Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 2, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:23

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #211

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast The Lotus here for the 2nd of September 2021.
	I'm joined by Carl.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about the Harvard Atheist Chaplain.
	So he's an atheist but he decided to become a chaplain.
	Not sure if that's working.
	Also, a transgender three-year-old tried to remove their penis.
	And there's a leftist outlet celebrating that fact.
	He literally said they'd come for your children.
	Also, Eric Kaufman, to try and raise the limelight, is putting leftists on suicide watch by just existing...
	Yeah, he's chief of the Department of Politics at Birkbeck University, Birkbeck College in London, and he's making the leftists self-deport.
	Which is a hell of an achievement, so all glory to him.
	But a couple of things to mention first, there's some of the stuff we have on the website.
	The first thing here being an article from Beau, McCarthy did nothing wrong, which I'm sure will be a non-controversial take about how McCarthy didn't do nothing.
	The thing is though, like, history has borne out that McCarthy was right about all of his allegations.
	All of them?
	Pretty much.
	If anything, it seems that he was understating the problem.
	From what I've read from some of the anti-communist books, it's been like, well, you know, a couple of liberals got in the limelight, but there were some actual communists.
	There were loads of communists.
	Yeah, loads, sorry.
	Anyway, yeah, go check out Beau's article.
	He does a good job of detailing it.
	That's his argument.
	It's free, so go and check that out at lotuses.com.
	Also, the next one, Hugo's honorable about how capitalism equals socialism.
	Yeah, this is a really great article because it's about the language games that the socialists have been playing, as in capitalism is a word that the socialists coined.
	Before we simply use the term private property, because we're liberals.
	And they decided to create a stigmatizing label, and if you accept their framing, eventually you'll end up at their position.
	I notice how Milton Friedman always used the term free enterprise, or free markets.
	He would never use the word capital.
	Free enterprise, private property.
	For exactly these points.
	So, it's a good idea.
	Also, the last thing to mention is, of course, a live event.
	So we have the 24th, which will be in South London, 25th in Central London, which...
	Looking forward to it.
	I've already written one speech.
	Callum's got a really good presentation he's going to do, but we can't spoil it, but you're really going to enjoy it.
	We've also confirmed who the special live guest is, and you'll really enjoy them too, and I'll have to write a few things that'll be fun to make sure that I'm pulling my weight.
	Alrighty.
	So go and check that out.
	I can't remember what the ticket numbers were on there, but we still have tickets for both, I believe.
	So if you want to go and buy one, go and buy one.
	But also, last thing to mention, just for the Gold Tier members who sent in video comments, we do have a 30-second rule on the video comments, so keep it to 30 seconds or under.
	I think there were some guidelines published somewhere, but I can't remember where on the site, but essentially that.
	Just keep it simple.
	Yep.
	30 seconds.
	No longer, please.
	Alright.
	So let's get into Harvard's Atheist Chaplain.
	Yeah, so Harvard University have appointed an atheist chaplain.
	Now, if you don't know what a chaplain is, a chaplain is an official position at the institution that deals with one's spiritual needs.
	The spiritual needs of atheists?
	So I, as an atheist, I'm going to be taking umbrage with this because I just don't like the tone of it.
	I don't like the aesthetic of it.
	This feels very much to me like the skin suit in action.
	Yes, I will take on the trappings of religion, although beneath it I am, of course, an atheist.
	I'm a big despiser of the skin suit.
	I hate it.
	I like things to be essentially true, be the thing that they are.
	And an atheist wearing a religious skin suit is gross to me.
	Again, on an aesthetic level.
	And that's where we're going to be criticising this from.
	Well, I'm going to be criticising this from.
	But anyway, so as reported by the New York Post, Harvard University's organisation of chaplains is getting a new president to coordinate the campus's Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and other assorted religious communities.
	Only the new president, 44-year-old Greg Epstein, does not identify with any of those traditional religions himself.
	He is an atheist.
	So you'd think it would be inappropriate for him to be the chaplain or head chaplain of anywhere.
	I would have thought impossible rather than inappropriate.
	Yes.
	Impossible would have been another sensible way of framing this.
	But even if it is possible, maybe you shouldn't do it.
	For example, if for some reason Hollywood Studios came to me and said, Carl, we think you're brilliant.
	Would you like to play Martin Luther King in a movie?
	Yes, I would.
	Exactly.
	But you'd do it just to make fun of the whole thing.
	Maybe I would, but it would not be surprising when people say, well, that's not appropriate, is it?
	I look forward to my role as George Floyd.
	Exactly.
	It would be inappropriate because of what I essentially am, in the same way that it is inappropriate for an atheist to say that they can be a chaplain.
	So, this Mr.
	Greg Epstein says, despite his disbelief in any higher power, Harvard chaplains felt Epstein, the author of a book called Good Without God, What a Billion Non-Religious People Do Believe, was a good choice for the position due to young people's increasing lack of religiosity.
	Because young people don't believe in God, we should get an atheist to be the chaplain.
	Think that's going to be bringing back the numbers to the congregations?
	I mean, again, I'm an atheist, so I don't really care, but like...
	I mean, it's just so silly.
	I mean, it's like the Church of England looking at the landscape of British religion and saying that the fastest growing religion in the UK is Islam.
	Therefore, we should convert.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's literally what this is.
	It's ridiculous.
	And it's just a sign of the civilizational malaise that we've been placed under.
	Again, if you can't even proselytize your own religion, it's not surprising that you're like, yeah, okay, well, let's just go with the atheist chaplain.
	That makes sense.
	Anyway, they say, We don't look to a god for answers, we are each other's answers.
	I mean, I don't even disagree with him on the we are each other's answers.
	I do think that meaning and to live a good human and ethical life is found in our relationships with one another.
	But that doesn't mean that I should become the chaplain of Harvard University, the head chaplain.
	But I hate this because what he's promoting, not because he's promoting a secular humanist view, but the problem is I don't think it should be a religion.
	And if it is a religion, viewed as a religion, then how exactly do we distinguish secular humanism from the rest of the Enlightenment anyway, and how is it not that that can easily be pathologized as simply being religious feeling?
	If there's no particular distinction between secularism, humanism, and religion, then how do we distinguish the rest of the Enlightenment from it anyway?
	And there was another part I wanted to add on that, but I can't remember it now.
	But this was probably a long time coming, to be honest.
	Anyway...
	Did he say he was raised in a Jewish household?
	Was he raised in a religious Jewish household or is he just ethnically Jewish?
	What's going on with that?
	They don't say.
	I'm guessing it would have been religiously Jewish.
	Otherwise it wouldn't have been worth mentioning really.
	But it seems that he has no problem masquerading as a religious person even though he shouldn't consider himself to be religious.
	It's just so bizarre.
	Anyway, Harvard's liberal values and desire to prioritize engagement over tradition make Epstein a great fit for the job, many insiders feel.
	Indeed, his election was unanimous.
	Maybe in a more conservative university climate, there might have been a question like, what the heck are they doing at Harvard, having humanists be the president instead of the chaplains?
	Says Margit Hammerstrom, Harvard's Christian Science Chaplain, told the Times.
	But in this environment, it works.
	Greg is known for wanting to keep lines of communication open between different faiths.
	Greg's leadership isn't about theology, says one 20-year-old electrical engineering student.
	It's about cooperation between people of different faiths and bringing people together who don't normally consider themselves religious.
	The chaplain.
	It's just stupid.
	The interfaith leader.
	It's ridiculous.
	I love it because he's not just being the face of Christianity.
	He's the face of bringing people of faith together.
	He's the face of non-religion.
	Yeah.
	It's just...
	Like, again, I'm not religious.
	I don't think I have any desire for a religious world order.
	I just hate the kind of...
	Just the backwardsness of it.
	It's like the Pope saying, oh, yeah, actually, God's fine with gays and gay marriage.
	Well, not according to your Bible, he's not.
	You know?
	And again, I'm fine with gays and gay marriage, but I'm not a Catholic.
	You know?
	I just think that things need to be authentically what they are, and these kind of, you know, falsy, fakery sort of skin suit parades are just gross.
	I really hate them.
	But anyway, going on to the next one, this is of course a milestone of inclusion.
	That's the framing, right?
	So yeah, it's a milestone of inclusion, said Epstein, who started as the school's humanist chaplain in 2005.
	Why would you need a humanist chaplain?
	For the new religion.
	Exactly.
	It's a religion, and that's exactly the point, isn't it?
	And the thing is as well, this is what I was going to say.
	The whole thing about humanism and the Enlightenment, the moral structures of the Enlightenment, the new atheists were wrong.
	These were not just created out of whole cloth.
	They came out of a particular moral environment that is predicated on Christian assumptions.
	They are deeply Christian assumptions.
	And so, essentially, to say, well, we're not religious, but we're going to act like we're religious, and we're going to appoint chaplains like we're religious, is just saying, well, look, you're just the newest branch of Christianity.
	You know, just admit it.
	Just own it.
	Just own it.
	It's fine.
	You know, there's nothing wrong with being a Christian.
	The Christians are actually pretty good moral people.
	You know, I just happen to be a non-belief myself, but I don't begrudge any of the moral teachings of Jesus.
	They're perfectly fine.
	You know, there's nothing wrong with them.
	There are far worse moral teachings out there from various other...
	Abrahamic faiths.
	So, you know, you could do a lot worse than following the teachings of Jesus, probably because of the Greek influence on Christianity.
	So, you know, there's nothing wrong with that, but just pretending, oh, I'm an atheist and a humanist.
	No, you're a Christian who doesn't want to go to church.
	That's what you are.
	And that's fine.
	We usually call that Church of England, but...
	We do call that Church of England, but just stop pretending.
	It is a fiction, in my opinion.
	But anyway, milestone of inclusion.
	That's the important thing.
	One colleague applauded his selection.
	Well, I mean, he's unanimously elected, so yeah, they would.
	It's great to have someone who's coming from a really non-traditional background, says Reverend Adam Lawrence Dyer, a Unitarian Universalist who is the chaplain's head of Diversity and Inclusion and Belonging.
	Right.
	There is a reverend in charge of the diversity department.
	Social justice.
	Yeah.
	That's what's done this, right?
	Especially as this is an institution that has a lot of traditions.
	Oh, good.
	Yeah, yeah.
	This traditional institution, we need someone who's non-traditional.
	That's right.
	I'm a Christian.
	You know, just bring in the atheists.
	It's just ridiculous, right?
	So anyway, another one says he's a very good conduit to all the different faiths.
	Weird religious pluralism going on?
	Do you not want people coming to your faith?
