Yeah, and she was so pleased about disrupting people's lives and inconveniencing them, and it just makes me really annoyed, actually, that they're just so inconsiderate to other people.
	They're using that activism to browbeat people.
	If they want to shut down electricity for two days of the week for everyone in the country...
	I don't think they care at all about other people.
	No.
	But it's also, you can see just in the crowd, I mean, I hate to be rude, but you guys aren't going to affect anything, ever.
	Like, I'm sorry, but just, none of these people are going to switch their votes from Labour or Green Party, are they?
	They're never going to be convinced to vote conservative.
	Therefore, you are pointless in the political game.
	If you're not a voter who will change your mind of who you vote for, no political party will ever care about you, because what's the point?
	We can't wait you over.
	Exactly.
	And this next video, I will give you a warning.
	There is lots of screeching.
	There are lots of adults behaving like children when the police run in and try and stop them from blocking the road.
	So if we could watch this, you might want to cover your ears.
	To people listening, no one's being heard no one's being heard on screen.
	No.
	They're just screaming?
	The police are just gently moving people out of the road.
	And everyone around them, like, all the women are just screaming.
	They're just sitting on the floor screeching.
	It's like when a toddler can't get a toy in a shop or they can't get their way and then they lie on the floor.
	Look at that guy just going limp over the bicycle as well.
	You could see a couple of middle-aged women sat down there with their heads up going...
	Like toddlers.
	What is wrong with them?
	I just...
	How can an adult...
	I love the chat.
	It's literally the re-meme.
	It really is, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Cubs are like, could you please leave?
	And they just sit there and go, reeeeee!
	Oh dear.
	Right, there's another one.
	It gets more stupid.
	So the traffic that they're holding up, they're also not going to give them any opportunity to escape.
	So they're lying underneath the car tyres, apparently willing to get squashed by cars.
	That's the other side of the road.
	So for people listening, it's a guy underneath a...
	It is, yeah.
	...with his arm underneath the tyre in a metal rod.
	Just the more he concreted it.
	I don't know.
	But yeah, they're just lying in front of cars.
	I mean, I don't know why you would do this.
	I don't know what this is achieving for the climate, I suppose.
	They're preventing that one van from driving off for a little bit.
	This is really solving the crisis.
	The climate is solved.
	We stopped that one back.
	And then there's this one final one which you won't have to listen to.
	The Twitter...
	If we can get the Twitter link up.
	I know what you mean.
	I'm pretty sure that is the one where he concreted his arm inside that rod.
	Why would you do that to yourself?
	So then the fire service have to come out and cut it out.
	She's a prick.
	So that is, yeah, it's just being a nuisance to the emergency services.
	And as you can see here, this is probably a large part of why many people turn up, just for the party atmosphere that always seems to emerge.
	And we're not playing the audio because we don't want to get copyright strike on YouTube, but they're basically just dancing around.
	This has been at every single one, which is, you know...
	There is an aspect of protest that is fun sometimes, and Extinction Rebellion seems to be one that is highly centred around fun.
	Yeah, I mean, this isn't really particularly serious activism, is it?
	They're not winning hearts and minds by jumping around to music.
	No.
	It's also one of these protests where everything's very vague.
	The climate, what do we want?
	Better climate.
	How do we get it?
	Doing things.
	Yeah, it's just like, okay.
	Okay, then.
	So, so far, 118 people have been arrested from Sunday until yesterday.
	Obviously, we don't have the figures for today because today is not over yet.
	But supposedly, they went outside the Brazilian embassy in London yesterday.
	And that was kind of moving around parts of London, supposedly.
	And they were claiming that they were protesting against the genocidal attacks being waged against Brazil's indigenous people.
	That doesn't sound very climate-related.
	And the most charitable understanding I could think of is that, obviously, in Brazil they're deforesting a lot of the Amazon.
	I was half expecting them to say they're doing genocide against the trees, but...
	I mean, it's getting to that point, isn't it, almost?
	Trees are living things.
	You can't kill them, man.
	It's a valid argument.
	If you're an environmentalist, why not?
	Well, I don't think trees are quite as sentient as a human being, although judging from some of the crowd, I might call into question that.
	But yeah, I'm assuming they must mean that they're destroying the Amazon rainforest.
	It wasn't entirely clear from what they've said because...
	They're not really too concerned about detailed political commentary.
	They're more concerned about the performance, but I'll get onto that in a second.
	So, on Tuesday, they also blocked the entrance to Selfridges in Oxford Street in protest against clothes production, where they claim it's damaging the environment.
	What isn't?
	I know, yeah.
	Everything is damaging the environment, pretty much.
	There's no product that doesn't come from the environment.
	I mean, people are damaging the environment by existing.
	What are you going to do about that?
	Protest the hospitals.
	No more births until we get our way.
	They're also protesting McDonald's by gluing themselves to the store.
	Like, perfectly sane people, apparently.
	The guy with the concrete and the rods, I have more respect for than the glue people, because the glue people just kind of look autistic, I must admit.
	Like the kind of people who lick a lamppost when it's ice, right?
	And they get stuck.
	That's what it kind of looks to me, where it's like, haha, I've glued myself to the glass, and I'm like...
	Whose problem is that?
	I suppose the rationale is they can't be removed, I imagine.
	But it's still silly.
	If I was McDonald's, I'd just be like, I'll see you tomorrow.
	I'm pretty sure they were just removing a few of them as well.
	Like, the ones that were just in there, they were just like, yeah, we're going to make some room for some customers and then we're just going to ignore you.
	They just stood outside just like, yeah, why are we doing this?
	The poor police just fed up, probably.
	Just like, why are we wasting our time with these...
	Lunatics.
	We could be arresting people for tweets.
	It's not like there's not any knife crime epidemics in there.
	They wouldn't deal with that anyway.
	Oh, God forbid.
	Sorry, I'm very black pill to the Met Police.
	If you're a police officer in the Met, you do some good work, fair enough.
	But it's enough bad stories.
	I mean, people like the armed response units where they're responding to terror attacks.
	Obviously very important stuff.
	So yeah, they provided a rationale for the so-called McSleepin'.
	Sorry, did she glue herself to the touch screen?
	I don't know.
	I think she's just gesturing towards it.
	Who knows?
	But there's a thread from one of the Extinction Rebellion people here.
	They say, there are now three rebels glued on our McSleepin' as we occupy McDonald's Leicester Square for the slumber party of the year.
	We'll be here all night to send a message to McDonald's that it's time to stop sleeping on the job and to transition to a plant-based food system.
	Sorry, Alan.
	And they go on to cite loads of statistics about how plants...
	I just want to mention how cringe the writing is.
	Stop sleeping on the job, because we're going to sleep in.
