Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 5, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:00

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #257

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast, The Low Suites for the 5th of November, 2021.
	I'm joined by Harry.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about the 1619 Project attacking Martin Luther King Jr.
	because, well, of course.
	Of course they do.
	He stands for everything they hate.
	Yeah, a colourblind integrationist society which is not desirable for a black nationalist, so of course she's very mad about that.
	Also the liquidation of Western culture and also transitioning within one hour, as in becoming transgender.
	Speed transitioning.
	Hmm.
	To be honest, you should probably start advertising it like that.
	The doctor is doing it.
	Yeah.
	I mean, why not?
	It's Sunday, Sunday, Sunday.
	Come on down!
	Get your knob chopped off.
	Low, low price of...
	No, okay, we're going to leave that there.
	Whatever.
	Anyway, so...
	Some stuff on the website to mention first.
	Uh...
	Yeah, that was smooth.
	So the first thing we have here is Lester Shames.
	This is an article from Bode in which he has written about Lester Shame, which is Claudia Webb, because, of course, I don't know, I presume this one has an audio track, I'm not 100% sure if you could scroll down to show whether or not it does.
	It does not.
	It does not.
	Alright, so presumably that's free.
	So go and check that out on LotusEars.com.
	And to learn about Claudia Webb and some of the things around her, Baudet always has a bit of a sharp tongue about these sort of things, so I imagine he's had some good fun with that.
	So it's always good.
	Also, if we go to the next one here, we have her posting about her situation.
	We couldn't really include this in a story today, so I thought, eh, just throw it in.
	Parley updates, why not?
	Also, Parler, because, sorry, not Parler, Getter, because Parler's dead, isn't it?
	Sorry, we have here Claudia Webb making her response to the fact that she was sentenced to, I think she got what was a 10-week suspended sentence.
	Boo.
	200 hours community service.
	That'd be funny to see.
	See her out picking up the trash.
	Anyway, so she decided to tweet out in response, I stand in solidarity with the Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike to protest their imprisonment without charges or trial.
	Hashtag free them all.
	I am just like you.
	I am just like you.
	I'm a brown person suffering in the world, just like you guys.
	One day we shall be free, brothers.
	So presumably she's going on a hunger strike for those 200 hours of community service, and that's going to be her life.
	She also tried to pull the BS in court of trying to claim that they were pressing her for being black as well.
	We can go back to the Getter post, just so we can scroll.
	I don't know if I put the comment there or not, but if you just scroll down on this one, there should be a post in which Guido reported about what was going on.
	And as you can see, Guido's saying here, her barrister asked the judge to, quote, Please consider my client's suffering as a black woman and the abuse she encounters.
	The judge responded by reminding Claudia that she was not the victim.
	Don't you understand the black and therefore suffering?
	But I know, it was literally the meme, which was like, I may have committed this crime, but at least I'm black.
	She actually tried that in court.
	Anyway, this is not about her.
	Not a chance.
	I have to mention it, because...
	What the fuck?
	What the fuck?
	Anyway, let's carry on.
	So if we go to the next one here, we have the last thing to mention on the website.
	It's also an article by The Glass Blindspot, or Brian Drury, sorry for ruining the name, mate, who does great work about dads and the attack on dads throughout the media.
	So anyway, go and check that out.
	I think that one does come with an audio track for Silver and Gold Tears as well, so nice and enjoy.
	Anyway, without further ado, let's get into the 1619 Project, attacking Martin Luther King Jr.
	So...
	1619 Project is attacking Martin Luther King Jr., as in, they want to erase him from history.
	As you may remember, the 1619 Project being one that is about erasing history in general.
	Yeah, I was going to say.
	Yeah, so, for people who don't know, this is the project which tries to claim that 1619 is the founding of the United States, really?
	Because...
	Slavery is what makes the United States the United States, and therefore when the first black people set foot in North America, that's when America starts.
	Isn't even the assertion that 1619 was when the first black people arrived on America as slaves completely incorrect, historically speaking, as far as I'm aware?
	So if we go to the next one, we should have some reporting on this.
	This narrative, of course, started to collapse almost immediately.
	So you have the Atlantic here, the fight over the 1619 project is not about facts.
	Yep, that's definitely the fucking case.
	That's pretty obvious at this point.
	Because it was a historical nonsense.
	And if we carry on, we even have CNN who had to come out and be like, yeah, there's a load of bull.
	Like, yeah.
	Even CNN were like, wow, we can't stand by this one, guys.
	Fucking Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy.
	The guy who went after Alex Jones is like, okay, yes.
	All right, you got us.
	You got us this time.
	And then if we go to the last one here, we have the New York Times who backed down and were like, yeah, okay, so we promoted this and then it was crap.
	So it's nonsense.
	And the lady in charge has decided that she's going to spend the rest of her life going after Martin Luther King Jr.
	because that's a smart thing to do, isn't it?
	So if we go to the next one here, we have Fox News reporting on it.
	New York Times, Nicole Hannah-Jones, it says, Martin Luther King Jr.
	never called for a colourblind society.
	It's just one of the most famous speeches ever made.
	Probably the only one anyone really knows.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Let's be frank.
	Yeah, I mean, I learnt about it in high school, and I'm not even American.
	Dude in the 60s, what did he do?
	Where he gave that speech about he wanted to judge people on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin.
	It's the one thing everyone knows about him.
	And she's like, nah, he was actually a black nationalist segregationist like me.
	That's very not based.
	And the reasons why, as we're going to mention, I've stolen Carl's Bible, the critical race theory book, and the obvious point of...
	I'm putting the cross up there.
	The obvious point being that they hate Martin Luther King.
	They want Martin Luther King's legacy destroyed.
	So if you go to page 15 is where I'm going to be taking these quotes from in case anyone has your lucky Bible at home and you want to read along.
	If you're lucky enough to own that...
	God.
	So the quotes in here, we've done it before, but I have to do it again, because the frank point is that we need to get through with people, and I mean everyone in the right-wing movement, let's say, so people being able to tell us to their friends and whatnot as well, is that, well, fundamental tenet is that the colourblind society is something that's evil and harms black people.
	We want to return to the good old days of segregation.
	And we have the quotes from them, so just from the book itself.
	In the construction of racism as an irrational and backwards bias of believing that someone's race is important, the American cultural mainstream neatly linked the black left to the white racist right.
	Race consciousness characterized both white supremacists and black nationalists.
	With its explicit embrace of race consciousness, critical race theory aims to re-examine the terms race and racism, and revitalize the radical tradition of race consciousness.
	Opening lines in the summation.
	Once again, it's one of those things I've pointed out a number of times when people do this.
	They'll just state that something is the way it is something and then not refute it and just expect you to go along with it without an argument.
	Well, they said that it was the same as black and white racists, but it's not.