	Do you not think that the religions that do want people going to their faith are going to win in a competition of those people who are trying to recruit people and those people who are not trying to recruit people?
	Anyway, the thing is as well, he's doubtless a lovely guy.
	Like, all the character witnesses were getting here.
	I'm sure he's a lovely guy.
	I'm sure he's a really nice guy.
	Maybe he could just have some sort of, you know...
	What's the word?
	You know, it's just an advisor or a mentor or something like that for students, you know.
	Why give him the religious office when he could just be, you know, a guidance counsellor or something?
	You could just call him Chief of Wokism, it would be easier.
	Well, I mean, yeah, but like...
	The Head of Diversity and Inclusion, well, you know, the Reverend's already got that position, so...
	Exactly, but at least we're fully maturing social justice and atheism and enlightenment view as just being another religion.
	Just a sect of Christianity, anyway.
	So, of course, this aligns with an uptick in irreligion in the US and Harvard across the past several decades.
	A Gallup poll in March found that 21% of Americans, up from just 8% in 2000, do not identify with any religion and millennials in particular are turning away from it in increasing numbers.
	While that's not true, they're turning to the organized religion of social justice, As evidenced by the fact that they are literally electing these people to preside over religions.
	It's a religion.
	Anyway, moving on to the next one.
	This is interesting because the New York Times point out it was the Puritan colonists who settled in New England in the 1630s who had a nagging concern about the churches they were building.
	How would they ensure the clergymen would be literate?
	And their answer was Harvard University.
	So they created Harvard University in order to educate priests and now atheists are presiding over the religious life of the university.
	Isn't that interesting?
	I haven't knew that.
	Their motto was truth for Christ and the church.
	I bet that doesn't even weigh heavy on Greg Epstein's tongue when he says it either.
	Anyway, Greg was the first choice of a committee that was made up of a Lutheran, a Christian scientist, an evangelical Christian, and a Baha'i, says the Reverend Kathleen Reed, a Lutheran chaplain who was on the nominating committee, chaired it.
	We're presenting to the university a vision of how the world could work when diverse traditions focus on how to be good humans and neighbors.
	Don't all religions have those traditions?
	Isn't that like what religion is for?
	Well, how to be good neighbours and...
	Yeah.
	How to be good humans and good neighbours.
	They've all got ideas on it.
	Yeah.
	I mean...
	Very specific ones.
	Yeah, and often contradictory.
	But, you know, I just love the way they're like, hmm, you know, after thousands of years of all this religion, we still have no idea.
	Let's hope this atheist can come in and instruct us on how to be good people.
	It's just absolutely baffling to me.
	And...
	There is a lot here that actually undermines all of the claims of religion.
	Like, you know, inspired by God?
	Probably not.
	You know, sorry.
	Again, I'm an atheist.
	I don't know why I'm defending religion, but the attacks are...
	Well, you know, it's the thing of like, well, if they don't exist, like the Christians aren't a thing that we can define and exist, well, how the hell do we even have a disagreement with them, you know?
	Exactly.
	That's exactly what it is.
	It's the further assault on barriers and borders, boundaries, that I'm sick of seeing.
	It's like a progressive Islam you see popping up in the UK. It's like, yeah, you know what a real Muslim is?
	Yeah.
	Not a Muslim.
	Yes.
	Right, okay.
	A real Muslim supports trans rights.
	Or that Sharia has nothing to do with Islam.
	Yes.
	No, then Islam doesn't exist, you moron.
	Yes.
	And why is it that it had to come to the West to discover this?
	Why wasn't that discovered in the heartland of Islam?
	Well, does no other Muslim country agree with you?
	Yeah.
	It really makes you think, doesn't it?
	Anyway, so at least there was some pushback on this from Christians outside of Harvard.
	Well, sorry, actually, before we get to that.
	So, in a 2009 interview with Harvard Gazette, Epstein recalled his time as a graduate student of Harvard Divinity School.
	An atheist went to Harvard Divinity School.
	He remembered reading about most of the world's major religions, but nothing on humanism.
	Because humanism wasn't considered a religion.
	I suppose it is now.
	Why not?
	What are we going to do to differentiate it from being a religion?
	What is there?
	It just seems, okay, well, fine, humanism is now a religion.
	So, social justice, secularism, these are now religious positions.
	Like, before, I would make the argument, you know, like, being an atheist is actually not a religious position.
	It's a lack of religion, right?
	And so, you know, I just don't have an opinion on it, or don't care.
	But now, it's like, no, that is in and of itself a positive religious vision.
	It's absurd.
	Anyway, the belief that human needs and values are of prime importance, which is what they claim humanism is.
	The thing is, when has anyone said that human needs and values are not of prime importance?
	All the religions are concerned about these things.
	When he questioned the professor about the void of literature and humanism, she encouraged him to write his own book on the topic.
	And so, yeah, this is how he got into it, basically.
	We don't look to God for answers.
	We are each other's answers.
	So religious people don't look to God for answers.
	This is chief chaplain of Harvard University.
	Just saying, again, I'm not someone who can preach to the religious on how to do their religions, but maybe, just maybe, this isn't the way.
	This is not it.
	Anyway, so yeah, there was some kickback by some Christians, which is good.
	A tweet from the president of Colorado Christian University, Don Sweeting, said, so much for truth in Christ and the church.
	Good point.
	And there are a few others.
	Former NFL tight end and outspoken Christian Benjamin Watson posted Psalm 14.1, the fool says in his heart there is no God.
	Well, I'm just actually kind of tepid, to be honest.
	I kind of want the Christians to go blazing at this.
	What do you mean?
	The chief chaplain of Harvard, a religion founded by Puritan Christians, is now an atheist.
	I just find it gross.
	I know it's not like, oh, that's not the world's greatest.
	Maybe not, but I think it's indicative of the larger cultural rot that's at the heart of the West.
	It's not about the losing of religion.
	It's about the losing of authenticity.
	Yeah, I mean, we have this with the Church of England.
	Yes, we do.
	I mean, it's always been a bit of a meme in England for people who don't know that, well, if you want to be religious but you don't believe in God, join the church.
	Like, that's the joke.
	And, I mean, you have this popping up occasionally as well when there was a discussion about, was it Matt Hancock, who had had an affair, and this was during lockdown, and there were two breaches.
	There was one, he's, you know, broken his vow with his wife, and number two, he's broken the restrictions on meeting people.
	That he was imposing.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And some bishop of the Church of England went on the BBC to complain about him breaking the rules, and then literally said, I don't so much care about the adultery than the breaking of the rules.
	And I was like, right.
	You're a bishop.
	You can't make moral prescriptions against adultery as a bishop.
	You're not a Christian.
	I'm sorry.
	Man is an empty vessel for Christianity.
	And again, not Christians.
	What do I give a toss?
	But it's just so fake.
	Exactly.
	And that really is the essence of it.
	And this is how I've managed to find friends in faith communities.
	It's not that I'm particularly interested in these things.
	At least they're authentic.
	Well, that's the point.
	At least they're authentically what they claim to be.
	Rather than the Pope kissing the feet of Muslims and saying that gays are fine.
	It's like, sorry, look, I don't agree with the Catholic position, but I'm not the Pope, and I shouldn't be the Pope, you know?
	And like you said, the Church of England being, like, so empty of moral instruction.
	You know, whether you agree with it or not, at least they were the thing that they claimed to be.
	The bishops can't even say that the Ten Commandments are something that guides them.
	Because as you said, I don't care so much about the adultery.
	God does, yeah.
	Fine, okay, whatever then.
	The Church doesn't care about the Ten Commandments.
	Right.
	It's just so ridiculous.
	So anyway, that's all I have to say on that, but it just really bothers me, and again, it's just indicative of the complete collapse of the moral underpinnings of our civilization.
	A little bit depressed?
	Yeah, I'm not looking forward to this one.
	No, I'm not looking forward to this one either.
	We kind of kept this off, but we're going to do it.
	Yeah, I'm going.
	So a transgender three-year-old decided to cut off her penis.
	She failed, thankfully, but the story has been published in an article by the Daily Mirror.
	I've refused to read this story because this is just depressing to me, but I mean, what sort of parent allows a three-year-old access to a sharp object?
	Well, they were given scissors, it says.
	I don't know if they were plastic or not, but either way, good God.
	So this is the story.
	You can see it's celebrated.
	So for people who don't know, The Mirror is an openly left-wing paper about itself.
	So, of course, what's their reaction to a story of a transgender three-year-old trying to remove their penis?
	Stunning and brave, I bet.
	Yep, stunning and brave.
	Oh, Jesus Christ.
	Yeah, it's unbelievable.
	So if we get to the headline...
	Three-year-old mutilates themselves because of progressive ideology, and that's worthy of praise.
	Yep.
	Transgender girl tried to cut off penis.
	I thought we just ended there.
	Age three, and now wears a skirt to school.
	So this is a stunning and brave story about a transgender child.
	This is the framing they're going to go for.
	Of this transgender three-year-old who has suffered with their life from the age of three and before, and is now living the dream of wearing skirts to school.
	I love that hand.
	Jess Bratton recollected the terrifying moment her child tried to cut off her penis.
	Five years on, she's now waiting for an appointment to change her gender as her proud mum seeks to raise awareness.
	Proud mum.
	Proud.
	Proud mum.
	It's not okay for you to chop off your penis.
	It's okay for someone else to chop off your penis.
	The doctor's okay, honey.
	That's the status.
	A mum has revealed how her three-year-old trans daughter tried to cut off her penis in a desperate attempt to be, quote, her true self.
	Mum of two, Jess Bratton, said the shocking incident five years ago made her realise how her doll-loving son, Logan, wasn't going through an experimental phase, but instead identified as a female at the age of three.
	No, but that's what we're talking about.
	At the age of three, this mother was like...
	Yeah, so the kit tried to chop off its penis, therefore we must accept that it definitely is a transgender child and not a child.
	But I love the way that this is being presented as if it's in a vacuum.
	Just everything was totally normal, and then one day, snip snip.
	One, two years old, up to three years old, just normal kids, just normal boy.
	Am I supposed to believe that there's no ideological agenda that's happening in this household?
	Like, who buys this?
	It's a question you've got to keep asking yourself.
	So it says, Logan had always had an interest in girls' clothes and makeup, says the mother, and had always been keen to see how her mum and younger sister dressed.
	Wasn't Logan interested in how his father dressed?
	Her father dressed.
	We'll get to that.
	Jess had assumed it was merely a stage that every child went through, but when she saw Logan trying to cut off her penis with some scissors, she decided to look into the possibility that her child was trans.
	Really?