	I hate commentary like this.
	I know.
	And then they go on to say...
	Also, the demand there, all McDonald's food must be plant-based.
	Why?
	Again, the totalitarian nature.
	It's like, you don't get the decision, we're just going to do it for you.
	Yeah, they rationalise it by saying they're the largest and therefore we must pressurise them.
	They're the biggest, therefore we must target them.
	I'm also seeing some of the insults in the chat and I'm not going to read them.
	So I just wanted to end on why are they actually using these ridiculous tactics because there is some thinking behind it.
	I know it's hard to believe and you can be forgiven for thinking they're just lunatics.
	And some of them probably are.
	We should endorse the gluing tactic.
	I want more of them to glue themselves to a lamppost and then just leave them.
	Just glue them and then ignore them.
	Because the only way they get released is people come down and cut them out or solve them or whatever it is to get rid of it.
	And I don't think they bring it with them.
	So I think if we did just convince them to glue themselves to things and then just went, right, cheerio, bye-bye, and then just left them.
	That would be quite funny, wouldn't it?
	So, I wanted to talk about why they're actually doing this.
	So, in a way, I know this is going to be controversial at first, but I'll explain why.
	They're using similar tactics to Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
	Alright, make them yourself.
	I'm going to sell it to you, because although they probably wouldn't like that comparison, they're doing and saying things that are probably deliberately controversial, and they know they are, to get press coverage, and there's no such thing as bad press coverage, really, when you're trying to raise...
	Disagree.
	You disagree?
	Yeah.
	I know some of it does make them look like lunatics, and it is going to put some people off, but...
	But the idea is that you get people talking about something, and then it makes people more and more aware of what they're doing, and although it's going to put a lot of people off, it's also going to help them recruit more, and that is their rationale.
	Sorry, it was also the rationale for ISIS putting out beheading videos, and it didn't really help them in a long time.
	Well, I mean, they still got recruits, didn't they?
	Yeah, now they're gone.
	Well, thank God, yeah.
	John says, you think a single person changed their mind?
	I hope not.
	I'm not defending them here.
	Quite to the contrary.
	But what they're doing isn't as stupid as it seems.
	They're deliberately being ridiculous.
	To get attention, basically.
	That's why they're screeching, that's why they're gluing themselves, because it looks silly, and it will get attention.
	Which, quite frankly, I shouldn't have given them, but...
	Never mind that, I'm sure our audience is smart enough.
	Attention for what, though?
	That's the thing on my mind, which is like, okay, I can understand you want to make attention because you're a political candidate to get votes.
	You want people to know your name, so then they go and vote for you.
	Name recognition's a thing.
	What are you going to do with Exchange Rebellion?
	Like, what is the goal?
	Like, you can have all the attention in the world.
	Everyone knows the name of Extinction Rebellion.
	Now what?
	They're going to whisper to you, the climate's changing.
	Like, we know you as a bunch of weirdos who glue yourself and play dress-up.
	And then they don't really say a whole lot else, do they?
	Okay, that's the end of that, then.
	Bye.
	But anyway, the reason I cover this and why I shouldn't be criticised for giving them the coverage that they so deserve is because I know our audience are very smart people that are not going to fool for this.
	And with that, I'm going to move on to your next segment.
	Sorry, that went on for quite a while.
	That's fine.
	Alright, so we move on to the bizarre responses to COVID. So, I don't really know what to do with the section.
	I just found a bunch of stuff that's some weirder response than I thought I'd thrown together because I think people will find them interesting.
	So, the bizarre responses to COVID are strange, to say the least.
	We have the first one, which is from the UK. So, exclusive.
	The NHS has drawn up plans to start vaccinating 12-year-olds.
	From the first week, schools go back, reports The Telegraph.
	Health officials have said children would not need parental consent to be jabbed under the program of vaccinations in schools.
	So, this is not a law yet, but the Telegraph has got a hold of documents that prove that they're planning to do this within the coming days, that if your child is of 12 and up and is going back to school, in the schools they will have vaccination sensors, and the child will not have to have parental consent to do this.
	Sorry, the school will not have to have parental consent.
	The child can't give consent.
	The children can't consent.
	Isn't this one of the things where, you know, I covered it on the podcast previously, where one of the people involved with the vaccine rollout or whatever admitted that they don't actually have enough evidence to rationalise vaccinating children yet, and that they're actually waiting for the evidence after the fact of announcing this.
	Yeah, that is something our establishment has said.
	Again, I'm going to make this clear for no other purpose than for YouTube.
	It's not anti-vax, but very suspicious of the interaction around kids, again, especially when looking at the death rates.
	So let's go to the full article.
	NHS trusts were told on Wednesday to prepare for possible rollout of a 12- to 15-year-old healthy child vaccination program beginning September 6th.
	So the previous argument of giving it to 16-year-olds was if they're an unhealthy child, if they're an obese 16-year-old who have respiratory problems, Yeah, this has got to be worth the potential rest.
	Imagine if they were asthmatic as well, it might be worthwhile.
	For 12-year-olds who are already healthy, that's what they are planning to expand this towards, from September 6th.
	Emails seen by the newspaper sent to NHS England's regional offices say trusts must have plans ready by 4pm on Friday.
	So, tomorrow, 4pm.
	The timetable, with the first jabs administered in...
	Sorry, September 6th.
	No, I got that wrong.
	Not this Friday, but coming Friday.
	So with the first jabs administered in less than two weeks' time, it has been drawn up despite the government's advisers having so far not recommended such a rollout, as you mentioned.
	The Department of Health on Wednesday night insisted a decision to roll out jabs has not been undertaken until now.
	The government vaccine advisers said there had been insufficient data to support such a rollout.
	But further research on safety of jabs in this age group is about to be published, which will feed into the review of the evidence.
	So the argument from the government being...
	We're doing a review of 12-year-olds to 15-year-olds and the evidence will come out and then we'll be doing it.
	And they're pre-empting all of this by planning to already just do it.
	Yeah, so what happens to follow the science?
	Well, I can see a very charitable argument of, we're going to preempt the research, so then if it does come back green light, we just, you know, we run ahead.
	And if it is red light, then we don't do it.
	Do I trust them?
	You can make your own decision on that, can't you?
	So vaccines are currently being offered to those aged 16 and 17.
	People in this group are only being offered one dose, with JCVI yet to make a decision on whether or not a second jab should be given.
	The reason for this?
	The caution is linked to concerns over a rare side effect called myocarditis, a type of heart inflammation which is more likely to be triggered by a second dose.
	I remember a time when we would get a strike on YouTube for mentioning this, and now it's mainstream press.
	Don't shoot me, Commissar.
	Not my opinion.