	Yes.
	Leave it at that.
	It's different when we do it.
	They do go on to try and make the argument.
	The argument is bunk, obviously.
	But the point being made that the American world decided that, well, racism is bad.
	We solved that problem.
	And the critical race theorists took that personally and were like, okay, we need to re-raise racial consciousness among...
	Who?
	Well, they say they want to raise the radical tradition of racial consciousness among African Americans and other peoples of colour.
	Never really defined who they are.
	It's a fantastic idea.
	Why not?
	Okay.
	A tradition that was discarded when integration, assimilation, and the idea of colour blindness became the official norms of the racial enlightenment.
	Mainstream legal thought came to embrace the ideas of colour blindness by appropriating Dr.
	King's injunction that a person should be judged on the content of his character rather than the colour of the skin.
	Right.
	That's the introduction.
	Opening bloody lines.
	What are they laying out?
	Well, so there was this guy who did this movement who wanted people to be judged on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin, and that ended segregation, and we think that's bad.
	We want the segregation back because we want racial consciousness among people with brown skin so, what, we can make the black ethnostate?
	Well, yeah, we want privileges based on the pull of our skin.
	This is why I typically just got bored of the point where I'm just like, right, these people are just black nationalists.
	But one of the things I find really funny is when you summarize it that way, it makes them sound like they're the Uncle Ruckus of segregation.
	So people who may not know, you should really go and check out the Boondocks, and this is a segment in which Uncle Ruckus, who's a character who is unironically characterized as what they would refer to as an Uncle Tom in the show...
	in which he is a black guy who venerates white supremacy and he's like yeah so in this segment he's venerating slavery as some kind of like glory days of black people he's like well black in the slave days where we had everything set and he gives us our it's it's nonsense like it's obvious nonsense and it's comedic but the funny thing is people like the 1619 project or the critical race series do exactly the same thing for the segregation era well yeah i mean it literally as i just laid out and the opening essays are against desegregation they're like yeah so back at the segregation days.
	Things were better because we could at least be segregated from the whites.
	Like, Right.
	Okay.
	I mean, you were literally the Uncle Ruckus of the segregation era.
	But okay.
	Rightio.
	Anyway, go and check that out, people who have it, because it's really funny as well.
	So let's go to her trying to go after Martin Luther King for being a bad man.
	What did he do?
	Well, he dared say that maybe we shouldn't be racist.
	And she took that personally.
	And I took that personally.
	So here's her tweets about this.
	So, there's a wink and a nod game being played right now that those who acknowledge the construct of race are being racist slash race-obsessed.
	Yep, got it in one.
	Got the nail in the hole.
	Congratulations.
	That critical race theory is bad because it forces people to acknowledge the role of race in a society built on it.
	This 700-page book on a survey of US race laws doesn't make any sense.
	So, there's a book which characterises all the race laws the United States used to have, okay?
	Therefore, we need black nationalism.
	Yeah, I don't think anybody wants to run away from the idea that, yes, racism played a part in history.
	Kind of the point?
	And was a bad thing, yeah.
	What people find contentious is this idea that we should bring it back to a point where race is a big part of current times, you know?
	And then he's like, yeah, I think people find contentious about all this is bringing all that back.
	Sounds like a bad idea.
	Not the best idea as far as I can tell.
	I thought we tried this and it didn't work.
	But if you insist, lady, I mean, we'll try it again.
	We'll give it the old college try once more.
	She obviously didn't play Far Cry 3.
	This is actually what she's arguing, though.
	It has to be laid out.
	The point was, yes, America had racial laws, and then they decided, that's bad.
	Let's not do that.
	Martin Luther King.
	Done all that.
	Right, okay, now we have non-racial laws.
	And then new people come along and are like, yeah, but race used to exist.
	What if we try again?
	But this time, it'll work, trust me, because we'll do it on racial lines that advantage people with brown skin.
	But this time, we're in charge.
	Yeah.
	Now that we're the crackers.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Rightio.
	Look, how well do you?
	I'm not the president.
	Anyway, so if we continue with this weird rant, so if we go to the next link on here, there's another post from home which says, The people who have been categorized as black suffer discrimination in every area that we measure, are at the bottom of every indicator of well-being, and yet some would have us deny the history that led to this, and instead would have us all ignore it.
	Funny thing, just going to jump in here and say that's not true.
	I mean, just factually, not true.
	This is something I find quite irritating when we have discussions about, let's say, racial advances within different countries.
	How is X ethnic group doing within X country, right?
	Whenever you do this outside the United States, we look at ethnicity.
	Don't look at race.
	We look at how are Nigerian blacks, for example, doing compared to Indian British, or Caribbean black, or white British, or so on and so forth.
	Like, these groups are always broken down.
	We talk about the UK, we've done it many a times.
	And the Americans just don't seem to do it, and I really feel like the American conservatives should do it more, because it actually is more accurate.
	It gets you out of this low-resolution world in which you just don't race.
	It blurs everything together.
	So she makes the argument, well, black people in the United States are at the bottom of every metric.
	No.
	So if we go to one metric, we just look at household income.
	So if we go to the next one, this is your Wikipedia list, which is just a list of household income.
	If we scroll down on this, there is, I think, the first one here.
	So the first one there, if you can get that table up there.
	This is what everyone talks about when you talk to Americans about this sort of thing.
	And I find it really irritating.
	As you can see, it's the very low-resolution Asian-Americans, white-Americans, African-Americans, some other races, Hispanics, and then the lists of median income.
	It's these racial monoliths that we have constructed.
	And this is how low-resolution you could have her, for example, saying that, well, look, African-Americans, $43,000 median household income, we're doing the worst.
	Right.
	Now, imagine if you extrapolate that to ethnic groups, and then you could see more things, and then you wouldn't be stuck in this worldview because it doesn't reflect the reality of the case.
	That would be quite enlightening.
	So if you scroll down, there's a, I think it's the detailed races one, so this one here, with the big long list of every different ethnic group self-identified and then their medium income.
	And as you can see at the bottom there, there are a lot of groups doing a lot worse than African American, as that term says.
	So if we go here, Appalachian Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, Ethiopian Americans, Iraqi Americans, Dominican Americans, and also Somali Americans at the bottom there.
	I mean, Somali Americans making half that of an African American.
	It's almost as if there are more things going on than the racial aspects.
	Yes.
	And if we look at the top of the list, one of the funniest things I find is that number five is South African Americans.
	South African Americans are the fifth largest earning group in the United States.
	Okay.
	Number four, Filipinos.
	Number three, Australian.
	Number two, Taiwanese.
	Number one, Indian.
	Only Indians always do well.
	Are they white?
	Indians white?
	Taiwanese white?
	Filipino white?
	Let me get the colour swatch out.
	We can double check.