	Not the possibility that her child has got mental health problems?
	Or that you've done something to make your child want to chop off parts of its own body?
	God, I hate this so much.
	Jess, 25, the mother, recalled, quote, I was in the kitchen making dinner with my back to Logan's bedroom door.
	She was chatting away with her dolls, but suddenly went silent.
	I shouted at her name and got no response.
	So seconds later, I went to her room and caught her sitting on the bed with her trousers down, holding a pair of scissors to her bits.
	I grasped loudly, gasped loudly, which made her jump, and quickly took the scissors off her.
	Then I held her in my arms and we both cried.
	I should bloody well hope so, because this is your massive failure as a parent if your child is thinking about mutilating themselves.
	Like, if a three-year-old thinks I need to start chopping parts of my own body off, then you've done something wrong as a parent.
	I remember we did the story about, was it in Scotland, four-year-olds can now self-identify to their teachers, and the teachers are meant to accept whatever the hell they self-identify as.
	And keep it from the parents as well.
	And keep it from the parents.
	And there's the question that's been pondering itself in the background here, that, well, what age is too young for transgender child?
	It's three?
	I would say the child part.
	Hmm.
	Leftists don't agree.
	They think your children are fair game for this.
	It is the thing as well.
	You, Posey Parker, Rose of Dawn, and endless numbers of people have all been compared to the Nazis or prescribed terrorist groups for daring to say that hang your horses, maybe we should think about this, and restrict it to adults for surgery or pushing this sort of stuff on kids isn't a good idea.
	And this is the result, which is stories like this.
	I thought there was the case of the woman when she was 16 had transitioned and had her breast removed.
	And that had set a legal precedent so this couldn't happen.
	I hadn't recalled that case.
	We covered it a while ago.
	I'll have to look it up.
	I can't remember the name of the woman.
	The kid in this case, Logan, I don't know what the new name is, is having to wait.
	They're 8 now, but don't worry, they're on the waiting list.
	I'm pretty sure that they can't get anything until they're 16.
	Hormone therapy and things like this.
	Let's finish the story of her founding.
	But again, I just want to make it clear.
	Children are so easily influenced by their own environment.
	The things you do, and you can see it as a parent yourself.
	If you do something, your child wants to mimic it.
	And if you don't have a healthy male role model around, then what role models does your child have?
	And it's literally anything.
	It's the way you brush your teeth.
	It's the way that you watch TV. It's the way you sit on a chair.
	They mimic everything that you do because you are their model for how a human being should be.
	I mean, not to think of tomboys and all the rest of it for a minute.
	Doesn't exist no more, does it?
	Not anymore, no.
	No tomboys, there's no gays, there is only trans.
	Yeah.
	So afterwards I explained that cutting herself would really hurt, and that because she wanted to do something so drastic, we would have a talk to the doctor.
	That day made me realise the severity of the situation.
	What severity?
	What severity?
	You?
	No.
	No, it's definitely the kid.
	It's definitely trans.
	It wasn't just a phase.
	My little boy really did want to be a girl.
	Jess couldn't bear to see Logan unhappy and she knew things would have to change.
	She approached her family GP in Stoke-on-Trench, Staffordshire to explain the Scissors episode and that Logan no wanted to wear boys' clothes.
	The doctor suggested that Logan's yearning to be a girl could still be a phase because he's three.
	Yep.
	But said that she, Logan, was still too young for counselling as well.
	Because the doctor walks in, mother comes in with a three-year-old, and is like, my daughter tried to cut off her penis, and therefore we should get you to do it.
	Presumably.
	I don't know what the hell else she was walking in trying to get out of this.
	And the doctor's like, okay, steady on, you lunatic.
	Maybe you should leave this a few years?
	Don't you want to, you know, talk to a psychiatrist or something?
	It's a three-year-old?
	I mean, gender dysphoria, I think, in this country is still classified as a mental illness.
	I mean, I'm surprised the GP didn't just call Child Protective Services and be like, there's a lunatic woman in my office trying to claim that her three-year-old's...
	Well, in fact, maybe we're giving the mum too hard a time here, because I think she does...
	Maybe, but to be honest, three years old.
	I mean, it just keeps getting into me.
	What about two?
	What about two years old?
	One years old?
	But I mean, she does say that.
	Before this, I tried to encourage Logan to dress in boys' clothing and play with boys' toys, but after the scare, I decided to welcome her wish to change.
	So, I mean, it sounds like she had actually done something.
	This is according to her.
	I don't know what the truth of the matter is.
	We don't get to speak to that.
	Sure, but that's the problem, isn't it?
	Obviously the dad isn't in the picture, and lack of strong male role model is clearly a problem.
	Let's finish this off.
	So Jess says, my GP said there wasn't really anything they could do, but I requested to keep a close eye on Logan in the time.
	As you mentioned, she said that she had tried to make Logan dress in boys' clothing, she says, and with boys' toys, but she didn't want to.
	Not long after the incident, Jess had given birth to her youngest child, Lila, now six, with Logan dotting on her little sister from the start.
	Logan soon began wearing more cropped tops and dresses rather than boys' clothes.
	God, I think I'm going to have a bloody hemorrhage.
	Three-year-olds do not decide what they're going to wear.
	Three-year-olds, they don't decide what they're going to wear.
	You have their wardrobe.
	You're in complete control of the things that they have.
	And so they're like, well, just began wearing more crop tops.
	No, no, no.
	My sons wouldn't have access to dresses.
	There's no dress in the wardrobe that he can just go put on.
	You have to go and buy that.
	Exactly.
	If you've got crop tops and dresses for your three-year-old, that's your choice.
	You've made that choice.
	Like, unbelievable.
	That's why I'm a bit sceptical of the idea that, well, I mean, she just started doing it.
	I'm like, hmm.
	You've got to go and buy those things.
	They're not your size.
	Like, she's not the same size as you for it to fit.
	Three-year-old didn't just pop down to M&S and buy them herself.
	No.
	Didn't happen.
	Jess, a healthcare assistant for residents with mental health and dementia, said...
	I love that that's her job.
	Yeah.
	Quote, when Logan was just one, she was wearing tea towels on her head, wishing for long hair.
	As soon as she was old enough, she started asking to do my hair and makeup.
	She was just so interested in me as well as her sister when she was born.
	As Lila got older, the pair of them became more like sisters than brother and sister, and Logan's desire to become a girl never went away.
	In fact, it only got stronger.
	When Logan was six, she started talking about having a sex change.
	At the age of six, even though three tried to chop off a penis.
	Hang on a second.
	Again, how does a six-year-old know what a sex change is?
	Where do they learn that from?
	But again, like, so it could well be, right?
	Let's just take the mother's story at face value.
	It could well be this is a genuine case of gender dysphoria in a child, right?
	That could be the case.
	I don't know.
	You know, it could be.
	I don't know the medicine.
	I'm having a strong time grappling with the idea that a three-year-old can have that.
	Sure, but I'm not saying it's impossible, and maybe this is not that one case and things like that.
	But either way, it just strikes me that if all they have around them are feminine cultural characteristics going on, like, you know, the mum's doing the hair and stuff, there's nothing boyish for them to engage with.
	Well, what other choices do they have?
	We're about to get to that.
	So when Logan was sick, she started talking about having a sex change.
	She told me she didn't want her bits and kept saying she wanted a Mary like me and her sister.
	I don't know what that is.
	I assume that's a reference to vagina.
	Yeah, I assume so.
	I've never heard that before.
	I told her that when she was a little older, the doctors would be able to help her.
	Okay.
	Why wait?
	I mean, I have to ask this to progressives.
	Why is six not old enough?
	Why is three not old enough?
	Well, if you went to the Tavik Stark Centre or the Mermaids, they'd say it is.
	Why not two?
	One.
	But why wouldn't you say you're a boy, you're going to have this forever, that's how you've been made, that's what you are, get used to it.
	Why not say that?
	Clarence and diversity.
	Jess, who is separated from Logan's father.
	There we go.
	The mother is separated from the father.
	The father's not in the image.
	Not at all.
	They don't go into depth on that, so God knows.
	So Jess, who is separated from Logan's father, is relieved that the reaction from the family and friends has been positive.
	I don't know about the father.
	Didn't mention that one.
	She said, Logan has had strong support network and luckily has only had good things said to her.
	Quote, I kept...
	I knew it was normal for kids to try new things or experiment.
	There were times when I really tried to get her to be a boy, encouraging her to play with football and other boys in the parks, but she refused.
	She wouldn't even entertain it, and I still won't, and I don't want to force it on her.
	I just don't believe it.
	I just have a real tough time believing that a three-year-old can even have these thoughts.
	Never mind for it all to be organic, and then she's like, well, you know, I tried, but you know...
	Honestly, the kind of self-determination that she's imposing on this three-year-old, it doesn't feel genuine, right?
	Because three-year-olds, they don't know anything.
	They look to you for everything.
	They follow your example and lead in everything that you do.
	And so I really have a hard time believing that it's just like, oh, I know.
	No, maybe, but no, I don't know.
	I usually try and have a charitable interpretation of the lunatic things you read.
	I'm really trying.
	And I just can't do it.
	Anyway, so on the 8th of March, during the country's third lockdown, Jess, read this, Jess, the mother, made the brave decision to allow Logan to return to school wearing a girl's uniform.
	Jess made the decision to allow Logan to return to school wearing a girl's uniform.
	Sounds as if Jess is in charge of what the child wears.
	Yeah, I mean, someone had to buy that girl's uniform.
	Recollecting that day, Jess said,"...while she couldn't stop smiling, I was a nervous wreck.
	I was so worried about her getting bullied.
	I spoke to a few parents from the school and Logan's teacher about it beforehand, and they were all so positive." Thankfully, the school has been so supportive.
	Logan's teacher has also shown her class a YouTube video about being transgender, and her friends think she's cooler because of it.
	So, presumably, this is at the time...
	So they watched a ContraPoints video in class, didn't they?
	Yeah, presumably, this is the point where Logan, whatever the hell the name was, I don't remember, was eight years old, and has now gone to school in a female uniform, and then the teacher is like, oh, that's so progressive.
	Quick, let me put on a video for all the other eight-year-olds in the class to teach them about transgenderism and sex change.
	Because, again, they're not born knowing about these things.
	It has to come from somewhere else.
	But official academic source YouTube is here to prevent the problem.
	Yeah.
	After repeated requests to have her sex changed, Logan and her mum are now on a waiting list for an appointment at the Gender Identity Development Services in London.
	I love how they had to make multiple claims to the people who deal with this, who are under investigation for being lunatics, and even they were like, well, we're steady on.