	JCVI, the advisory body to the British government.
	Our local health authority is the guideline state, for example.
	So, that's the situation.
	The advising body is saying, nah, but the government is just planning ahead anyway.
	And again, we have to wonder, why from 12 to 15?
	I mean, already kind of getting weird at 20 with the death rates, let's say.
	The risk versus reward.
	And then going down to 12.
	What is the death rate of 12-year-olds from COVID? I don't know.
	Is it even measurable?
	I would imagine it's quite low.
	I know that I think it's under 70s in 2020.
	I think it was something like 0.0002% of the population.
	So under 70?
	Under 70.
	Under 70, right.
	So the caution is linked to concerns of a rare side effect, as I mentioned.
	In July, JVCI said that the minimal health benefits of offering universal COVID-19 vaccination to children do not outweigh the potential risks.
	So that's the one you mentioned.
	They literally said, we don't have the evidence to show that it doesn't outweigh the risks, and they went ahead anyway.
	Now we're going to go ahead anyway with 12-year-olds.
	Just over two weeks later, Professor Jonathan Van Tam, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, said it was more likely rather than less likely that the rollout among 12- to 15-year-olds would be expanded.
	The emails asked Trust to provide details by 4pm on Friday and how they can vaccinate at least 75% of children aged 12- to 15 by November 1st.
	I mean, I don't know what is more scary than them being like, yeah, we're just going to do it with 12-year-olds.
	No parental consent needed, as if the children can consent.
	And there's actually no evidence to support them doing so.
	So it's an entirely ideological act, really, isn't it?
	Yeah, and this comes from someone who doesn't have major concerns about the vaccine itself.
	I'm sure there is an incident rate, but I'm not convinced it's so high to say that it's terrible, but I have to wonder about the risk-reward on different age groups, because when you're 70, risk-reward, totally worth it.
	Risk-reward when you're 12...
	Yeah, I think that they have a very, very low chance of actually dying of COVID. So a lot of Conservatives have been quite rightly, I think, weirded out by this in the extreme.
	So let's go to the next one.
	So there's Talk Radio talking about this.
	They had a guest on who said, why are they doing this?
	Why do these children need this?
	It's a good question, because we can just look at the death graph, can't we?
	So let's go to the next one.
	So the death graph on here showing different age groups.
	This is one we've pointed out a lot of times.
	As you can see there, if you're 80 +, it's near, what is that, 8%, 9% chance of death?
	70s, about 5% chance of death, and exponentially lower and lower by the decades of age.
	And by the time you're 20, it's barely visible.
	I can see some blue pixels there on the graph.
	Your eyes must be better than mine, because I can't even see anything.
	From 19 below, I can't see any blue pixels.
	So I can't tell you what the risk is, because it's not visible.
	On the bar graph showing risk.
	Literally, I can't see any pixels at all in that bar graph from Imperial College London about the death rate per age group.
	And this is kind of a bit of a tedious data analysis point, but the massive difference between those age groups of the 80 +, where it's nearly 8%, which is actually quite massive, really, and then you go down to basically zero.
	That's a pretty good...
	Yeah, but there's also, you know, we're looking at the death rates because, of course, the vaccine doesn't stop you from spreading it, as the health authorities have informed us.
	I mean, as Dr Fauci will inform you, that you can still spread it, even though you've got the vaccine.
	So then I have to ask, well, what is the point, then, for the 12-year-olds?
	If the risk of death is not visible in a bar graph about risk of death...
	I think the argument is that there's a negligible, although this is debated of course, a negligible chance that it prevents you from passing it on to other people.
	Although I've seen different studies say different things, and some that say it does the opposite, yeah.
	We have to say that the international standard is that it doesn't stop you from carrying it on, because that is what our lord and masters at YouTube have to say.
	Okay, I am sorry for...
	I don't think we can have nuance.
	I think nuance is a haram.
	Okay.
	I'm sorry for my nuance.
	I will repent my sins.
	So let's go to the next one, just to show the numbers here for the UK as well.
	So we go to the number of people who have got the doses.
	So first dose in the UK, number of people who have got the dose in the UK. First one being 87.9% of the British public have had their first dose.
	77.4% of the British public having their second dose.
	So 77% of the public being vaccinated.
	I could have sworn it was already at something like 90% for all adults, wasn't it?
	For the people at risk, yeah.
	It's all at 95% up.
	I mean, especially for those at high risk.
	I could have sworn I saw on the BBC only the other day that it was nearly 90%, like it was 89 point.
	It's not good enough.
	It needs to be 100%.
	I mean, again, the question keeps getting asked, well, where is the herd immunity point?
	I think we've probably crossed it, haven't we?
	We were told that it was around 75%, 70%, something like that.
	Yeah, according to the textbooks before the change, since the change, no one has any idea what herd immunity percentage is.
	Anyway, so to go to the next one, I thought we'd just talk about some government-funded misinformation as well, particularly YouTube-sponsored as well.
	So this is something I was just looking around on YouTube before we started, and I got recommended this video, and as you can see, YouTube International Spotlight.
	These are the videos there, showing to people on the front page.
	Thanks, Susan.
	This is her fault.
	I've been talking about that before.
	So this is a video that showed up, and it's just a guy spreading the misinformation that if you get the vaccine, you can't pass it on to people.
	He's suggesting that the reason you should get the vaccine whilst young and healthy is so you don't pass it on to grandma and whatnot.
	But everyone says that the vaccine doesn't stop that.
	So let's play this clip.
	What's in it for me?
	I'm young and healthy.
	Even if I catch COVID-19, it won't affect me.
	I think this is a bit of a misconception.
	We have to consider not only ourselves, but everyone around us.
	Think about the people that have got a COVID infection that don't show any symptoms.
	If that was you, you could be carrying it around, spreading it to your parents, to your grandparents, to your friends and the people more vulnerable in the community.
	Working in the hospital, I saw not only older people being affected by COVID infections, but also young people too, getting really breathless, getting long COVID and adversely affecting their lives.
	So, I mean, to talk about mythical misinformation for a minute, that's YouTube promoting it.
	Yeah, and he's a doctor as well, so surely he should know better, right?
	He should be the one looking at the primary data, like I have.
	What's funny, though, is he doesn't explicitly state it, of course.
	He doesn't say, if you get the vaccine, you won't give it.
	But he says, in response to, why should I get it?
	We have to think about other people getting it from you.
	It's obviously a clear implication that it's just false.
	I mean, just wrong.
	I don't know what else to say.
	The idea that a lot of people are getting banned from medical misinformation and yet YouTube promotes medical misinformation, I thought it's worth pointing out.
	He could have, of course, turned around and be like, well, yeah, there's a chance young people can die and then make that argument.