	We'll have to check with her.
	But also, I love here, I mean, in the top ten there, I mean, do you count Macedonians as white?
	I don't know.
	So, I mean, the only group which definitively the US Census would argue is the Australian Americans, the only white ones in the top ten earners.
	Or as long as they're not Aboriginal.
	Hmm.
	Then wouldn't.
	But also, Macedonians, I assume, mad in the chat.
	But, yeah, what are you going to do?
	Anyway, so that's the thing as well.
	We just look at the data.
	And this is something I really feel like more conservative Americans should talk about when they're talking in these subjects, especially when they're debating these types of facts.
	It is much more accurate and eye-opening to look at these kinds of figures than it is to just go, everybody with a relatively similar skin colour.
	Yeah, because the first graph is, of course, just low resolution.
	Anyway, so that's just something to mention, which pees me off.
	But anyway, let's go back to her attacking Martin Luther King.
	So we have her tweet here.
	Dr.
	King never called for a colourblind society.
	He called for a society that stopped treating black people, capital E, as second-class citizens and for specific race-based policies to be addressed the 350 years of race-based discrimination.
	Dr.
	King talked about race, black, capital black, and lowercase white, all the time.
	Right.
	You're mad.
	Okay.
	Like, just wrong.
	How is she interpreting the content of your character line, if that's what she's getting out of it?
	And obviously he talks about race, given that he was trying to address racism at the time.
	You know, the discriminatory policies that you say are there, right?
	Yep, that's what he was doing.
	It was kind of a necessity to do so.
	What were the speeches?
	Well, the speeches were integrationists, not segregationists.
	He was not a critical race theorist.
	And you can just demonstrate this by playing the kid.
	I can't believe we have to do this, for Christ's sake.
	But we're actually going to listen to a section of MLK's bloody speech.
	Here we go.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I got taught this in school.
	We watched it in school.
	Taking you back to school here, folks.
	Apparently Americans don't.
	Maybe I'd have skipped that day.
	Oh, God.
	I mean, I saw recently, I think it was some Republican House, that changed the rules on education.
	They banned critical race theory.
	And in there, they also supplemented that you must teach about the civil rights movement.
	And of course, the critical race theorists were mad about this.
	And it's like, yeah, so this is just about teaching racism, right?
	No, of course it's not.
	Otherwise, you wouldn't be mad with that outcome.
	Because that outcome is one that shows that there was racism, and here's how it was solved in the United States.
	As in, how we got rid of those laws.
	So anyway, let's play the clip of him talking about the content of the character.
	Because why not?
	Because I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
	I have a dream today.
	I have a dream that one day Down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification.
	One day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
	I have a dream today.
	It's kind of hard to misinterpret what he's saying there.
	Yeah, I mean, it's so clear-cut, it's almost not even worth making the point.
	Even now, just because of the fact that all of this critical race theory nonsense is coming about, it's still very powerful to watch, to be perfectly honest.
	Yeah, I mean, compare that to the conversation of, well, so the United States thought race consciousness looked pretty damn racist, so we've intellectualised it, so now it can come back.
	That's not him.
	That's them.
	MLK was explicitly discussing integration, and he was doing it with the power that he had as, you know, he had that sort of preacher further that he put into it in a positive way, and he was talking about people basically holding their heads high, whereas critical race theory is talking about, oh, we're all victims, oh, we're all so downtrodden.
	You know, there's a distinction.
	But it's more the point of, they're literally arguing for race consciousness, literally arguing for segregation on the basis of race.
	And it's like, right, okay, so these people could not be more removed from these folks.
	And the idea that, you know, he's one of ours, you are living in fancy land.
	And just by the video evidence, it's just annoying the fact we even have to make this argument.
	But right, okay, there it is.
	So if we carry on, we actually have some more from her, which is also just insane.
	So if we go to the next one here, again, I mean, to the people who literally spend their lives trying to rewrite history, or rewrite Martin Luther King to a black nationalist, good luck.
	Good luck with that.
	Anyway, she says in here, this has been a game that many white conservatives and white moderates...
	What's a white moderate?
	What kind of worldview do you have to have to start viewing people as white moderates?
	Just a normal person, I'd expect?
	No.
	They view a white moderate as someone who's like, I'm okay with some preferential treatment on basis of race, say, affirmative action.
	Okay.
	So, the leftists.
	The white leftists who no one can stand.
	That's a white moderate to them.
	Again, most people would say conservative moderate, socialist moderate, or something like that, right?
	If nothing else, it makes it clear how extreme these people are.
	Yeah, because you view the world through ideology.
	There are people who have this ideological viewpoint, that ideological viewpoint.
	Not white moderate.
	As in, you know, their ideology is being white.
	Evil moderates.
	Anyway, these white moderates have played since the end of legal discrimination that if the explicit use of race could no longer be used to their advantage, but instead was used to rectify the legacy of slavery, then it must be condemned.
	I'm not rectifying the legacy of slavery.
	You've never met a slave.
	You don't ever interact with anyone who's a slave.
	You don't even know what a slave is.
	You've never seen one in your life.
	There are still them.
	You can go find them in Africa and the Middle East and South Asia.
	Not in the United States of America.
	Not there.
	You're not going to find them.
	Maybe you can find some modern-day slaves, but, again, you'd have some things to say about the white supremacist system upholding that, wouldn't you?
	Anyway, so, I mean, it's just the dumb duds here.
	I think Martin Luther King is a fantastic...
	Nail.
	So it's the one point they will end up going after.
	I mean, as stated in the introduction of the Critical Race Theory Holy Bible over there, that they're quoting, yeah, Martin Luther King set up this framework and we have to destroy it because he's brought in a world of colorblindness and that doesn't help black nationalism.
	I mean, they're explicitly anti-liberal in their attitudes.
	Yes.
	But it's also a point in which no one but the dumbest of the dumb can't see through what they're doing.
	I mean, you have these endless arguments.
	Maybe you have an argument with a friend who's not really switched on and this sort of stuff.
	And they start thinking, oh no, they're just trying to argue against racism or something.
	Right, watch them start to attack Martin Luther King and watch your friends like cogs start to turn.
	Because there is no way no one's going to not figure that out.
	Where they're like, yeah, okay, so this Martin Luther King guy was bad because he wanted desegregation.
	And then you really think that your grandma, who doesn't know anything about any of this, is going to be like, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Wait a second, hold up there just a moment.
	That's what I'm trying to get at.
	Anyway, so he says in here, and it's a very interesting argument, which is also the point that we need to recognise that the schools are not entirely filled with leftists, there are people who are fighting the good fight.
	He says in here, there is this very interesting myth by the left that all teachers are on the left, and the right believes it.
	A lot of teachers really just want to go in and teach and are happy to have discussions with parents.