	I think legally they can't do anything until they're 16.
	And that's actually, at least that's a good thing, because 87% of children who claim to have gender dysphoria lose it after going through puberty.
	So, you know, there's every chance that, you know, puberty will kick in and be like, actually, no, I know I am.
	Yeah.
	Jess admits that being a parent of a transgender child can be lonely and now wants to share her experience to help other parents who may be at a loss.
	Quote, I'm in a few of these groups on Facebook and they're pretty awful.
	John sent me a few screenshots.
	We're going to do an episode on them, probably some other time, just on the Facebook group, because it's really creepy the way some of these parents talk about it.
	I mean, I've seen posts about parents whose children start to want to detransition, and they're like, actually, no, this isn't for me.
	And the parents are like, well, how do I stop them doing that?
	One of them was like, I crush up the, you know, hormones and put them in their cereal.
	It's awful.
	It's genuinely awful.
	The idea that these people don't exist, they certainly do.
	They post about it on their Facebook groups, with their real name and pictures, celebrating the fact that they are the ones making the choice, not the child.
	So anyway...
	Last quote.
	As well as showing how proud I am of Logan, I wanted to share my story to raise awareness about being transgender and to urge other parents not to be embarrassed about their child's choices.
	I don't have to approve of all my child's choices.
	Like, in fact, a lot of the time I have to be there to patrol them, right?
	For example, my son...
	You have to be there to be the parent.
	Yes, to be the parent in the room, yes, of course.
	But a lot of the time, for example, it's taken ages for me and my wife to discipline my son to the point where he doesn't sneak down to the kitchen at like 6 in the morning and start taking food out of the fridge.
	It's taken ages.
	But that was his choice.
	He's like, no, you're not allowed to go down and just sit there eating ice cream or whatever at six in the morning.
	He's not allowed to do that.
	But, I mean, that is his choice.
	And I was like, you know, you've got potty training and you've got fridge training.
	Well, yeah.
	Like, you know, because this is the way kids are.
	You know, they're enterprising.
	Maybe I could, though.
	It's like, no.
	You shouldn't.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And I'm the one here to lay down the boundaries because I'm the parent and you're the goddamn child.
	I won't be buying you a girls' school uniform.
	Anyway, I thought I'd just end with this meme that's been shared around in the United States about this, so for people listening.
	Divorced, liberal, 34-year-old single mums when their toddler son plays with a sister's doll.
	There's this creepy lady with, like, scary eyes.
	And, um...
	Yeah, for some reason I seem to think that the United Kingdom is on a path running at like, you know, 100 miles an hour faster than the US on these issues.
	Like, we've already been through the prisons debate, that's already been solved, and the government had to come to the position of, oh good god, they need their own prisons, because we cannot put them with either group, because it just ends in horror.
	And, well, that was obviously the correct solution all along, but whatever.
	And also, we're now having the debate, in the highest levels of government, Liz Truss, the Secretary for Equalities, having to go on national radio and say, women have vaginas, Nick?
	Direct quote, British government position, women have vaginas.
	Radical.
	This is the toppest debate in British politics, and it leads to stories also like this of the extremists within, as you mentioned, Tavistock, even saying, now hang on a sec, I don't think we can transition your three-year-old son and chop off his penis.
	You might have to wait until he's 16, and then go ahead.
	Sorry, it's that oppressive British law.
	Yeah, that's the story.
	Didn't really want to do it, but it's important, so that's that.
	Moving on.
	Academics at Birkbeck College Politics London are terrified of a very nice man called Eric Kaufman.
	Now, I have met Eric Kaufman.
	He seemed very polite, very genial.
	I mean, as you can see, he's not exactly thunder and lightning looking, is he?
	Looks quite normal.
	He's not the devil incarnate, no.
	Well, he's just a regular dude.
	He walks into the room, you don't just hear the music go dark.
	Well, no, nothing like that.
	But Lisa Tilly here posted this on Twitter, along with a blog post that we're going to go through, because it's hilarious.
	So, you know, at least something to pick us up.
	Back in June, I resigned from Birkbeck Politics because of Eric Kaufman's activities.
	Activities is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, because it really is him just posting on social media.
	He goes bike riding.
	He also goes rock climbing.
	No, if it was that, it would be more understandable.
	It's tweets.
	I'm more than sad to leave such a brilliant student community behind, but here's why I had no choice.
	So let's go to her blog.
	No choice.
	She says, it's because of the impact on Birkbeck's staff and students of being in such close proximity to his far-right followers.
	Now, I don't know whether you could tell by the surname...
	Kaufman.
	Kaufman.
	And if you look at the picture, he's got a certain kind of ethnic look about him.
	It's not something I care about at all, but she does.
	She cares about ethnicities and race.
	Well, she's a leftist, so of course she does.
	Exactly.
	It's exactly right.
	She is.
	She's getting out the swamp chart.
	She is exactly doing that.
	And so his far-right followers are the problem.
	This Jewish man's far-right followers.
	I'm devastated to be leaving behind such a brilliant and vibrant community of students, but nobody seriously calling themselves a feminist or anti-racist can continue in a role which involves selling degree programs to students who will end up in Kaufman's classroom.
	God, I wonder what he's teaching them.
	It must be awful.
	It must be terrible.
	To follow, there are just a few examples of Kauffman's recent political activities and their effects, but this is by no means an exhaustive account of my time at Birkbeck.
	In his own terms, Kauffman openly advocates for white racial self-interest politics and has been celebrated by the right-wing press as the knight of resurgent white politics.
	She doesn't give any examples of this, though.
	I mean, I can see some tweets.
	Yes.
	I mean, for example, one of the tweets there reads, How do you mark SJW coursework, which is a bit like evaluating bits of theology orientated to the gods of the left?
	Which really harks back to the first segment we did, didn't it?
	Doesn't it?
	A real dilemma.
	Can't apply normal standards of logic and evidence, so must try and give it a fair mark imagining that it is based on some kind of logic and evidence.
	Hmm.
	Good question.
	Not sure.
	Don't know what you do.
	You know, that's the point.
	You try to be fair.
	And, you know, what are your options?
	But, of course, she being a radical leftist considers liberal democracy to be white identity politics.
	Enlightenment values are white identity politics.
	This is the white supremacy he's engaging in.
	Protestant standards are white identity politics.
	And to be fair, right, I might be wrong.
	Eric Kaufman, the Jewish man, may well have written a neo-Nazi screed that I'm just simply not aware of, right?
	And so I'm just saying...
	I'm sure she'd have it.
	Well, the fact that she doesn't present him saying white people good, brown people bad, is, you know, that...
	The tweet.
	I'm just...
	It just makes me suspicious of her view on what white identity politics means.
	So she says, just as I started my post at Birkbeck, Kaufman was made head of department.
	Find it highly unlikely they'd appoint a white supremacist to the head of department of Birkbeck Politics?
	I just find that really unlikely.
	Just have trouble believing it.
	Soon after this, a high-profile event with Kaufman and others was announced which posited ethnic diversity as a threat to the West, later renamed after objections.
	At this time, students also drew attention to tweets by Kaufman comparing black protesters to cattle and complaining about having to mark the work of left-wing SJW students.
	Right.
	So what he's saying is that mass immigration is going to be a threat to the West.
	Right.
	Of course.
	I mean, this is why John Cleese was like, London isn't an English city.
	Literally everyone agrees with this, except those who want open borders.
	Yes.
	I mean, you couldn't have it any other way.
	If you were pouring oil into a bowl of water, you would be like, well, okay, eventually, if you continue pouring the oil, there's not going to be much water left.
	It's just the way things are.
	It's just how cultures are not mixing.
	Unfortunately.
	There's very little integration.
	The melting pot is not taking place to a sufficient rate.
	Not even slightly.
	And we've got massive ethnic enclaves that are continuing to broaden out in certain areas.
	This isn't about white politics.
	This is merely about something that has been imposed on an indigenous Aboriginal community, many in fact, across the United Kingdom, and that needs to stop because it's artificial.
	It's not normal to have just a massive open borders policy.
	You, in fact, were going through the statistics the other day, weren't you?
	How many was it a year?
	Visas.
	Permanent visas we were giving out.
	Oh, permanent visas.
	I think it's 100,000 settlement, 100,000 new citizenships, and about 100,000 EU get permanent settlement.
	So it's 300,000 a year.
	Yeah, that's permanent.
	Permanent settlement.
	We get about 600,000 inflow for work and everything else, including the permanents.
	Us being one of the most densely populated places on the earth are allowing 600,000 new people in a year.
	And Eric Kaufman's like, maybe.
	That's a problem.
	And we only have a population of like 70 million or something.
	So for the Americans to understand the levels, you'd have to triple your current legal immigration.
	Yes.
	So yeah.
	But this, of course, is being framed as white supremacy.
	But, of course, this just comes from being basically an anti-SJW, which is based.
	Good to see you, isn't it?
	He's making YouTube compilations.
	Feminist Rex!
	Despite all this, Kauffman remained head of the Department of Politics for most of the two years to follow.
	During these years, Kauffman's political project intensified into, firstly, a more elaborate denigration of left-wing students and colleagues as SJWs, woke fundamentalists and the woke Taliban.
	Just a moment of proud appreciation for Eric there.
	Secondly, into an explicit campaign to roll back equalities efforts, often expressed in the language of incitement around the need to slay and defeat the beast of equalities, so communism.
	He's against communism.
	Good!
	He's anti-SJW, he's anti-communism, he's anti-mass immigration.
	He sounds like a conservative.
	Doesn't want the woke Taliban.
	Doesn't want, yeah, if that's not too much to ask.
	Thirdly, a forthright campaign to ban and or discredit critical race theory, which has become code for any critical scholarship on race.
	Yes.
	Yes, that's absolutely good.
	You make Eric Kaufman sound like an absolute god.
	The king of Birkbeck, who should be continuing his god-approved mission.
	Divine quest.
	The crusade against critical race theory.
	Just for anyone who doesn't know, and we're going to go into this in some depth at some point in the future, critical race theory is an American invention based on American political circumstances, American history, and it's a deeply American ideology and has no place any other country other than America.
	And even then...
	It's not good for America either.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	It's a particular way of interpreting what the United States is.
	And basically, it's a secessionist movement that wants to treat black people as a nation within a nation and have them governed by their own laws and have them...
	Have their own essential colonies, basically, is what they're saying.
	They're anti-integration, because in their words, integration is, and I quote, black genocide.
	This is critical race theory.
	I, as a pro-integrationist, and I assume Eric Kaufman, if he's trying to ban critical race theory...
	Should ban it.