	But he didn't.
	He made a false argument instead.
	Anyway, but I guess seeing as Scotland, as we've had this before, if four-year-olds can change their gender at school without parental consent, yeah, why not?
	Let's go all the way down to four for COVID jobs without parental consent.
	Scotland's really gone off the deep end recently, hasn't it?
	I mean, it's already bad to begin with, but I don't know.
	Since they've been granted more powers throughout this pandemic, they've really been going nuts.
	Whenever the SMP get power, they go nuts on anything.
	Anyway, so let's go to the next one.
	So, of course, it's not just the UK. That has some weird responses.
	New South Wales residents who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will be given new freedoms.
	Oh, wonderful.
	What freedoms are they getting given?
	Residents of hotspots can leave their home for one hour of recreation on top of their exercise hour.
	If you get vaccinated, you can get an extra hour of exercise if you live in New South Wales.
	Government-allocated recreation hour.
	So charitable.
	I love how you're probably going to get stopped by the police, the authoritarian Aussie police, and have to produce a vaccine passport or some evidence to get that extra hour.
	Like it's a parking ticket.
	You know how you'd be like, no, I've got another hour.
	I don't understand why Australians are actually concerned about The Communist Chinese from, like, taking over because it can only be better than this, surely.
	Things can only get better.
	I'm not being serious, by the way.
	In Oregon.
	So this lady I have a personal axe to grind with because she's the one who made the call.
	Remember when, what was it, Portland's courthouse was under attack?
	And the local officers at Portland who, Jesus Christ, these lads are heroes, in my view.
	The amount of work they must have gone through.
	Yeah, I feel very sorry for the Portland police.
	Yeah, of all the people who have been through hell and been completely left out there.
	They were the ones protecting the courthouse from IEDs, people trying to storm it, set fire to it.
	I mean, it's a skyscraper, remember?
	It's not just a one-story building, it's a skyscraper.
	And there are actually people in it as well, aren't there?
	Yeah, they would have killed hundreds of people.
	Anyway, so they were desperately trying to protect it.
	They called up the state representative and said, can you send state troopers to help us?
	You know, the state police of the state.
	And she said no.
	She was the one who said no.
	She blocked it.
	What's wrong with her?
	That's why Donald Trump's stormtroopers had to turn up, the federal officers from the Mexican border, because they refused to send in state officers.
	They had to call in federal officers to then protect a courthouse because, oh, it's federal property, not our problem.
	Clearly just an endorsement of the riots.
	In a just country, she would be in prison right now.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, I have a personal axe to grab with this lady.
	Anyway, I'm getting away from that.
	You were way too charitable on her.
	B-word.
	Anyway, so she has decided that there must be an outdoor masking mandate for everyone in the state, regardless of their vaccination status, because you can still pass it on if you're vaccinated.
	Homeless people are exempt.
	Yeah, of course they are, because they don't care about your authority.
	Homeless privilege, okay.
	I mean, maybe you should start declaring yourself homeless if you get caught outside, I guess.
	But also, an outdoor masking mandate.
	So this is another thing which is just absurd.
	How do we on earth do social media platforms have standards on medical misinformation around masks when multiple countries on earth, multiple states can't agree on this?
	I mean, you're outdoors and you still have to wear a mask even if there's no one around.
	I mean, we don't even have masks indoors anymore.
	You know, you can go, I haven't worn a mask since the day that they allowed us not to.
	Also, the point there being that if you're in a woods and there's no one around, can someone still catch COVID? Apparently, yes, and therefore you need to wear a mask.
	If you're in a forest and no one's around to see, you can still pass on COVID. Still pass on COVID, folks.
	Good God.
	Anyway, so I thought we'd go on to Pelosi, just a clip from there to remember, saying that we can't require someone to be vaccinated.
	It's a matter of personal privacy as to who or who isn't vaccinated.
	Just keep that in mind in the coming moments.
	Was that when Trump was president by any chance?
	Probably, yeah.
	I love that as well.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Because American leftists are just a joke.
	You can see this chat.
	There's loads of these.
	But this is just one chat.
	Just some verified checkmark.
	COVID approves the Trump vaccine.
	Good luck MAGA. And then Biden becomes president.
	Bring on the vaccine mandates.
	I don't even understand why they're calling it the Trump vaccine either.
	It's not like he was in a lab somewhere developing it.
	He's the one doing it.
	He's putting in his hair.
	He's just such a talented guy.
	Businessman.
	President.
	Apparently epidemiologist.
	Yeah.
	So we got the next one.
	I mean, this is the other thing.
	Trump has been entirely consistent.
	He's always been saying, yeah, come on, vaccine's good, go get it, and I'll let you know if it's bad.
	And the response from leftists, I mean, you've seen the footage of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris saying, I don't trust the Trump vaccine.
	And then they got to office and they were like, you've got to take it, folks.
	It's so performative, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	The Republicans have been consistent on this, specifically Trump, so glory to him for being a consistent actor, whereas the Democrats, on camera, being inconsistent actors.
	Also, in France, I thought we'd end up with a little bit of a cheery message.
	They have a nice response to the vaccine mandates.
	This is beautiful.
	In France, citizens boycott vaccine passports by dining in the streets, directly in front of the bars and restaurants, enforcing them.
	So in France, they introduced the vaccine passport system.
	You have to have on your phone the app and then prove the other vaccine.
	And the police, the Jean Mondeurs, will come around and literally check your phone for papers, please, if you're daring to eat outside in a restaurant.
	So the response from the French public is to just have picnics outside of the restaurants in protest.
	Extinction Rebellion, take notes.
	This is how you protest properly.
	Not harming anyone, making their point, very loud, and also doing the right thing here, which is shaming the businesses and shaming the government, and also pointing out that the laws only work if you comply with them.
	This is a great point.
	Just the last thing to mention on here, which is also in France, something to keep in mind about vaccine mandates.
	Let's go to the next one.
	This is France has already have space for eight booster shots in their passport system.
	As you can see there, those are one to eight.
	So it's going to be perpetual boosters from now on, apparently.
	Yeah, up until, I don't know, 20 million, whatever year it gets to, in which COVID is eliminated.
	Anyway, that's some of the ridiculous responses.
	I thought we'd done that there.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Hey guys, I know I'm late, but someone a while back asked for books, suggestions for Warhammer books.
	I'd like to do an anti-suggestion.
	Read nothing pre-build-up to Horus Heresy.
	Why?
	The entire law can be summarised as, don't you know if you make the world more atheistic, science will take over and save the world?
	This is a premise as interesting to me as Attack on Titan is Tukar.
	This premise is boring as all hell, and look at the modern west, it's been proven to be outright false and doesn't save anything.