	However, if you find that a teacher is being uncooperative, they are teaching things that really shouldn't be taught in a classroom, or they are treating your kid differently based on colour, you have a responsibility to go to the principal or the superintendent, and if that doesn't work, you should really look into electing a much better school board that is going to serve your community based on merit, you should really look into electing a much better school board that is And the right believes it.
	I mean, again, it's just...
	This sort of stuff is what the Virginia election was won over in the past week.
	People going, we don't want this in our schools.
	Yeah, but the Martin Luther King stuff, the reason I made a big of a story about her going after it is because I think it is such a fantastic battleground.
	They cannot help themselves, because he is the man, essentially, in the consciousness of race in the United States and the West, that sets up the world of colourblind policy and worldview and all the rest of it, right?
	His speech is the cornerstone of that kind of discussion, and they hate it.
	It is the one thing that they will immediately go after like a rabid dog, and it is the one thing that you will always win on.
	You're never going to lose that fight in the public sphere.
	He was smart enough to make all of his points clear-cut.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if you want a red flag, that's the issue to fight them on, I reckon.
	Speaking of subversion, it's time to take a look at the continued liquidation and attacks on Western culture.
	So just as a reminder for everybody, I know we've gone over this quite a bit recently, but first of all, there's a lot of stuff going on about Dave Chappelle, and I would say that one of the cornerstones of Western culture as it has been recently has been, you know, we've got a great tradition of comedy.
	You know?
	Where people can just get up on stage and make fun of what they want, and whoever they want, without repercussion.
	And people are definitely trying to make that not so much the case.
	So, just as a reminder, you know, he's had his recent special, The Closer, which was very, very controversial.
	Where he made fun of subjects surrounding trans people.
	There was the big Netflix protests that we've covered as well.
	And it's just continuing onwards where Dave Chappelle has been in Francisco recently amid the controversy.
	He appeared at the Chase Centre in San Francisco Thursday night for a screening of a new documentary, which is his Untitled About Performances at a Neighbour's Cornfield during the pandemic.
	And while he was attending, and there was quite a few other people attending, along Market Street at 7th, members of the non-profit advocacy group, the Transgender District, said Chappelle's jokes about their community are no laughing matter.
	Yes, because I care so much about what you have to say.
	We simply want respect, said Jupiter Peraza, a transgender woman and surely a very funny person herself.
	The humour, the jokes, are going to lead to violence and death.
	No, they're not.
	What are you on about?
	Is that a threat?
	Yeah.
	Oh, that's a good point, actually.
	Violence and death from who?
	And, uh...
	I mean, there's...
	You know, she's cocking an AK, being like, well, if you keep telling these jokes, I'm gonna have to shoot someone, you know?
	Yeah, but...
	Okay.
	If she's meaning it on the sense of Dave Chappelle's jokes are gonna cause me to have violence and death, well, then, that's not the case whatsoever.
	That's also a threat.
	Yeah.
	She's like, yeah, I'm gonna start shooting the audience.
	I don't know what to...
	What do you want, then?
	Someone else continued, to have people who are not part of the community have such disgusting comments upon the way we live our lives is not even human, said Ivory Nicole Smith, a transgender woman.
	So this is all just typical screeching that you hear nowadays, all the time, but I find it quite ironic that they've decided to say that people making these jokes outside of the community makes them not human, when one of their biggest arguments is, stop dehumanizing us, constantly.
	You hear it all the time.
	Whenever jokes are made, it's violence, it's leading people to not validate your existence, etc.
	But all of this has sort of led people recently to say, we don't like this.
	So you can see here there's been a recent report saying that 72% of people say cancel culture is out of control.
	You'd hope it would be more.
	72% of people are standing there with Picard signs saying jokes are funny.
	Yes, Dave's a funny guy.
	I like jokes.
	Yeah, in the wake of the controversy surrounding comedian Dave Chappelle, Americans overwhelmingly say that cancel culture is out of control and believe that free speech should be protected against censorship.
	I absolutely agree with that.
	A new national telephone and online survey said that 72% of Americans believe that cancel culture, a form of censorship that harms their careers and reputations of public figures for doing or saying things that are considered offensive, has gotten out of control.
	Only 15% disagree, while 12% are not sure.
	75% believe that protecting free speech is more important than protecting people from speech that is offensive, which is absolutely true.
	There is no right.
	Why is that...
	I consider 75% low on that.
	I know, but I'm glad that it's still at least in the majority of people.
	16% disagree.
	But remember, there is no right that you have not to be offended as it stands within a liberal framework.
	But also, I assume they're polling Americans here.
	I mean, if you poll British people, you'd end up with 50-50 because some of the people here are brain dead.
	I mean, sadly.
	But the fact that you gave even 16% in America is disappointing to me.
	But yeah.
	But their characterization of cancel culture is absolutely right as well.
	Leo on the podcast yesterday was talking about Terry Gilliam losing his performance at the Old Vic just for supporting Dave Chappelle for some reason.
	And I think there's also a greater point to be made here that when you're trying to censor people who are comedians, people who are artists and musicians and filmmakers just for the political views that they have...
	Their job isn't just enriching their own bank accounts and their wallets.
	Culture is enriching for the culture that it finds itself within.
	It's good for all of us to have great music, great art, great cinema, as far as I see it.
	And in looking into all this, I found this article here.
	Should classic rock songs be toppled like confederate statues?
	Now, Callum, I know that you're not a big music guy yourself.
	I don't think they're talking about propaganda music in here.
	Oh, we're safe.
	Okay.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So sadly, you may not have as much to contribute here, but...
	Alasuri Al-Bashar's never going down, bro.
	What a classic.
	But yeah, so this article's talking about it saying, a long, long time ago.
	I can still remember how that music, referring to classic rock...
	Used to make me smile.
	The implication here that I'm finding is that something has come along since she was younger to drain the joy that she is experiencing from certain kinds of music, and that sounds to be external rather than internal, that you could say.
	So, American Pie, Don McLean's generation-defining ballad, was released on vinyl 50 years ago this October.
	The first time I ever heard it, I was with my sister in our kitchen.
	I was 13.
	I was eating a bowl of alphabet cereal.
	It came on the radio and my sister said, this is the greatest song ever.
	It's impossible for me to hear that song now, even without thinking of her.
	And I think this goes to show, despite what she's going to say later on in this article, that music does have a great power over people to transmit you back to those periods of time where you may have been more innocent, especially if it's something that you heard when you're younger.
	And that's one of the great things about music as far as I'm concerned.
	But when Patricia McLean, Don McLean's ex-wife, hears American Pie, she isn't reminded of golden memories of adolescence or even the age of classic rock and roll memorialised by the song.
	She says that she was subjected to years of emotional and physical abuse from her former husband.