	It is a Marxist ideology.
	It's in the Gramscian mould of attempting to change the culture in order to create the conditions for communism.
	Hence her complaining, oh, he's against equalities, against social justice, he's against critical race theory.
	Yes, good.
	I can see it.
	I just want to give homage to the chat here, like everyone giving him a big salute in the chat.
	Like endlessly, just people being like, yep, yep, good boy.
	I mean, trying to get rid of the kind of nonsense.
	I mean, if some black nationalists turned up and were like, yeah, segregation for black nationalism or something on campus, and not just on campus, but in academia, and then the professors were like, yeah, we need to teach this to the kids all the way down to primary school.
	You'd rightfully notice and be like, no.
	But it's worse than that, because it's not about teaching it to kids.
	You wouldn't teach this to kids.
	What it is is a lens through which you do your teaching.
	When you get to kids, it would be like, yeah, black and white people should be in separate states.
	That would be the teaching to kids segment, which we've seen in America.
	Yeah, we've seen this quite often.
	I mean, there was a parent the other day who was complaining that her black child wasn't allowed in the class with white children.
	And she was like, what?
	It's like, why?
	And it's like, ah, because you're black.
	And it's like, that's awful.
	That's just genuinely awful.
	So, you know, big props to Eric for...
	Doing everything he can to ban and discredit critical race theory in the same way that you do everything you could to ban and discredit Nazism, incidentally.
	Because it really is Nazism for black people.
	I mean, in the beginning of the critical race theory massive textbook I've been through, they literally go, so, you know, they're all like, oh god, you know, race identity politics, that sounds racist.
	And they're like, yeah, but.
	And that's where it goes on for.
	But anyway, so, and I love the way this phrase is, this critical race theory has become code for any critical scholarship on race, i.e.
	not white racial interest politics.
	If it's not critical race theory, it's white racial interest politics.
	Bull.
	Absolute nonsense.
	This two-dimensional communist view of the world is wrong.
	Anyway, almost on a daily basis, Kaufman makes inflammatory statements about leftists and anti-racists, comparing them to fascists and Islamic fundamentalists.
	Again, more salutes in the chat, folks, because this is literally like my YouTube channel coming to life.
	Among other slurs, much to the approval of his followers.
	Probably follow me on Twitter and give a bit of support.
	Further, his anti-equality statements openly reproduce claims about differences in educational outcomes are desirable because genetic differences which make some groups more intelligent than others.
	Yeah, but did he actually say that?
	Or are you just inferring that?
	You know, are you just taking that from it?
	Anyway, Kaufman's campaign against critical race theory imports the already advanced project of censorship and intimidation in the US. Oh, the balls on them to say that.
	We're being censored.
	You're pro-censorship.
	Shut up.
	Which is aimed at legislation against and confusion and intimidation around teaching and scholarship on race.
	That's right, because there's only one way to talk about race, and it is from the radical left-wing Marxist position.
	This has been clearly articulated by Christopher Rufo, who is regularly retweeted by Kaufman.
	Christopher Rufo is also a very good boy.
	Did nothing wrong.
	Just Republican academic.
	He's for integration, not segregation.
	Yes.
	And that makes him the bad guy, according to the leftists.
	They don't like their race mixing.
	You've got to understand, Callum.
	I really do think they are fearful of it.
	Well, they are, because if the races mix, then they might not hate each other.
	And it's really difficult to foment division and hatred between the races if they don't.
	What happens to the entire left-wing project if there's no race war?
	They've got nothing.
	Literally.
	If they can't make black people hate white people and white people hate black people, how do they benefit?
	I mean, really.
	Like, seriously.
	What good is left-wing politics if people aren't at each other's throats all day?
	It's mad.
	On immutable characteristics.
	On their immutable characteristics.
	That there can't be any solving of.
	Yeah.
	But again, this integrationist is white identity politics.
	This broader project targets my own teaching, as well as that of my many other colleagues in Birkbeck departments, and has already resulted in students expressing concern on whether it's even legal for them to draw on scholarship that could be perceived as CRT in their assignments.
	Well, that's a good point, in fact, because, I mean, I do think it should probably be illegal to indoctrinate people into Nazism in schools.
	Yeah.
	I mean, publicly funded institutions.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I guess you could have a private Nazi college.
	Hugh Fundant, go for it.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't know who's going to send the kids there, but you know, I'm all for a liberal society.
	In contrast to this approach to critical race theory, which seeks to censor and discredit, again, the irony.
	Oh no, now that we're being censored and discredited, now it's a bad thing.
	Also, why is discreditation a bad thing?
	Also, how is this censorship?
	I know, but like him saying, you're bad.
	Oh my god, you're censoring discrediting me.
	Literally, if all I have to do is say you're bad and you're discredited, you haven't got much to stand on.
	But again, in public institutions or private institutions...
	Not hosting a thing is not censorship.
	And that is true.
	I guess if Birkbeck was the only university, not even the only university in London, but if it was the only university or one of the very few universities in the country and none of them would hold what was considered to be a widely held opinion, sure, maybe you could say that was censorship.
	Because monopoly on the public space or whatever, you claim that was censorship.
	But I don't agree that this meets the standard of censorship.
	And I just don't think that universities should be teaching with a critical race theory lens because I'm a throwback liberal who wants integration.
	But anyway, Kaufman's published work openly encourages a good-faith engagement with far-right conspiracy theories, specifically white genocide theory.
	Not a quote.
	I mean, they're not quoting him there.
	Just saying.
	But also the absurdity of the CRT types being upset about genocide.
	And let's be clear, this is why they think he's white identity politics, right?
	In his recent book, he says, That's true.
	Yeah, if Richard Spencer says, I can drink water, he certainly can.
	The sky is blue.
	No, it's not, Richard.
	I mean, obviously.
	That's not the problem with the white identitarian movement, is that they are incapable of saying something true.
	The problem is their intention that underlies the things that they're saying.
	Which is very revealing of the leftists.
	I mean, this is like when we covered some article when they're complaining about flags being a symbol of fascism.
	This is basically Hitler, and it's like, look, the problem with the Nazis wasn't the flags.
	Right.
	It wasn't that they flew flags.
	That's why we all hate them.
	No, no, no.
	It was the genocide and the ideology they took place in.
	It's the things they were trying to achieve and the way they were trying to make the world.
	And then he proceeds to evaluate the truth in their claims.
	Well, if there is some truth in their claims, what are we supposed to do about that?
	Other than accept the fact that these are true statements about the world.
	Now, just to be clear, I don't support Richard Spencer on Generation Identity at all.
	But if they're saying something that is true, we can't just say that's not true because they are who they are.
	That's...
	An ad hominem at the very best.
	It's not an argument.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And also, but this puts the left in the position of outright denial of reality.
	And it's like, really?
	I mean, don't get me wrong.
	It's not a surprise that you'd be in the position where you're literally denying reality.
	But is that wise for you to publicly signal this?
	Dear fellow academics, I don't like Eric Kaufman because he says things that are true that I don't like.
	We should deny these true things for orthodoxy.
	Political correctness.
	It's not a surprise from academia.
	No, not really.
	Not a left-wing academia.
	Apparently there's a normal academia that can deal with these things.
	But this good-faith approach to fascist conspiracy theories has earned Kauffman a solid following among the hard right, which is even noticeable on the campus at Birkbeck.
	I don't know, I've never been to the campus at Birkbeck, but I'm just going to assume that's true.
	I'm going to assume it's just Klan hoods from wall to wall.
	Obviously, that's nonsense.
	There's going to be people who walk around and be like, integration!
	And they're like, damn, shut them down!
	For example, a Generation Identity Identitarian Movement cell appeared to be operating on the Birkbeck campus.
	I find it hard to believe, to be honest.
	Again, she doesn't...
	What, four guys in a WhatsApp group again?
	Well, I don't know, but she doesn't provide any evidence for it.
	She states it.
	Is that right?
	Then why don't you take a photo?
	Okay.
	But they even displayed posters with Kaufman's images and quotes from his work on the supposed problems of the white population decline.
	Well, I mean, if we say...
	When we say white, if we mean British or European...
	Yeah, that's no doubt.
	We can track the birth rates.
	We know exactly what the population decline is.
	But also, if G.I. quote you, therefore you agree with G.I.? Yeah.
	But also, the idea that there's a population decline in Western countries is instrumental to the pro-immigration argument.
	If that wasn't the case, then one of the major pillars holding up the we need immigrants is we need young immigrants to prop up our pensioners because they're not having enough kids.
	It's a lie, by the way, but Yeah.
	Also, there's no such thing happening, blah, blah, blah.
	You know, it's amazing.
	Anyway.
	Just a few more examples.
	In a recent article, Kaufman claimed that the instance of female students refusing to date Trump supporters provides evidence of progressive authoritarianism, a belief system that justifies infringing rights to equal treatment in the name of emotional safety of historically marginalized groups.
	Here, the rights to equal treatment is implied in the rights of Trump supporters to sleep with female students and the female students choosing to reject them as progressive authoritarianism.
	I haven't read that article, but I doubt she's representing that fair.
	No, I mean, you can see it just with the stupid buzzwords being thrown in there.
	He's just like, yeah, no, we need a society in which people who politically disagree could be friends and engage with each other.
	Have relationships?
	Integration, again.
	But no, no, no.
	This absolute bigot wants me to have sex with someone I hate.
	Yeah, and she's like, no, we need separate but equal communities.
	But I love the implied, again, implied, so he didn't state this, right?
	Implied as the rights of Trump supporters to sleep with female students.
	I doubt he said that.
	It's just that they should mix.
	It would be good for society.
	But again, this sort of authoritarianism, what they're talking about is the never kiss the Tory movement, right?
	That kind of group think on the left, whether you're not allowed to have any kind of relationship with the person on the right.
	This doesn't exist in the Tory party, in case the Labour rights are watching and wondering.
	And you can see the outgrowth of this repressed desire spilling out from the left-wing movements.
	They're like, stupid, sexy Trump supporters.
	I keep having these fancies about getting pounded by a Trump supporter and I just can't stop.
	But again, why do you need those stickers?
	Exactly.
	Why do you need to put stickers up saying, I've never kissed the Tory?
	It's like, I can resist.
	I don't need it.
	Exactly.
	I'm not thinking about them.
	I'm not thinking about them.
	It's like, yeah, you are.
	It's the SpongeBob Mina.
	I don't need it.
	I don't need it.
	It's like the glass of water in front of him.
	Yeah, and so that, I think, is probably what he's speaking about with the progressive authoritarianism.
	Because, like I say, it's not even on the right.
	No other community does this.