	It just makes the world more Slynesh-like, so no, not interesting to me personally.
	I mean, I don't think it's all science.
	I don't think that the physicists...
	You don't know the law, though, do you?
	What's that?
	40k.
	No, I don't.
	Okay, so let me tell you, because otherwise you're going to say something silly, I think.
	Okay.
	So the 40k universe is that the emperor is a very much fedora-wearing atheist.
	Like, he spends his entire time on Earth unifying it under his rule, and then literally destroys all religions.
	Like, all churches get burnt, all the priests end up being killed, all the Bibles burn, all the rest of it.
	Not a liberal, then.
	Yeah, by the end of it, he literally does a great animation, which Games Workshop and Copyright Strike, bastards, of The Last Church, in which he literally goes in and spends the evening arguing with the last religious man in the last church on Earth, trying to convince him to stop.
	And then brings him outside and is like, look, join me, we can create the universe in a wonderful new realm.
	And the guy who's religious just walks back into the burning church and dies with it.
	Which is a nice little rebellion.
	But then he spends the entire empire becoming this atheistic empire that's therefore good because we don't have nonsense faith.
	And it all comes crashing down in the Horus Heresy because no one is aware of the Chaos Gods.
	And they end up falling to the Chaos Gods.
	And then, you know, you get the heresy.
	So it's actually a redemption arc and just being like, yeah, pure atheism is...
	If you're going to be an anti-theist, as Christopher Hitchens would say, going around burning the churches, which Hitchens never advocate for or advocate against, then you're going to end up in some weird spaces.
	It's kind of almost like a Stalinist approach.
	Yeah, like the communists.
	Literally, that's what he did with religion.
	And then the Horace Heresy shows him up.
	The funny thing is, Stalin reintroduced just religion.
	He was just like, yeah, by the way, Christianity, now fine again when World War II was going on.
	And he was just like, oh yeah, by the way, now the war's over.
	Stop believing.
	Just like, yeah.
	Such a joke.
	But yeah, that's why it also ends up becoming worship of the Emperor, which is really ironic, because the Emperor was a massive atheist who hated worship of people like that.
	If I got some of that aspect wrong, don't read in the comments.
	I'm just trying to get a shortened version.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I've been thinking this for a few weeks now, and now I'm utterly convinced.
	I think the next big crazy thing the left is going to adopt and try to defend is going to be Dissociative Identity Disorder, or DID. If you don't know what this is, you can look it up on TikTok and I guarantee it will top the cringe of anything you see, including the White House videos, including the Dr.
	Fauci vaccine videos.
	DID is the most cringiest shit I have ever seen.
	I guarantee the left is going to think it's completely real and defend it.
	Well, I mean, it does exist.
	I mean, I'm a psychologist.
	I know that dissociative identity disorder does exist, and it's a real thing.
	But when you're diagnosing yourself on the internet, that's not a real thing.
	I mean, you need an actual health professional who knows what they're talking about.
	I assume he's actually referring to the people who clearly have it and yet are trying to claim it's some kind of gender.
	Oh, right.
	And therefore, because I did see a video like that where I retweeted it.
	I think I sent it to you as well.
	I'm like, come on, this has to be some medical disorder.
	In which the person was like, yeah, I'm three people or something.
	And she was Michael and Larissa or whatever the hell her name was.
	And sometimes she would literally change into that other person.
	Like, it wasn't just, oh, I feel a bit male.
	Mm-hmm.
	She was like, no, I've become Michael now.
	That's like a multiple personality disorder thing, isn't it?
	Yeah, and also, therefore, the pronouns have to be respected, because she's now, in her head, become Michael.
	Not just, I'm a bit male, but I am a different person now.
	Therefore, she needed he-him pronouns in that time period.
	I would advise anyone to read the DSM Diagnostic Manual, if they want to learn more.
	Or the UK equivalent...
	If you want to see where leftism is going, pick up a psychology textbook and look at the disorders section.
	It's the actual diagnostic manual that they use, although, to be fair, the American one got a bit woke because they took out gender dysphoria.
	But if you want to read the based one...
	The British one's still there?
	Yes.
	British still believe in science.
	American universities, not so much.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Good morning from Ontario.
	Today I would like to talk about racial hiring practices in Canada.
	I have personally experienced inclusive hiring policy.
	This was a position with the Canada Revenue Agency, our version of the IRS. Indigenous students went straight into the hiring process and anyone else was put on an inventory waiting list where they would be pulled from after they have hired anyone remotely competent from the native community.
	I'm going to need two parts for this one, so I will see you tomorrow with more.
	Disgusting.
	I mean, I can't think of a worse policy that exists in the West that is allheartedly unpopular, is just left-wing extremist thinking, and yet continues.
	I mean, I know in Canada you've got Trudeau, but the Conservative Party have been in charge for, what is it, 15 years in the UK, and this continues in the UK as well.
	Although, to be fair, I've actually had this before, where me and one of my friends found a job which was only advertising for women, then we contacted them saying, this is illegal, this is against the Equalities Act, and then they changed it immediately.
	The next day it was changed.
	They can't withstand any buckling.
	We actually...
	So, go out and do that.
	Just say, this is wrong.
	You shouldn't be doing this.
	And quite often, they don't want the negative press.
	They just change it.
	The only one in the UK that stood their ground was the BBC being like, no, we have a right to be racist.
	Like, I'm not kidding.
	This has happened multiple times as well.
	More reason to defund it.
	Yeah, screw the BBC. But the only other one I've seen that was...
	I'm going to give glory to Ranveer here because he manages social media accounts.
	He got some people together and started bullying.
	I think it was...
	What was it?
	Was it MI5? I think it was GCHQ, wasn't it?
	GCHQ, yeah.
	Who were advertising on the basis of race only.
	I think it was BAME candidates only or something like that.
	So Ranvier started bullying them on Twitter and they changed it.
	Yeah, you can't bully these organisations into being liberals.
	The moral of the story is, bully your secret services.
	Yeah?
	No, don't actually do that.
	What, into not being racist?
	Well, in that case, yes, but not in general.
	To comply with the law.
	Like, are bullying into complying with the law seems...
	I mean, weren't they trying to pass a law in the UK where spies were basically legally immune to anything?
	Like, they could just murder someone, and then that's fine.
	Yeah, I remember you put on that.
	I think it was you.
	It was Hugo, I think.
	Ah, sorry.
	I'll take the credit, though, if you want.
	It's like the book club all over again.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Can you characterize your supporters?
	Yeah, I think I can.
	People that love our country.
	The hat you took interest in, which dissolved the oft-parodied slogan down to its core meaning, was made by an artist named George Axelopoulos.