	So she was married to him for 29 years.
	Sorry, is he playing the song on repeat all day?
	I don't know what she means.
	I don't know either, but apparently...
	Well, I can imagine I understand what she means to a certain extent, saying that, you know, if she hears something that reminds her of him, then it's going to be potentially distressing to her emotionally.
	So he used to cover up, like, the beating of her by playing American Pie really loud, and therefore she gets triggered by American Pie.
	I don't think those are the exact allegations, but maybe.
	But I don't know what the hell else she's saying.
	I mean, you know, was she assaulted by the song?
	Like, did they use the song as a weapon or what?
	Well, I mean, she goes on to say that, you know, she was abused and she called the police and he was arrested and eventually charged with six misdemeanors.
	Did they have American Pie playing on the police radio when they were live?
	I don't know what she means.
	Like, when does the song come into this?
	They take him away and switch the police car and it starts blasting.
	No!
	But yeah, he pleaded guilty to four as part of a plea agreement.
	For the other three charges, criminal restraint, he paid some $3,000 in fines.
	I mean, as terrible as all that may be, if it's true.
	I mean, he pled guilty, so I can only assume that it's true.
	That doesn't change how good or bad the song is.
	I mean, it should be obvious, right?
	You know, if you write some music and someone gets beat while that song's playing, that means that music's worse.
	I mean, it's the guy who wrote the song, obviously, did that, but either way, I'm very much in the you-can-separate-art-from-the-artist crowd.
	Oh, wait, so the guy doing the beating was the guy who wrote the song?
	Yes.
	Right, okay.
	I was wondering where the hell did the song come into that?
	I didn't get that at all.
	Oh, sorry.
	Apologies, yeah, for anybody who may have been unclear that the guy doing the beating was the guy who wrote the song.
	But that doesn't change, once again, that you can separate art from the artist.
	I mean, if you look into the background of almost anyone who's created anything of worthwhile in culture, then you're going to probably find some...
	Bad stuff that you're not a fan of, but, I mean, that plays into everything to do with the cultural erasure that some people are trying to push on every aspect of Western society.
	So it says, the past several years have seen a reassessment of our country's many mythologies, from the legends of the generals of the Confederacy to the historical glossing over of slaveholding founding fathers.
	I don't know what this has to do with musicians not being perfect angels.
	Stock rhetoric, isn't it?
	You've got to throw those comparisons in there.
	But as we take a look at the sins of our historical figures, we've also had a hard look at our more immediate past and present, including the behaviour of the creators of pop culture.
	The reassessment extends now to the people who wrote some of our best love songs.
	But what to do with the art left behind?
	Can I still love their music if I'm appalled by the various events in the lives of Johnny Cash or Elvis or Jerry Lee Lewis, or by Eric Clapton's racist rants and anti-vaccination activism?
	Yes.
	Yes, you can still enjoy the music.
	It's that easy.
	It's very easy.
	And also, there's a bit of a point to be made here that, you know, people, there are contentious things that happened in the lives of Johnny Cash, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, is not the same necessarily as someone like Eric Clapton, where you might just disagree with him politically.
	So they're just trying to draw that distinction there, well, draw that comparison there, where it isn't necessarily to be found.
	But there is a certain truth in some of the things that she's saying, that sometimes for some people it can be difficult to listen back to music that they've enjoyed if they find out the person who wrote it was a reprehensible person.
	I know a lot of people don't listen to Gary Glitter anymore, for instance, and anybody who was a fan of The Lost Prophets back in the mid-2000s will probably have difficulty listening to them now.
	But...
	That's just a case of personal tolerance from that individual.
	And you shouldn't be trying to cancel people or that music.
	It doesn't change how good the music is.
	But she goes on here...
	Pretty easy to explain, right?
	I don't know where the practical side of trying to topple these songs comes in.
	Neither do I. I mean, she goes on to say here, In American Pie, Don McLean asked if music can save our mortal souls.
	My guess is probably not, but it can help us to time travel, not only to our adolescence past, maybe reconsidering these songs and their artists can inspire us to think about the future and how to bring about a world that is more inclusive and more just.
	Just...
	Just stock rhetoric, stock nonsense.
	And what is being advocated here?
	Does every musician releasing their songs to a wide audience have to be purity tested before it's allowed to be heard by people?
	You know the NPC meme is kind of played out, I'll admit, but at the same time, you remember that CGP Grey video that CGP Grey made, which is making the point that a lot of articles, there's an idea of being able to make them printed by robots now, so no one writes them, with SJW stuff.
	I mean, it really does come through.
	This does kind of come across like those memes that you see of, oh, I fed an AI algorithm a load of SJW talking points, and it wrote an article for me.
	This is that article.
	If the woman's name wasn't there and you could click on her profile and all that, I would actually believe that this was a robot at this point.
	An auto-generated article, yeah, yeah.
	What do we destroy songs?
	Why?
	Because inclusivity.
	Because people are bad.
	Yeah.
	And if you move along, you can see that it's not just pop culture that's being attacked.
	As many people are aware, there's lots of attacks on just general culture, especially in the West.
	So here...
	A portrait of a Waterloo hero has been removed from galleries that awaits youth-led colonial reinterpretation.
	A portrait of Waterloo hero Sir Thomas Picton has been removed from an art gallery after 100 years as part of a project to decolonize the painting.
	And I think it says in there as well that the way that they're going to decolonize it is by having youth artists giving people tattoos.
	This is not decolonization, this is colonization of the native culture.
	You have the native culture of celebrating England and its victory against the French, the Balawalu, I should say.
	This painting to remember a man who was leading some of the forces and died.
	And we'll get rid of that and replace it with some globalist nonsense.
	That's colonization.
	That's not decolonization.
	So just going into a bit more detail.
	So he was hailed as a hero following his death at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, but his legacy as governor of Trinidad...
	No, just leave it there.
	Just leave it there.
	I mean, that's the point.
	He's there.
	Yeah, that's why they're celebrating him.
	He's not there because, I don't know, he was rude to Tiny Tim or whatever else he did in his life.
	You know, that's not the point.
	The point is the Battle of Waterloo.
	Sorry.
	I know, I know.
	It's very frustrating.
	But yeah, so his legacy as governor of Trinidad has been reviewed following Black Lives Matter protests.
	What did they find out?
	Well, that he was a human being of his time, presumably.
	Did you know people in the past were racist, bro?
	It's not cool, is it?
	And also, why...
	Why are we reassessing our history on the basis of Black Lives Matter, which is an American movement?
	Or at least certainly started that way.
	I know we've imported it.
	But his portrait at the National Museum of Cardiff has now been hidden from public view.
	They've had to put it in a back room somewhere, so it doesn't Offend people.
	If you look at it, your eyes melt.
	Indiana Jones.