	Anyone on the right, and they're like, oh, I've got a girlfriend who votes Labour, or, you know, she has Labour support.
	No one would give a toss.
	I imagine the Lib Dems probably don't do this.
	I can't imagine the Greens.
	Well, maybe the Greens would do it.
	But, like, I've never heard of a Lib Dem, you know, pathologising someone because they dated a Tory or something.
	Like, it's just so backwards.
	But anyway...
	Guess better.
	At the moment of the Chauvin trial verdict for the sadistic racist murder of George Floyd.
	Sign off on that statement, Callum?
	The evidence doesn't.
	The video evidence doesn't show any racism.
	What was the name of the lawyer again?
	Nelson.
	Nelson, that was it, yeah.
	The hero.
	Kaufman appeared on Fox News to criticise those who he claimed were racialising what is not a racist issue.
	There's literally no evidence to suggest that race was a motive in the murder of George Floyd.
	Wasn't brought up in the case by any side at any point.
	No.
	They could have.
	Chauvin was married to a Filipino woman, was it?
	Yep.
	Had kids with her.
	Right.
	So he's a race mixer.
	Right.
	Also, the other cops with him were of various races.
	All of this integrationism, making critical race theory look kind of bad.
	It had nothing to do with the fact he was black, it was to do with the fact that he was high as hell on drugs.
	And he had just crammed loads of them in his mouth before he was...
	And he was saying, oh, I can't breathe, I can't breathe, before we put them on the floor.
	Yeah, and then the pills being found in the squad car, half-chewed, with his saliva on them.
	Sadistic racist murder, Callum.
	We've established this.
	And Kauffman saying, well, they're racialising what is not a racist issue.
	Well, I guess an integrationist would say that, wouldn't they?
	Just mad.
	Absolutely mad.
	He also used this moment to describe one of his research experiments in his own words.
	I had half of black survey respondents read some Tanahishi Coates presented as critical race theory inspired.
	All correct.
	And half read nothing.
	And of those who read Coates, their belief that they could make their life plans work out dropped by 15 points.
	So basically, if you get black students to read Tanahashi Coates and get them to read nothing at all, they come away demoralized after reading Tanahashi Coates.
	Oh, God.
	It's like immeasurable self-improvement.
	The self-improvement in this case is they do nothing.
	Yeah.
	Self-disimprovement is what's taking place there.
	If you just leave them alone, they'll have a better opinion of themselves than if you get them to read critical race theory.
	If you want to self-savichage, become a critical race theorist.
	Yeah, that's literally it.
	Did Kaufman have an ethics clearance from Birkbeck Politics to conduct experiments specifically on black...
	surveying people?
	It's human experimentation.
	Read this critical race theory.
	Oh, you can't conduct that experiment on people.
	That's unethical.
	Well, I agree.
	I love when she's presenting it like it's human experimentation or something.
	Yeah, I know.
	Like he was cutting off their kidneys and sewing them back on or something.
	Okay, Eric Goebbels Kaufman.
	You know, like...
	He's talking to black people.
	But the thing is, he got them to read the things you want them to read, and you're calling that an unethical experiment?
	Based.
	Yeah, I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree, but like, mad.
	It's absolutely mad, right?
	And then she finishes with, on a personal note, I always find Kaufman's statements denying or diminishing racist violence and genocide basically inhumane.
	Well, of course you would.
	But there is something about the timing of these two statements.
	There was another one about natives in Canada, but we haven't got time.
	That adds a particularly incomprehensible kind of cruelty.
	Or he's trying to look at the facts and this is not cruel at all, but you just find it incomprehensible because you're a lunatic far leftist.
	There is more to be said about Kaufman's work.
	It is reproduced in far-right publications like Amren and Breitbart.
	Ah yes, they're basically the same thing.
	Jared Taylor's white nationalist publication, Breitbart.
	I've never heard of Amren.
	Well, that's because nobody follows that, because it's a white nationalist publication.
	Breitbart is just a conservative media outlet.
	Yeah.
	Basically the same thing.
	About his own promotion and signal boosting of figures such as Andy Ngo, Beau Weingart, don't know who that is, actually.
	And so the far-right figures, like Andy Ngo, and about his own use of this anti-Semitic term, cultural Marxism, in published work.
	Anti-Semitic.
	There is also much to be said about Kaufman's paid work for policy exchange, whose donors are undisclosed and whose groups and organisations whose interests appear to directly conflict with those of Birkbeck's student community he's also paid to teach.
	Overall, Birkbeck appears to take an absolutist approach to free speech, wherein all of the above is apparently passed without comment or scrutiny from those in the college who are supposed to prioritise the duty of care for their students, protect dignity at work and study, and fill the college's obligation under equalities legislation.
	Well, that's because none of it is in any way controversial.
	Widely held opinions by the British public.
	None of it's white nationalism.
	They appear to just be facts that he's presenting and an integrationist liberal perspective when it comes to politics.
	You can see why you're feeling personally attacked here, critical racerists.
	But yeah, so basically she's not happy.
	And she wants him gone, and since she can't get him gone, she herself has gone.
	So good news.
	I mean, it really is just politics.
	Just hold around long enough.
	If your opponent leaves, you've won.
	Just stand your ground.
	No, you're a bunch of racist SJWs, and I can't even mark your work fairly because you look like a religion.
	Piss off.
	Anyway.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Hey guys, how's it going?
	So, a friend of mine tells me that he doesn't think billionaires should exist.
	No one should have that much money.
	I think that, one, he's getting confused that billionaires often don't have that much cash lying around, so essentially you're asking them to sell their companies.
	And two, I think he's conflating wealth with power.
	I think that he doesn't think any individual should have this much power.
	Could you divorce money from power and say that no individual can have this much power, but you can have that much wealth?
	Who cares if you own a planet as long as you're not going to violate my rights?
	What do you think?
	I think you're absolutely right about the not understanding how money works and how wealth works.
	I've said before, but I'll say again.
	It's amazing.
	Screws McDuck.
	This is the thing that really annoyed me.
	Vox made a video in which they said that, what was it?
	Who's the richest guy?
	I can't remember.
	The Amazon guy.
	Bezos.
	Bezos has loads of money in stock, and therefore he's not paying tax on that, unlike his income, and therefore this is him not paying his fair share.
	But he pays taxes on dividends he makes from that stock.
	I know, but also, if he had no dividends, you just own the stock, right?
	And this can apply to anyone.
	You own your stock, you should pay tax on just owning it, even if you do nothing with it.
	Doesn't make sense.
	And also, they have to make the assumption that the stock can't go down.
	But yeah, the stock is not itself income.
	No, it can go up, or it could go down, Vox.
	And if it goes down, he's no longer richest man.
	Yeah.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	Sorry.
	But the marriage of wealth and power is obviously something that's inevitably going to happen.
	But it's important to remember there are many different kinds of power.
	Wealth is just one of them because, I mean, power ultimately is just the ability to change the world according to your desires.
	And there are lots of ways of doing that.
	You are exactly right.
	He can have as much money as he wants, but at the end of the day, the laws are the laws, our rights are our rights, and we have constitutions to protect those.
	It doesn't matter to me if there's a billionaire somewhere, as long as he's not ruining my world, and he doesn't have that option.
	And the environmentalist lobby, which will be a major concern, I think, is actually very, very strong.
	Again, power comes in many different forms.
	And at the end of the day, if someone earned the money legitimately, I really do have a hard time saying he's not allowed it.
	But like you said, what they're doing is valuating the company he owns, which is not just the liquid capital in their bank account.
	It's property they own.
	The infrastructure, like machines and cars and trucks.
	And then the people working there and their salaries and the tax that they end up paying and stuff like that.
	So essentially calling someone a billionaire is a bit of a misnomer.
	But there we go.
	I mean, the only complaint I've got, essentially, with that kind of wealth disparity is the interaction with politics.
	I mean, the American system I find incredibly strange.
	The British one, you can't really just buy politicians in the same way you can donate...
	It is more strictly limited.
	Millions of dollars to superpacks doesn't exist here.
	No.
	You can give thousands of pounds and...
	Well, yeah, like, you know...
	Conservative donor, you know, redid...
	10 Downing Streets interior design.
	Yeah, so it's such low-level corruption.
	Yeah, for 50 grand.
	It's like, really?
	If that 50 grand, that's the height of corruption that everyone was whining about?
	God, I'm glad.
	But the higher thing about money interacting with politics has to be paid lobbyists.
	So lobby groups are spent to do all those things.
	But quite frankly, I kind of feel like just throwing them into the political furnace.
	But if you do that, it also means throwing out all...
	What are they called?
	Um...
	Insider pressure groups is what they're called.
	So then you have the groups which are called upon to answer in Parliament.
	And I love Margaret Thatcher's position on them, which was just, to hell with them.
	Like, this is just subverting the voter.
	And no one else seems to agree with this, but she's completely right.
	But of course, it means also throwing the unions on the political furnace.
	Which is why leftists never talk about the insider political groups, because unions are one of them.
	Yeah, but I think, you know, maybe Margaret Thatcher has a point here.
	She's entirely right.
	Yeah, no, because you vote for your politician, and then some B-words, who represent just themselves, come along and badger the politicians 24-7 for the next four years until the next election.
	Who are literally professionally paid to badge them.
	You're busy getting along with your life.
	You vote once every five years or whatever it is.
	These guys are there all day, every day.
	When the outside is not so bad, they're just people making noise.
	But when they are called inside to work with politicians, then they are there in person badgering them every day for whatever crap they want.
	and none of them should be there.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, sorry.
	Logos, part 3 of 5.
	Logos as a state of being is where freedom, reason, and thought meet.
	This provides context for understanding the word freedom.
	Since logos is both freedom and reason, the phrase "freedom from nature" being unreasonable demonstrates itself to be logos anti-logos, which is ridiculous.
	Rather, with logos is the framework for the pursuit of truth by freely expressing thoughts with reason.
	Thus, what we have a freedom from is freedom from ideological possession.
	Said another way, when you embrace logos, then it is you who possesses an idea rather than having the idea possess you.
	That's a good point.
	And I like the way that he's exposed the inherent absurdity of the contradiction, the logos, anti-logos position.
	Freedom from nature isn't really something that can happen.
	Stupid, stupid thing.
	And I came across a quote by Aristotle earlier, which was a really good point that was being made.
	And it ties into the conversation we had the other day about discipline being the method towards freedom.
	Because of the enslaving nature of your own desires.
	If you're enslaved to your own passions and desires, then you're not free.