	He's a fellow meme lord and an artist of political cartoons and caricatures, which you'll doubtlessly recognize.
	His America-loving characters are often seen wearing the slogan.
	The hat is for sale in his merch shop.
	I'm sad he didn't notice the shirt, though.
	It's my favorite.
	I did mention the shirt, Colin, but yeah, that's an exclusive as well.
	We're never going to be able to sell merch like that ever again.
	So that's a treasured relic.
	Please keep it safe.
	Is that because of copyright, I take it?
	Yeah, but also, you know, I don't want to just do it again and then there's a whole new batch.
	Like, it seems to be, it's nice to have one time.
	Exclusivity, yeah.
	Yeah, so, keep that relic safe.
	But also, thank you.
	I didn't know if the Etsy page was his.
	Like, when we were watching the video, I checked it up and I found the Etsy page and I was like, I don't want to shout it out just in case it's some copycat, but it's good to know.
	So, go check that out.
	As you can see, the farm Kniveslaw in the Gairangerfjord by the Seven Sisters would be a rather spectacular place to live.
	And the people who lived in the Gairongafjord were known to be the embodiment of taxationist theft because they would usually drag up the ladders that the tax collectors would have to collect the taxes.
	So being a tax collector in the Gairongafjord would be a shitty job.
	That's gorgeous as well.
	I do love the myth of the mountain people.
	So there's like two kinds of people, really.
	There are people who live in the plains of Earth, then the people who live in the mountains, this is the idea.
	And the mountain people, just wherever they are on the Earth, are always the most based, because they're just the least compliant with whatever government at the time is taking place.
	So that's a perfect example of it.
	It's just like, oh, tax collectors here.
	Nope.
	Get lost.
	To some extent, it still exists even in civilised countries like the United States.
	So like in Colorado, people growing weed in the mountains.
	Just like, yeah, we could do about it.
	I suppose if it was easy to avoid taxes as just pulling up a ladder, a lot more people would do it.
	Everyone should go live in the mountains, is the story I'm getting from that.
	Yeah, we need more mountains, is the moral of the story here.
	There's plenty of them, just go live in them.
	We're all going to become the Taliban.
	Don't say that.
	A based version, not a cringe Islamic version.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey, fellas.
	So, I was recently asked what my plans are for the fall.
	I was a little bit confused because I had done a video on how to bug out during the collapse of civilization.
	But then I realized they weren't asking about that.
	They were asking about autumn, one of my plans for autumn.
	It was an easy mistake for me to make, I think, because there's only a couple of months difference between the two.
	Alrighty.
	I don't really know what to say to that, but good to see you again.
	Hey, Lotus Eaters!
	Tony D and Little Joan here with another legend about the South Jersey Pine Barrens, but this one takes place in Philadelphia.
	Covered in my comic, this is Norman Jeffries, who actually created the milieu for the modern Jersey Devil legend.
	He actually staged the capture of the beast by renting a kangaroo, painting it green, tying antlers to its head, and capturing it and displaying it in the Dime Street Museum in Philadelphia in 1909.
	People believe that?
	Like, here's some green kangaroo with antlers.
	To be fair, if someone just said, there's a green kangaroo with antlers, would you want to see it?
	And they'd be like, yeah.
	I'm not sure I'd believe it was something else, though.
	Also, love the dog again.
	Yeah.
	To that video yesterday of the teacher stating she no longer has a choice to send her kid to school safely because children have the choice of wearing a mask or not.
	Yes, you do.
	You're a teacher.
	You could homeschool them or transfer them to another school.
	There's always other choices to consider.
	Also, I love how authoritarians reveal themselves by trying to frame respecting people's autonomy as a hindrance on their freedoms.
	Ah yes, respecting informed consent is an infringement on freedom.
	Lastly for that comment, you don't have a choice during a pandemic.
	If you are not afforded rights in the most dire of circumstances, then you don't have them at all.
	Yep, that's definitely true.
	Also, your first part there, yeah, they define freedom as, like, freedom from reality.
	This is why they end up declaring nature some kind of class traitor that's trying to oppress them.
	It's very Maoist of them.
	Yeah, well, no, that's the point, which is, you know, that teacher there who's like, yeah, your freedom to not wear the mask is an infringement on my freedom from reality itself.
	Like, whatever's taking place outside of me, I should be free from.
	In the same way that you should be free...
	How can you even be free from reality?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	I mean, this is the fundamentals with the, like, I can transition to being a man.
	Like, I am a man.
	I'm not someone who's, you know, trying to do it and, you know, I'm going to live like this or, you know, please be nice to me.
	It's not that.
	No, I am a man and you're going to call me a man or you're going to go to jail.
	You know, those kind of people.
	They're, again, trying to declare reality some kind of enemy, and they have the freedom to become a man if they want to.
	I mean, the Judean people's front meme of like, well, Stan should have the right to have babies.
	Can't have babies.
	It's not happening.
	This is why Carl doesn't like the term freedom.
	He's mentioned it a couple of times.
	He's not sure about using it as the defining principle of right because the leftists will be like, yeah, my freedom against reality.
	I don't know.
	It just looks like retards when they talk like that.
	I always prefer you have the ability to make choices for yourself.
	That's how I like to characterise it.
	Where you make your own decisions.
	The government doesn't make your decisions for you or coerce you to make decisions.
	Then a better definition of that is personal responsibility, surely?
	I think personal responsibility has more moral connotations when you're purely talking about something.
	Though I obviously agree with personal responsibility.
	But writers have those moral connotations, so it would fit writers.
	Anyway, just think about things like that.
	But thank you.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey guys, I'm reading about the gunpowder revolution in warfare, and it details the death...
	Of the heroic epic and that any honor can be shredded by withering volleys of musket fire.
	Why do you think warfare has become industrialized to the point where heroic values are no longer warranted and brave men can just be taken out by some peasant with a long rifle?
	Good meme.
	Probably because it's just more efficient.
	And I don't really buy the idea that heroicism has left the military.
	No, I mean...
	The stories you have of the Gurkhas, for example, it's obviously easier to kill them, which is a shame.
	But there are very, very heroic actions that still take place in warfare.
	Being in a war isn't an easy thing, I imagine.
	I've never been in one, but the possibility that one single bullet can kill you, the psychological element of that alone is very difficult, I imagine.
	You just pop your head up and you could be dead.
	That must be a huge burden to bear.
	I don't know enough about HMW to say anything about it, but sorry, that's the best I can do.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I have another life lesson out there for you young men now.
	I don't want you guys to be soft like this handkerchief.
	I actually want you to go out there and make something of yourself.
	Because when you do, you become hard and rigid for all the ladies out there.
	And also, yes, I might have to get rid of my Lotus Eater subscription because my fiancé and I are going out trying to find a house.