	Yeah, Raiders of the Lost Ark.
	The 19th century portrait, which is hung in the gallery since 1907, was previously earmarked for a £12,000 reinterpretation product to decolonize the artwork by highlighting Picton's colonial connections.
	What any of this does to actually help anybody in the real world, once again, I don't know.
	It seems Well, no, it furthers the cause of our trying to undermine the native institutions.
	I mean, as I said, it was colonization here.
	This is an outside force, there's an outside ideology, coming to Britain and removing a hero of the native people and saying, this is verboten.
	It can't even be in the room.
	It needs to be covered up.
	It's obscene.
	We have to put it up like it's some pornography or something.
	Kind of as British nationalist pornography, I'll give them that.
	Yeah.
	I know.
	So they've said that it will remain out of sight until further youth-led work to reframe his links to slavery and empire is complete.
	Are we going to black him up?
	What does that mean?
	So if we redo him as black and then he's an African king or something, it's okay.
	Maybe someone's going to stencil in a little Hitler tash on him.
	That might be what they're aiming for there.
	So I'm just thinking, whatever reframing they do is guaranteed to be absolute trash.
	And as you've said, this is just an attempt to make us ashamed of our own history and embrace somebody else's history.
	How do you reinvent the history that's already happened so he's more acceptable as a guy who owned slaves or whatever?
	It literally does have to be to make him black, surely.
	And then it's not racial slavery, therefore it's okay.
	It's okay if we do it.
	Yeah, literally.
	I have no idea what else they could ever do to try and make that acceptable in their own eyes, except, you know, get the shoe polish out.
	And if you move along, Michael, to the next article.
	Yeah, so a BBC presenter, a Welsh guy, Hugh Hor Edwards, I assume is how you pronounce that, has decided to say, hey, this is censorship of history, which is completely reasonable, and he's going to have a speaking to by the BBC for saying so on his private Twitter account.
	Edwards will be spoken to by the BBC in regard to impartiality guidelines brought into control opinions being shared on social media from that.
	I mean, when have these rules ever been enforced on other people saying things that are, shall we say, contentious in regards to the stuff that the BBC wants to push anyway?
	I mean, I hate the BBC.
	Defund the BBC.
	I'd love to be able to praise them and be like, you know, the rules being applied, but you're right.
	It's just, that's a one-sided nonsense.
	Yeah, they're applied very one-sided.
	I don't know if you remember when those were brought in, but it was at the same time they brought in that you shouldn't attend partisan protests anymore, and they were basically looking at their leftist editors and being like, stop going to the intersectional LGBT protests and the BLM protests and siding with the protesters because it makes us look terrible.
	And they ended up making him back down on that, the guy who brought in those rules.
	Really?
	So, it's bollocks.
	So they're only there to enforce it when they say things that they don't like.
	Yes, once you fight against it.
	Yeah, so a spokesman told The Telegraph in relation to these guidelines, we're discussing this with Haw.
	The News at 10 presenter posted on Twitter in relation to the removal of the portrait.
	As a journalist, I feel uneasy about this element of censoring history.
	He's...
	Absolutely right.
	You should feel uneasy because, once again, they are trying to colonize our history and make us feel ashamed of the things that, you know...
	The Battle of Waterloo.
	Of the Battle of Waterloo, yeah.
	I mean, you would have thought the easiest kind of battle to ever argue, except maybe the Battle of Britain.
	There's something, we're on the good side here, but...
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	But no.
	And let's just take a look at the kind of art and culture that they want us to enjoy instead.
	So here you can see that Sadiq Khan has recently been trying to turn London into some kind of colourful zebra crossing adorned giant child's playground.
	A favela.
	Yeah, oh yeah, favela, that's not a bad way of putting it.
	Yeah, no, I really feel like this, you know, so you're gonna, I assume this is gonna be like Zebra Crossings that he's redone, right?
	Absolutely, but he's been told to stop it, because visually impaired and disabled people are like, our dogs don't know what these are.
	Yeah.
	This is very bad and also they hurt my eyes to look at.
	And so it says, And if you scroll down so we can see a bit of that artwork,
	Michael, I don't think you need to be visually impaired to find that painful to look at.
	It's not just them either.
	I mean, I'm loathe that we have to reduce ourselves to being like, yes, well, disabled people can't use it.
	Quite frankly, we should be able to reject it on the face of it, right?
	But even then, dementia sufferers is another one that was brought up.
	People who revert to their childhood or whatever, they don't know what the hell that is.
	There's a reason we use zebra crossings is that people recognize them very easily and they work.
	And that's kind of the point.
	Like, if you start redoing all of the different kind of signage or paintings for the road, I mean, at what point can you say that actually, you know, if you get in a car crash, it's the state's fault for redoing it in Rainbow.
	At what point is suddenly my driving theory test invalid?
	Because they start changing everything.
	You don't have the Rainbow edition.
	Yo, whoops.
	My bad, I suppose.
	It added that those with learning disabilities would likely find it difficult to interpret.
	Abstract network artwork is crossing.
	I mean, yeah.
	Karn51 responded quickly, announcing that he had moved to introduce a temporary pause on the installation of any new colourful crossing on its network.
	The halting of the project, whose cost is unknown, could be something of an embarrassment to the Malia, who had unveiled them too much fanfare.
	From who?
	I don't know.
	So this is just a big money pit like everything else nowadays, sadly.
	I actually did a Freedom of Information request against one of the LGBT crosswalks I saw, and they've become pretty standard at this point, so the cost has been brought down, but it's still thousands of pounds more than it needs to be, and it doesn't last as long as they say, so it's a complete waste of cash anyway.
	But something like that, I mean, you can see the detail that's involved.
	Someone's scammed the council out of, what, at least 10 grand.
	Absolutely.
	And if you want to talk about cultural erasure, you can tell in that image what they're doing with that eyesore is that they're trying to recreate the famous Abbey Road album cover.
	You must be aware of the Beatles' Abbey Road album cover.
	That's an interesting point, actually.
	Yeah.
	And that just seems to me like cultural vandalism, what they are doing there, because these two things are not the same.
	I love the plus-size woman.
	I think that's what they'd call it over there as well.
	Being polite, yes.
	And person of unknown gender at the back, potentially.
	But yeah, and just to top all of this off, you've got Mark Gatiss in The Guardian recently saying that he's currently very, very ashamed of being English.
	And to be honest, when you've got people like Sadiq Khan, I can see a little bit of where he's coming there with a lot of the cultural erasure that's going on.
	But that's not exactly what Mark means.
	For those unaware, Mark Gatiss has been in charge of Sherlock, Doctor Who, Dracula, and a number of other high profile British cultural imports and exports, you could say.
	He was one of the people behind the reimagining of Doctor Who when they brought it back.