	If you constantly need the next dopamine hit, next alcohol, next drink, whatever it is, if you're playing video games constantly, if you're not disciplined, then you're enslaved to those things that you desire.
	You're not free.
	I think that's true.
	Also the expression.
	Because I hear communists all the time argue that, well, this man isn't a millionaire, therefore he's not free.
	And therefore capitalism is bad.
	I don't think that's what I'm saying.
	I know, but it's just like that instantly just comes into my mind.
	I was just remembering people making that argument to me.
	The communists are only presenting a freedom to be enslaved to your own desires, in my opinion.
	Yeah.
	Regarding the question of bombing hurricanes, I believe this has already come up once or twice in the recent past.
	Right, okay, now I get it.
	I did wonder why we were even talking about bombing hurricanes.
	Of course it had to be something Trump said.
	But what happens?
	I have no idea.
	I'm going to bomb the hurricane.
	And he's not even in office to be able to Moab it now.
	Sucks.
	I should make him his campaign promise.
	I will bomb hurricanes.
	This will never happen again.
	I will buy Greenland.
	Also, biologically speaking, when you have XY, it stays the same throughout the entire organism.
	But, when you have two X's...
	You have a thing called a bar body where one X collapses on itself.
	And so a woman's body will be this X, that X, this X, that X. So women are mosaics and men are stubborn men.
	Hmm.
	I do not know anything about biology.
	You know, I did an A level in biology.
	I can vaguely remember how the kidneys extract water from the bloodstream.
	And alcohol encourages this process, and this is why you get dehydrated after drinking.
	Because there's less water in your system?
	Yes.
	That had nothing to do with what he said, but...
	No, but that's basically all I can remember about biology.
	Okay.
	I mean, I did it 20 years ago.
	I hate it.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Since the left loves to redefine its terms so frequently, why don't we take a page out of their book?
	Let's redefine racist to mean a person who obsesses so strongly over the races of themselves and others that it dominates their social interactions.
	Tangent.
	I would like for Carl, if he has the time, to offer critique on my Pathfinder settings so far.
	Would that be the tips or the contact email address?
	Probably contact.
	I don't know if I'm going to be able to find time to do that, to be honest.
	But interestingly, we don't need to redefine racist to mean that.
	That's what the critical race theorists actually accept, that the liberal position on racism is, is an obsession about race.
	Because they view that as the sort of root of it, and then everything that manifests beyond that, all the sort of racial discrimination and stuff like that, comes from racial consciousness, an obsessive focus on race.
	And so we actually don't need to redefine anything.
	That's still our definition.
	They just hate it because it means that they are bad and racist.
	I don't think they hate it.
	I think I said this the other day where it's like the Nick Fuentes thing.
	You say, you're a racist and he just goes, yeah, and that's based.
	You get that with leftists where you say, you're a racist and they just go, yeah, and that's woke.
	I was like, okay.
	Both of you, in the oven.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Carl, I believe keto is British because you will never understand the true freedom that comes with this chocolate ice cream.
	Mmm.
	Tastes like happiness and true American freedom.
	Well, two points.
	We actually have chocolate ice cream over here.
	We do?
	Second point.
	This is what Aristotle was saying about being enslaved to your own passions, you know, Brittany.
	You know, don't do it.
	You've got to resist.
	In my head, I'm just wondering, is there like...
	Ben and Jerry's are never going to do this because they're leftist, but I want to see like an American-styled ice cream, like American-flavoured, or, you know, over-the-top excess in the same way that you have...
	Well, that's Ben and Jerry's.
	Look at it.
	We've got cookie dough ice cream.
	It's like, look, I think that might be a sin.
	But it funds BLO. Like, canonically, religiously a sin.
	I'm not even joking.
	There's got to be something...
	You don't like cookie dough ice cream?
	Oh no, I love it, but that's the problem.
	That's what I mean.
	I feel like Satan is tempting me.
	I'm not religious in any way, but when I'm eating this stuff, I'm like, yeah, this is wrong.
	Nothing should be this nice.
	It's like Pleasure Island from Pinocchio, right?
	Eventually this is going to turn me into something that I don't want to be.
	You've not seen Pinocchio yet?
	No.
	Oh my god.
	You are a Zoomer, by the way.
	Zoomers are apparently 1995 onwards.
	Did you have to bring that up?
	Yeah.
	I've read those comments, too.
	I got very upset.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey, Carl.
	I hope you're there today because I have a little trick for you.
	I just want you to guess what card am I holding here right now.
	I want you to think about it.
	Just focus on it.
	Ace of Spades?
	Dude, I thought you were a dadist.
	Jesus Christ.
	But also, on top of that, what you guys were talking about that movie from yesterday, these people exist.
	I'm actually related to one of them.
	My little sister said I only get hired for gigs from white people because they find black people interesting.
	What?
	Racist.
	Sorry, sorry.
	That's awful.
	Because, I mean, obviously he's got some talent as a musician.
	Magician, even.
	I've had friends who do these sort of things as well.
	And it's, you know, you can see the scale of it.
	You know, if it's that quickly, you don't notice him.
	Blah, blah.
	You know, but that's a horrible thing to say to anyone.
	So the condom is a dad's position because you've got to know when to stop, surely?
	Yes.
	Couldn't be endless kids.
	Well, my wife and I are actually discussing who's going to get what tied.
	Because, yeah, we don't want endless kids.
	Well, she does, actually.
	I don't want homeless kids.
	I don't know if it's Orthodox Jews or not, but I'm not meant to use contraception.
	The guy at uni who was a rabbi, he just had so many kids.
	He was happy about it, but I was just like, I don't know how you pay for all that.
	Each one gets less and less.
	Oh.
	Although when you're saying about, like, they hire me because they find black people interesting, the thing in my mind is, have you ever heard of the St.
	Louis Olympics?
	No.
	So it was, like, in the 1900s.
	Then they had a whole bunch of mess.
	So, like, the marathon, for example, took light.
	It was the longest in history because it was super hot and they wouldn't give people water and all sorts of other stupid stuff.
	It was a mess.
	I think someone almost died on it as well.
	Oh yeah, no kidding.
	Yeah, but they also had these other attractions for the ceremony, and they just had, like, tribal attractions, is what they called it.
	So they just had a bunch of guys who were black, who were just basically dressed up as tribals, who weren't tribals.
	And then some, like, you know, Indians.
	No, Indians.
	American Indians.
	The same thing.
	Like, I'm just imagining that.
	Is that what they've got in their mind when they're hiring Cedric?
	Just being like...
	I don't know.
	Look at the black man.
	Ooh.
	Go on, I don't play, you know, man.
	Like I said, I'm an integrationist.
	I consider black people to be Americans.
	Yeah.
	I'm going to send you a video on the St.
	Louis marathon afterwards because it is a rollercoaster of just how bad it was.
	It does sound hilarious.
	They had one guy, the guy at the front who won it.
	They kept giving him alcohol.
	Because he was asking for water.
	So he just got dehydrated.
	No kidding.
	I've also explained how that works.
	Also, the guy who won before him, he got in a car, went half the route, and then just got out and ran to the end.
	And then they were crowning him.
	Like, the daughter of Theodore Roosevelt was about to give him the medal.
	And then someone from the crowd shouted out, hey, hang on.
	Like, he cheered.
	And then, you know, he was disqualified.
	And then the other guy won, who was high on Apple.
	I just don't understand why you wouldn't be allowed water.
	I don't know.
	Weird time.
	Early in the 20th century.
	Let's go to the next one.
	The footage of the guy dangling under the Black Hulk.
	Maybe the Taliban are just sweding a Sharia version of the 1990 classic Air America and someone called dibs on Robert Downey Jr's role.
	I was thinking it was the Taliban's equivalent of Boris Johnson, actually.
	I wish he did that now.
	That would have been a great reference.
	It would have been hilarious.
	I mean, there's nothing to say that they won't do it as well, because they aren't memeing on us hard.
	Well, if you're a member of the Taliban and you watch the Lotus Eders, get some desk flags.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Carl, last episode he asked for some words that could be used in the place of racism to make the left uncomfortable.
	I think some good words are judgmental and prejudiced.
	Not only is the concept of judgment anathema to the left, these words are perfectly acceptable to the right.
	Good judgment and healthy prejudice are virtues.
	This rejection of judgment is incidentally why they vehemently reject God in favor of harm and safety concern materialism, as God is the ultimate judgmental ideal.
	That's good.
	And that's a very good rejoinder.
	So you're being a bit judgmental there, aren't you?
	What's the leftist going to be?
	No, I'm not.
	They're going to be instantly taken aback by that.
	Of course they're being judgmental.
	Yeah, but they don't think they should be judgmental.
	Do they not?
	Tolerance, inclusivity, diversity, fat acceptance, all that sort of nonsense.
	It's all based on abolishing the idea of judgment.
	But surely they consider themselves an individual judger.
	Well, they do.
	But they also think that being judgmental against people is wrong.
	I think that's actually a good point.
	I think there might be a useful attack.
	Try it out at the next Labour meeting, I guess.
	I will.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Oh, you know the thing!
	Yes, we do.
	Yes, we do.
	Oh, Kamala Harris laugh makes us really girly.
	Yeah.
	Yes, we do.
	If you've ever listened to a loop of Kamala laughing, Definitely take a walk in the woods.
	I don't know.
	I feel like I'd be scared that she's going to come out of the woods.
	Like the cackling, you're going to hear echoing.
	I mean, it does sound kind of like Predator.
	Yeah.
	You know?
	Like echolocation or something.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Although I think I know the reason the audio there is not the jackass intro is because of copyright.
	But someone did send a jackass version in.
	I think we mailed them back to ask them if we could put it on social media because it is funny as hell.
	Yeah.
	So, get in contact.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Tony D and little Joan here with another Legend of the Pines, Pasadena, New Jersey.
	Pasadena is one of these towns that got swallowed up by the Pine Barrens.
	It probably disintegrated sometime in the 1800s.
	The Brooks Bay Terracotta Brick Factory ruins, however, is still around.
	You could go to Awesome.
	I love seeing old ruins.
	I think they're fascinating.
	Hang on, so the Americans cut all that down, built the little towns, and then left them, and now the pines have all just grown back?
	Nature is reclaiming.
	I find it weird that the towns were not used for things.
	Well, they probably were, and then whatever company or whatever moved on or went out of business or whatever and then got abandoned.
	That's what happens when you're...
	That's unusual for us, because we're a tiny, overpopulated island.
	Yeah, like all the land's bloody useful.
	Exactly, but if you're a massive, underpopulated continent, then you just have...
	It's not that valuable to keep it up.
	This is why my wife's always like, we should have moved to America.