	So I'm going to do some magic tricks right before the end of the month.
	So you guys better hurry up.
	Your N-word pass is about to run out.
	Thanks.
	Love the t-shirt, by the way.
	I appreciate the pass, but the British government is the other person in this relationship we forgot to ask.
	You can have the N-word pass.
	Thank you.
	As someone you forgot to ask, and it's the British state who...
	That was very impressive.
	So I thought I'd just share a joke with you guys that I heard today for a little bit of wholesome content.
	I walked into a room and there was a table.
	On the table, there was a bowl of apples.
	Next to the bowl, there was a sign that says, please only take one.
	God is watching.
	So at the other end of the table, there's another bowl full of cookies.
	Now, that one doesn't have a sign.
	So I put a sign there that says, take as many as you want.
	God's watching the apples.
	All right, that's a good story.
	ugh What do you think of the whole inner demon or whatever it is?
	Like the conscience that watches you when no one else does?
	I'm an atheist, therefore I think it doesn't exist.
	No, surely it still does exist even though you're an atheist.
	What do you mean?
	Why do nice people do good things even when they're an atheist if no one's watching?
	Oh, right.
	Well, it's a very complex question.
	I mean, it's going to take me a very long time to answer that.
	You're a psychologist, aren't you?
	Yeah.
	The more expertise you get, the more annoying it is to get an answer out of anyone.
	That's the...
	You're telling me.
	Yeah, you have to work with me, don't you?
	That's a joke, don't worry.
	I know it is.
	Don't worry.
	Anyway, thanks for the joke.
	That was good.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So with respect to the anime elevator music that is now adorning the website, this reminded me and occurs to me that it could be fun to have a contest whereby the listeners can submit their own musical scores that could adorn various parts of the Lotus Eaters website.
	For example, one score for the podcast, one for the epochs, one for the contemplations and so on.
	Just a thought, don't know what prizes might be or if it should just be free, but Anyway, what's the thought?
	It's an idea.
	We did pay for the license to use that music, so we kind of want to use it because, you know, we paid for it, we thought it was nice, so we're probably going to do that.
	But if someone does want to send us some music and be like, hey, what do you think of this?
	I mean, we've got a decent supply of musicians in office as well.
	We've got Rory with the music production stuff and the musical talent, and there's me playing guitar as well.
	He's got vocals.
	Whoever draws a short straw, I suppose.
	There you go.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Isn't it tragic that an iconic image of a man falling to escape a dreadful end signalled the start of the Afghan war?
	And now, equally iconic images of men falling to escape a dreadful end mark its culmination.
	The premium content is grand and I've been binging the epochs.
	Anyway, with all these military blunders and successes throughout history, it made me wonder, what would you consider to have been a better solution to Afghanistan?
	Because let's be honest, we picked the worst one.
	I was having this discussion with Pete, actually, and I wasn't adult enough for 2001 and whatnot to know what the atmosphere was like.
	But if it was good enough for people to be quite hopeful about just invading Afghanistan and occupying it...
	I would have thought, because the thing was, we went to Afghanistan and said, give us Bin Laden, and they said no.
	So we went, right, then we're going to invade and kill you all.
	And then at the last minute, they tried to make some kind of deal, but no one knows how serious they were.
	And then, of course, al-Qaeda just fled to Pakistan anyway.
	So, kind of a waste of time.
	I would have thought the easiest thing to do would have just been like, give us bin Laden, they say no, okay, then just start bombing the crap out of Afghanistan.
	Like, don't invade, don't put any troops on the ground, but just aerial bomb everything that's military or government until you just say, give, give us it, we're America, we're just going to keep doing this until the end of days if you don't give us it.
	Because obviously the technological difference is absolutely massive.
	Obviously not so much anymore considering they have all of our equipment.
	But it means if you just sat back and just launched planes from Saudi or Pakistan or whoever would permit it and just kept bombing government building after government building or hideout after hideout in Afghanistan, never putting troops on the ground but just causing so much damage to the government that they keep losing people...
	Just to get them to hand over bin Laden.
	And if he flees to Pakistan anyway, then you can just stop the bombing campaign and just invade up Pakistan.
	I think the obvious thing they would do there is even if they wanted to comply, they might be like, well, we don't know where he is.
	Or even if they did know, they could say that.
	They said, you know, we're not handing him over, which means you've got him.
	But anyway, that's what I would have thought.
	But again, I wasn't around for the time, so I don't know why that wasn't an appropriate response.
	But...
	I mean, clearly America wanted to go to war or something, so they did.
	It's good for business, isn't it?
	No.
	Well, good for the arms business, yeah.
	No, well, okay, for the arms business, sure.
	That's what I meant.
	Yeah.
	There's been some graphics going around about, like, arms companies, loads of them being American, obviously, who have made loads of money out of sales for weapons in Afghanistan to be used.
	And yeah, they made money, but the net cost is huge.
	Like, they made a few billion, maybe up to 100 billion if you're being clarative with the accounting.
	But they spent two trillion of taxpayers' money on this?
	Do you know the extent to which all the prices of military equipment are inflated as well?
	I know Hugo did a good article about this where he's talking...
	900% or something.
	Yeah, like a hammer which you could get for like five dollars would be sold for like thirty dollars just because they knew the military would pay for it and therefore they can just be like, yeah...
	By the way, this special military hammer that's almost exactly the same as any other, well, guess what?
	It's going to be about six or seven times the price.
	This is a hammer?
	This is a USA hammer.
	It's all one big racket, really, and I'm sure many military people would probably attest to it as well.
	Yeah.
	But if anyone has any other ideas of what they could have done, I mean, I don't know why bombing the crap out of the Taliban until they gave you what you want wasn't an option, but whatever.
	I don't know.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So my Discord yesterday lit up like a mini Christmas tree because Callum was asking where I am.
	Nah, that's nice of you lads.
	Hope you all are doing well too.
	Far as the lack of comments goes, well, I do them on YouTube now, as it is rather challenging saying something of substance in 30 seconds, given our current state of world affairs.
	But if it wasn't for you guys saying I should make the channel, I probably wouldn't have done so, so you guys deserve all the credit there.
	And I'm glad you liked the content, Callum.
	Cheers, chaps.
	Yeah, he's been doing some pretty good rants.
	I actually just put them on while I'm playing Rising Storm 2.
	I saw you've been playing that, yeah.
	Is that the last of them?
	Okay, then we'll go to the written comments for the last six minutes.
	Do you want to read some of these?
	Yeah, yeah, no worries.
	So, TF Allspark.
	Gender socialism is a mental tumour.
	Highly malignant.
	Video evidence shows it.
	Many such cases.