	He was one of the two writers in charge of Sherlock, that TV show.
	Sorry, is he the one that killed Doctor Who?
	No, maybe.
	I don't know how much he had to do with Stephen Moffat's reimagining after Russell T. Davis left the first time.
	But this man has been in charge of a number of great cultural artifacts from the UK, and he's ashamed of being English.
	That's not a great sign to me.
	But yeah, he basically just says, complains about Brexit.
	The most terrible thing about Brexit is we always had a hard one and very fair reputation for being amateurish but basically decent.
	What does that mean?
	Amateurish.
	I don't even understand what he could be referring to there.
	In a tight corner, you knew where you were with us, and I think that's something that's been ripped away.
	It's like a mask has dropped, exposing this horrible, snarling, sneering, angry, jealous face.
	So the people in charge of our pop culture and culture in generally don't like England anymore, and they think that we're all a bunch of sneering, angry, jealous people.
	So, that's great.
	That's great for the future, isn't it?
	Erasure of Western culture right there.
	Let's move on to the transitioning, so get transgender.
	You know, your advert idea is not a bad idea now.
	Speed transitioning.
	It's like speed dating.
	Anyway.
	So apparently you now get transgender within an hour.
	So this is a story that came out of the Daily Mail.
	They have an article here saying, Teenager 18 told she can have gender swap drugs after one hour in a Zoom call.
	So they had a one hour Zoom call.
	And that's right.
	I'm trans.
	Sounds comprehensive to me.
	Rightio.
	So here's the argument that's made.
	So one mother claimed that an 18-year-old son, I don't know if he's born son or is now son, or no one dares to think about the hurt feels of the people involved, so we'll just say son, who was told that he was eligible for transgender or cross-sex hormones after a single consultation lasting just 55 minutes, so just under an hour.
	Another said that her 18-year-old daughter was given a referral to get gender-changing medication after a 90-minute video call.
	Both teenagers were given hormones after being assessed by a consultant's psychiatrist, Dr.
	Stuart Lawmeyer, at his gender care centre in Mayfair, London.
	So he's doing well for himself, and being able to afford it in Mayfair.
	The treatment delivers estrogen and or testosterone to begin the physical process of transitioning to live as the opposite sex.
	So, a couple of teens, well...
	Teenagers?
	If you're 18, you're still a teenager.
	Still a teenager, but 18 is the limit at which you're an adult.
	It's your choice.
	Your F-ups are your F-ups.
	Legally speaking, absolutely.
	Your successors are your successors.
	Decide to call up this guy and be like, yeah, I want to transition.
	And within 50 minutes, he's like, yeah, I got you, bro.
	I'll send you the drugs.
	That's how this went down.
	I got your back.
	So there's a lot of suspicion about the whole thing.
	The fact about whether or not this is ideological or it's just, well, the 18-year-olds made their choice, didn't they?
	And now they have to live with it.
	I'm more coming down on the side of they're 18 and therefore not really my problem.
	I mean, the biggest hurt about all of the transitioning stuff comes from me, especially when it's at the kids.
	Oh, yeah.
	Defenseless children being told that you're born in the wrong sex...
	It's easily to mislead children.
	By some, quite frankly, malicious adult who wants to engage in things that are disgusting, and I don't trust any of them.
	When an 18-year-old decides that they're going to call up some clinic and whether or not he's proper or not, and then they decide they're going to get these drugs in the 50 minutes, they're going to go for it.
	Yeah, I do also kind of fall down on your side of, you know, like, I'm very much in the camp of 18-year-old, you're legally an adult, therefore, you know, your decisions are your own.
	If you mess up and, you know, screw up the rest of your life, well then, you know, that's your decision to make.
	But at the same time, obviously, there does seem to be a big case of, I don't know what you'd describe it as, just bad.
	I don't know what to say.
	The term is completely slipping.
	Do you mean like ideologically motivated people?
	Yeah, I mean the doctors in charge of this are doing a bad job if they're just taking a phone call, like a Zoom call for an hour and then immediately going, well, you know, sounds good enough to me.
	It is incredibly, incredibly fast, I'll give you that.
	I actually messaged Rose of Dawn, who's a YouTuber who's not a trans rights activist, that she's transgender but doesn't believe any of the leftist nonsense, obviously, because most people don't, especially within trans people as well.
	And she had some theories which is like, there may be a positive aspect to this in the sense of it doesn't seem to maybe be about ideological subversion, because there's the side problem of the fact that the...
	All that kind of stuff, all that treatment has to go through the NHS in the UK, government-run health service, which is crap, always has been crap, especially with the waiting times.
	That is the main complaint.
	And then the situation with people trying to get these drugs and whatnot.
	Apparently the referrals are still going back to like 2017.
	So, what is that, four years now?
	Backlog.
	So the idea that people are going for a private service instead and being like, look, I've been waiting for two years, therefore, let's just get it done.
	That's the positive argument, but again, we don't know the teenagers...
	So the positive argument is that it's not malicious, ideologically based, it's just incompetence.
	It's people deciding that they're going to do that, and, well, they're adults, so who's going to stop them?
	Anyway, so, continuing here, there is no suggestion that Dr.
	Lormire or Gender Care, which sees individuals from the age of 18 and charges up to £300 per appointment, so at least he's starting at 18, rather than the freaks who want to go below that.
	Have contravened any medical guidelines, but parents and campaigners are concerned at the speed at which the drugs are being prescribed, given that they have serious health risks, including blood clots, strokes, infertility, and are being prescribed to potentially vulnerable young people.
	They argue that one appointment is insufficient to diagnose gender dysphoria, a mismatch between a person's birth sex and the gender they feel like.
	So, I mean...
	Not unsympathetic to that view, but at the same time...
	I mean, I would agree that it is massively insufficient.
	Yeah, I mean, once again, legally they're adults and therefore I do fall on the side of, you know, their mistakes are theirs to make.
	But at the same time, I look back at myself at 18 years old and think to myself, I was very irresponsible.
	I was still a teenager.
	There's no hard and fast line for individuals when they suddenly, you know, become a grown-up to a certain extent.
	It's just we put that line down legally because it's the most practical age to put it out for most people.
	So there is an argument to be made, but they are still making their own decisions and therefore can be held responsible for their own mistakes.
	Maybe, but they can also be prescribed any number of drugs that could kill them.
	That's true.
	And, well, if they take them, that's a bloody problem, isn't it?
	And if they didn't need them, well...
	That's fair.
	They argue that one appointment, blah, blah, blah, as I said, insufficient.
	One mother told the mail on Sunday that she had complained to Dr.
	Lormire after her son, who had just turned 18.
	Her son?
	Right, yeah, because she's the mother.
	I was trying to think, are they trying to take care of the pronouns or not here?
	I can't tell.