	We could have bought a massive house.
	Yeah, but...
	Before the Americans.
	No, that's not the problem.
	The...
	It's good for the next one.
	Have you got a better reason or not?
	I've got plenty of good reasons.
	Okay, we'll go to the next video.
	Morning from Ontario.
	Today I'd like to thank Mr.
	Sargon of Akkad himself.
	I've been watching since Gamergate and he's taught me to read between the lines when the mainstream media is trying to spin you a narrative.
	He's also taught me the positive sides of masculinity and most importantly he's taught me to stand against the crowd and say what's true.
	I genuinely would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart.
	Keep up the hard work.
	We all appreciate it.
	Oh, that's really nice.
	Thank you very much.
	That's a really kind thing to say.
	Hey guys, I hope you're liking the crotch of you today.
	But I just had a little philosophy on virgin socialists.
	So if I were to take this king here and go into the middle, these guys are so annoying because they think they should come right back to the top without any work.
	Well, maybe if they get off of Twitter and they stop buying $10 drinks at Starbucks, move out of cities, and actually make something of themselves, maybe they could come on top with the rest of the chads like us.
	Also, if you guys want to learn that first move, come to my channel, Sacha Purcell.
	Thank you.
	See, I love watching the sort of, like, practice movements, because I'm trying to follow it, and suddenly the top of the head is like, God damn it.
	I missed it.
	I can't imagine how much work goes into getting that perfect as well.
	Well, like I said, I've had friends who have done it, and a friend of mine practiced for years, and he wasn't that good.
	So, yeah.
	Hell of a skill.
	Hard work.
	I had a conversation a few days ago with some folks on your Discord server, and observed that The first real involvement of the press in the lead up to a war was prior to the English Civil War.
	Just wondering if you see any parallels between the two, given how today's media are acting.
	I know, right?
	No, that's really interesting, because that's going to be around the sort of time of the genesis of the press.
	And I've never gone and looked into it.
	I've never read...
	What does it mean?
	Like the London Gazette were gasping for war?
	Well, I don't know.
	I haven't read what the press coverage of the conflict was like.
	And now you mention it, I'm glad you bring it up, because that sounds like a fascinating thing to look into.
	Maybe I'll ask Bo if he wants to do it, present something.
	Because that probably is a fascinating thing.
	Sorry, I'm kind of wondering who the press, like which side of it they were on mostly.
	I imagine the Parliament.
	I would imagine so.
	I mean, the press was initially viewed as a kind of...
	Adversarial force.
	You know, the fourth estate was meant to be adversarial, but of course it's not now.
	Now it just protects established power.
	Anyway, Thomas says, referring to the religious aspect of what we were talking about earlier, this only shows the rapid decline of Western Christian values.
	If we don't respect the unifying faith by jamming any random person to religious titles, then what is the point of having these values?
	Exactly.
	That's what's underpinning this bothering me.
	Again, atheists don't care, but, you know, it's obviously part of the communist subversion of, Eroding in the name of diversity and inclusion, what should be structures that have clear boundaries that demarcate them from not them.
	And if you can have an atheist as a pastor, then that shows that this is another boundary that's been knocked down.
	I want the religious people to be the religious people, fundamentally.
	There's a funny Twitter account called the Imam of Dibley.
	And on my mind, I've just got a new series of the show where it's like, in the name of diversity and inclusion, the Imam of Dibley has turned up.
	There's no Muslims in the town.
	It doesn't matter.
	Yeah.
	Also, the Imam's an atheist.
	Sigurd says, Ah yes, the atheist chaplain.
	Honestly, once a religion starts disregarding its inherent beliefs, it's no longer a religion.
	It's a fashion statement.
	Bam, that's a good comment.
	I should have said that.
	Damn.
	Small L Libertarian says, Holy crap, we legitimately have our first woke chaplain.
	Sorry, the Catholics have got their first woke pope.
	He may not be now, but $10 says he goes full woke, the cathedral is right.
	Asriel says, as an atheist, I wasn't allowed to be the godfather to my brother's kids.
	The priest insisted I had to be a church member to take part in the baptism.
	I didn't believe any of it, but I can totally respect that position.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly it.
	You know, like, I've had my youngest son's baptism is coming up, and if they would say, look, you can't do that because you're an atheist, I'd be like, okay, well, that's fair.
	What am I going to say?
	No.
	You know, that's ridiculous.
	Luckily they're a bit more open-minded.
	I don't know why they would say no, because they don't really care what you think.
	Like, they're saving his soul from hell.
	Sure, but like, Protestants, you know...
	What?
	They've got no particular values.
	Yeah, there's also that.
	So they're just like, well, whatever.
	It's got to be Church of England, isn't it?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Of course it is.
	Is it going to be holy water or hell water at this point?
	I assume it's holy, but who knows?
	It's probably just water.
	But the point is, it's not going to be Catholic, and that's important.
	Amarabu says...
	No papism here, sorry.
	When I was a kid, I painted my nails and even stole one and wore one of my older sister's first training bras, not because I was trans, simply because my sibling was getting all this new stuff and I wanted in.
	I should think how I would have grown up had I been born more recently.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I love that.
	Where does she get so much stuff?
	I'm going to steal it.
	Generico says, Hi Lotus Eaters.
	As an Australian, I've been confined to keeping five kilometers from my house for weeks.
	Unable to work effectively under house arrest.
	Fun fact, journalists are considered essential workers and can apply for travel permits.
	So if I were a journalist, I could get to the daily press conference and ask difficult questions.
	Any chance the Lotus team wants to deputize a squad of rogue Aussie journos?
	I promise to be professional yet annoying to all the politicians.
	I don't know what the law is in Australia, but in the UK, press passes are not legal.
	Like, they don't exist.
	They are self-issued, which is causing a lot of funniness.
	With the Aussie cops, I imagine you will want to print one off that looks fairly official.
	I imagine it's the same there where it's self-issued.
	Well, I mean, who knows how it works in Australia, but if you can find out, and if it's literally just self-assigned...
	Government-issued press passes are not an English thing, as far as I'm aware.
	So I imagine it's not the case there.
	Hopefully it's not the case, in which case just issue your own and buy a camera and just walk around and be like, yeah, a journo.
	And who's going to question it?
	I mean, we can deputise you if that is possible.
	I don't mind doing that.
	It's like the high-vis thing.
	You just wear a high-vis vest.
	You can do whatever you want.
	And if you buy yourself a camera and a weird press pass, yeah.
	Student of History says, I'm not a fan of courts intervening in family life because the courts are S. But that being said, this is one of those cases where the mum needs to be stripped of rights for that.
	How the hell does a three-year-old learn about this S? Good question.
	Yep.
	The environment within the home sets the paradigm in which the children live.
	And if the children are talking about transgenderism and sex changes and all this...
	Mummy, I need to cut off my penis to become a woman.
	That doesn't come ex nihilo.
	You never know.
	It could be Nickelodeon them watching.
	God, yeah.
	I tell you, I'm serious about not letting your kids watch modern cartoons.
	Don't do it.
	On YouTube, you can go look up all the episodes of Spider-Man, X-Men, He-Man, all that.
	It's all on YouTube.
	So do that.
	David says, What's the best thing the mum groomed her own son for attention?
	Can't say.
	Don't know.
	I'll take my life savings.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But I will place that bet.
	Partially Foreign says the child should be removed from the home.
	That's abuse.
	It's awful.
	It's just awful.
	I just can't get over it.
	I'm going to move on to the next segment.
	Sorry, but there's lots of people.
	By the way, the detransition case I was thinking of was Kira Bell.
	Thank you.
	I can keep forgetting her name.
	Illegal victory means that under-16s can't consent to hormones, puberty blockers, etc.
	But the courts may still allow parents to consent on behalf of their children.
	So if you've got abusive power, then too much.
	Great.
	Sorry, I thought we had a different segment.
	It's just not broken up.
	Because, why not?
	Critical race theory may have been invented in America, but I wouldn't call it American.
	That's true.
	But the thing is, it is...
	It only comes from an American...
	It is American, though.
	But it also is deeply German and French.
	It's an un-American activity, but it is American.
	I don't know how to explain that.
	If only there was a House that could deal with those things.
	If only there was a House committee on un-American activities that could decide.
	It would be great, yeah.
	Shame.
	Shame.
	But the Marxist uses critical race theory to subvert American culture.
	The culture I grew up in wasn't racist or Marxist.
	Yeah, well that's exactly the point, Isaac.
	You're completely correct.
	It's not that it's natively American, but it is something that...
	It is.
	It is gestating and growing.
	It is American, but it is also un-American ideologically.
	It's a modern American invention.
	It is.
	But the roots of it are very definitely Marxist, so very easy to explain why it's not like a McCarthy-esque style Americanism.
	You can't talk like this outside of the North Americas, to say, in black and white terms of people.
	It just didn't even make sense in your own.
	What's a black person?
	I'm Italian, so I don't know.
	Based.
	Maria says, a timely article by Bo about rooting out communists and communism and dissent to Joseph McCarthy.
	Time for a t-shirt slash meme.
	McCarthy was right about the left.
	That's good.
	That's catchy.
	Zachary says, have you considered that the far leftists are actually just true leftists?
	Oh, good framing.
	Not an aberration of leftist ideals, but the end point of them.
	That's completely correct.
	And I've been saying this for ages.
	Communists are the jihadis of the Enlightenment.
	These are the sort of true leftists are the most radical position.
	It's like the Islamic extremists?
	Yeah.
	You mean Islamists?
	I had a conversation with a taxi driver that I used to get fairly regularly.
	He was a Muslim.
	And he was saying, we got into a conversation about how he didn't like, you know, Muslim extremism.
	And I started saying, well, you know, could you out-debate Anjem Chowdhury?
	On what it is to be a Muslim.
	And he's like, no, I don't think I could.
	And I start thinking, shit, am I radicalising my taxi driver?
	Let me out here.
	He was a really nice guy.
	There's some kuffers down there, not me.
	But it just raises some points of concern.
	The Taliban aren't real Islam, aren't they?
	It's ridiculous.
	They look like real Islam to me.
	So-called Islamic State.
	Fucking Islamic to me.
	Stop swearing.
	I swore.
	We shouldn't swear.
	So anyway.
	So yeah, I agree with you completely, Zachary.
	They're not an aberration of leftist ideals, but the end point of them, you're absolutely right.
	Completely correct.
	100%.
	And I stand on it.
	And with that, we're out of time.
	So if you want more from us, go to lodosees.com.
	Check out Bo's article and Hugo's, as I mentioned.
	Otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow at one o'clock.

▲