	Adam Clayton, so if gender ideology has started to crumble, it's obviously reached critical mass, which means we are a couple of years before leftist ideology reaches critical mass and crumbles under its own hypocrisy.
	Well, it is a form of Ouroboros, isn't it, where it's the snake devouring itself.
	Slowly they're just going to tear each other apart, politically speaking.
	Is Auroboros something in mythology?
	Yes, it's a symbol of a snake eating its own tail.
	Huh.
	I never knew it from Resident Evil 5.
	Oh, right.
	I knew that was a real thing.
	Yeah, it's been around in loads of different cultures.
	Like, it's one of those kind of weird Petersonian or Jungian archetypes where...
	Oh, it's that thing, right.
	Oh, okay.
	I never knew its name.
	Well, you learn something that you probably should have known already every day.
	You can be forgiven for not knowing about ancient mythology.
	I think it doesn't come up too much in the modern day.
	Too polite.
	Right, I'm going to skip to the climate stuff.
	Hang on, I'll find a bit of a shorter one.
	Northamptonian night.
	The Met Police are still showing their political bias by letting Extinction Rebellion build structures in the road for protests while tearing down the small tents of the Gurkhas.
	Yeah, I mean, the treatment of the Gurkhas is really bad, isn't it?
	I mean, I did see...
	Well, it's a great point by the police double standards.
	I mean, with the Sixth Rebellion, hold no bars.
	Like, if they got their Trump truncheons and just started beating them and be like, no, you don't get to lockdown London for two weeks because you're butthurt and you want to have a party, no one would have a problem with that in the same way that no one would have a problem with that as doing it to lockdown protesters.
	Yeah, well, there's obviously the hypocrisy with the Black Lives Matter protests and the anti-lockdown stuff as well.
	They are not enforcing the law equally.
	John's saying if you see the government petition to the Gurkha's petition as well, apparently their response, the written response is just F off, essentially, as well, which it usually is.
	But they'll get the parliamentary debate in which we'll see what happens there.
	I don't know why they're so averse to it.
	Surely that's like a crowd-pleaser for the Conservatives, right?
	Everyone wants to reward people for their service to the country.
	Written responses to the petitions are almost always usually F off, in my experience, because it's someone in the government who doesn't want to do anything because they're the government, and therefore that's going to be the response if you write to them.
	But when it gets to parliamentary debates, that's when things start getting a bit worrying.
	Yeah.
	I'm going to move on to the COVID stuff.
	I don't want to pee off too many Conservative MPs.
	Craig Gorman, next step is going to be mandated drugs to boost your immune system.
	Perhaps we shall all wear high-vis clothing in public to prevent traffic accidents.
	GPS tracking is standard to help crime detection and prevention.
	However much is needed for our safety is now justified in the minds of the media and politicians.
	That's a fair point.
	If the Rubicon's been crossed in this area, what's the rationale for other areas as well?
	Because, of course, if we're willing to impose things on people for their own health, then, you know, are they going to ban cars?
	I mean, people die in car accidents.
	Are we going to, you know, ban sugar?
	Yes.
	That isn't what they're going to do.
	I mean, there is already a tax...
	Well, it's already in existence, isn't it?
	The sugar tax, yeah.
	I forgot how crap we are.
	Sorry.
	Yes.
	Very depressing state of affairs, and I think we've got one of the highest taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol, other than places like Scandinavia, which is just ridiculous.
	Or Sweden, with a very cucked situation with alcohol.
	Is it anything like Norway?
	Because I know about Norway more so.
	No, it's weirder.
	For some reason, Swedes defend it.
	Whatever, we'll talk about it afterwards.
	Every time you cite studies with varying results, Vicar of Science Fauci cries.
	Long talks on Nietzsche.
	Yes, because not getting the vaccine lets you transmit the virus to people who have the vaccine.
	Are they admitting that the vaccine is a placebo?
	No.
	Disavow that comment, but at the same time, the question has to be asked, doesn't it?
	Why all this distrust of their own stuff?
	It is very strange.
	I want to believe that these people are just so incompetent that all of their messages disagree with each other.
	I really hope it's that.
	It really wouldn't surprise me, actually.
	And I'm going to move on to a general comment to end.
	Generica101, hi, Lotus Seaters.
	You often mention the need for people to write to their MP regarding the issues you do stories for.
	Unfortunately, most people are not wordsmiths with a lot of time on their hands.
	Do you think it'd be worthwhile to draft a few templates for people to use?
	Not in my opinion, because previously we have done this, and what happens is the party machine kicks in to being sent so many stock responses that are the same, and therefore they issue a stock response to all MPs, and then the campaign's over, because you just get the stock response.
	So yeah, even if you're not very articulate, it's better to write in your own words.
	MPs are people too, or the staff who are reading it, so even if you are not a wordsmith, they'll get the point.
	Yeah, I mean, you can always just take your time with it.
	Treat it as a writing exercise or something like that.
	It's never a waste to develop your skill with writing.
	Callum.
	Oi.
	My letters to YMP are very to the point.
	Is it written in crayons?
	I'm trying to think, actually, when did I last write physics?
	I think I did write it in pen.
	I can't remember if it was pencil or pen, not crayons.
	I kind of feel like doing something in the morning crayon just to see what they do.
	You know these stupid situations in politics where someone's like, yeah, so this child sent me a letter and therefore it's so important.
	Doing that, just make hoax ones, why not?
	You could make a really articulate and eloquent argument and just write it in crayons.
	Just like, yeah, I'm just a really articulate child.
	No, like, so for people who have Conservative MPs, like, you have some chance of getting some feedback that's not stupid, but if you have a Labour MP, I can't feel like we should run, like, a joke campaign where you should send in letters written in crayon, but they are really stupid arguments, made stupidly, but they're signed off as if it's a child that's written it, and then we'll see how many Labour MPs will go to Parliament and be like, this child sent me a letter, and this proves my point, and then you can come and be like, yeah, I'm a 50-year-old man, and I made that as a joke, you idiot, and see how many we can get to fall for it.
	It would be good fun.
	Wasting Labour MP's time is probably a good thing.
	If they're not wasting it doing that, they're wasting it being evil.
	Exactly, yeah.
	Let's have some fun with it.
	Plus, if you have a Labour MP, you're kind of out of luck anyway.
	So, probably best just to mess with them.
	Anyway, on that, it's time to end the show.
	So, if you want more from us, go to losias.com, sign up to get access to the roomy content, and also that's how we keep everything running.
	We will be back tomorrow, 1 o'clock.
	Thank you and goodbye, except for the Zoom call, which we'll be doing at 4 today.
	So, just wanted to mention that in the end.
	But otherwise, tomorrow, 1 o'clock.

▲