	She just turned 18, received an estrogen prescription in the post following a 55-minute assessment.
	The whole thing was utterly horrifying.
	The appointment lasted less than an hour because Dr.
	Lormire felt that he had covered all that he needed to cover, although I felt they had barely touched the surface in that time, she said.
	My husband and I were extremely worried that what we thought was an exploratory chat had resulted in him taking life-changing sterilizing medication.
	We feel extremely concerned that he was rushed into this too fast.
	Maybe.
	I mean, absolutely maybe.
	It may be the case that this person was just potting her about and then called up this guy and within 50 minutes he's like, yeah, take the drug.
	You know, slab of she's egg style, just, you know, off his face on something.
	And he's just like, yeah, have some estrogen, have some testosterone.
	Maybe.
	I don't think you snort estrogen.
	Snort, snort.
	Cocaine.
	That's what I was getting at.
	You've never seen Slavoj Zizek, the philosopher?
	I have seen Slavoj Zizek.
	I love that snotty man.
	He's crazy.
	He's a mentalist.
	Yeah, but he's funny.
	That's what life's about.
	So anyway, it may be that case, but at the same time, I keep coming back in my head, and maybe I'm wrong.
	It's just the whole 18 thing, where I'm just like, eh.
	I mean, if you give him a knife, I mean, he's also 18, he's allowed to run a knife.
	You know, the fire's hot somehow.
	There are arguments to be made either way.
	I do fall more on the, you know, you're an adult, now make your own decisions.
	For a kid, get the hell out, you pedo.
	If you're an adult, eh, their problem.
	So, with waiting times for the first appointment for the NHS at gender clinic, now reported to be about 18 months, so apparently that's wrong, apparently it's even longer than that, according to Grosser Dawn, increasing numbers of young people are turning to private clinics for care.
	Many have spoken enthusiastically for their experiences at gender care.
	And then they give a quote of a bunch of people on Tumblr, because of course they do.
	The experts on Tumblr?
	I mean, look, to be fair, if you're looking for gender-confused people...
	I mean, Tumblr's a hotbed, so...
	I mean, it was the joke place.
	I mean, it was always the go-to joke for insane leftist SDWs who have decided that they've got a new gender that they identify today, right?
	I know it's TikTok, but, you know, that's the place to go for that.
	Anyway, they say in here, and there's a whole bunch of confusion about what even the procedure is meant to be on this kind of stuff.
	Because on the surgery, my understanding in the UK is we have pretty strict rules because it costs a lot of damn money.
	You have to transfer for two years, make the effort, you can't just put on a dress and be like, do it.
	No.
	You need to change your voice, all the rest of it, show a real commitment.
	If you're getting given just random drugs, so these drugs, I mean, if you're an adult, it's sort of less regulated, it seems.
	So, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has no guidelines on treatment of adults with gender dysphoria, but the NHS England says patients with cross-sex hormones must be recommended by a medical doctor in a specialist multidisciplinary team.
	So, stranger guidance for state healthcare, because, well, that's our money.
	So...
	A spokesman for Bay's Water Support Group says that they help parents of children suffering with gender confusion and said current NHS treatment protocols are for the relief of gender dysphoria in vulnerable young people in their late teens and early 20s are unsafe and risk long-term health problems.
	They also decided to message gender-carrying Dr.
	Lormire and he just responded by not commenting.
	So, a bit sus, to be honest.
	So maybe he is Slavov, she's yacking it up, but...
	Don't know.
	But anyway, that's the transitioning within one hour thing, which...
	Yeah, I don't know what people think, but I'm very much...
	My gut tells me that just...
	They're 18.
	They've got to learn the fire's hot someday.
	Yeah.
	I suppose so, but...
	Tying into all of that, I mean, going away from the grey area, if you are legally now an adult and you're on that cusp and you're 18 years old, children in an Edinburgh primary school are being asked to wear skirts to class to promote equality.
	So this is where, for me, some of the grey area enters for when they get to 18, because kids nowadays are being indoctrinated into this from an early age, so it could...
	I mean, is this to do with kilts, or...?
	No, it's actual skirts.
	It's not kilt.
	They want them to wear the girly skirts?
	Yes.
	And look at that picture.
	Those are not kilts that these children are wearing.
	To be honest, I think that image actually comes from a protest.
	Well, I mean, this does seem to potentially come from...
	a type of protest to a certain extent so if you move along you can see uh why exactly that they're doing this so uh uk primary school in edinburgh has sparked backlash after asking girls and boys to come in wearing skirts today in order to promote equality castleview primary school in edinburgh has taken on an initiative to disband your disband gender stereotypes and give pupils freedom to express themselves the idea rose to prominence in spain last year after a boy was expelled for wearing a skirt
	november 4th has since been dubbed wear a skirt to school day in some spanish institutions i mean yeah like if if a boy came in wearing a skirt that's pretty harsh to expel him I mean, we don't have any context for anything else that he may or may not have done.
	Could have been Scottish, you never know.
	Maybe, maybe.
	But I don't think that that necessitates everybody else wearing a skirt in solidarity, especially when it seems to all actively be playing into initiatives to disband gender stereotypes as well.
	Again, it always is the question of where it's coming from.
	So, I mean, in the protest situation, I think it was because they banned shorts or something, and they wanted boys to all wear trousers.
	And the boys were like, no, I want to wear bloody shorts, it's summer.
	So they all came in in skirts to make the point of, you know, F you, this isn't right.
	Well, this seems different to that.
	This is the equality lobby jumping in.
	So the move has been criticised by some parents and many of her teachers to take a step back.
	So one mother tweeted, My son is five and just got this from the school.
	Let the kids be kids.
	Nicola tweeted, If a boy wants to wear a skirt to school, he should be allowed.
	But why put pressure on people to ask their son to wear a skirt or be seen as some sort of bigot?
	I kind of disagree to a certain extent with the if a boy wants to wear a skirt to school he should be allowed point just because I feel that you do need to set boundaries when people are young so as not to confuse them when they're getting older.
	So I don't necessarily think that you should...
	I think you should be enforcing certain...
	Uniform regulations when you are in school.
	Strong take.
	I feel like we should have a uniform policy.
	I know, right?
	We should have a uniform policy for boys and girls.
	What a surprise there.
	Although, kilts, I think, acceptable.
	Yeah, I mean, that is part of the Scottish culture.
	You should be embarrassed for doing it.
	Well, fair, but Al Thornton tweeted, You're a primary school.
	Let them be children.
	Stop forcing this toxic agenda on them.
	It's not designed to bring people together.
	It's designed to create division.
	Absolutely it is.
	I would agree with that point.
	People have also just said stuff like, What the hell is going on in Scotland?
	Good question.
	Meanwhile...
	Us every day.
	Yep.
	Meanwhile, some others were on board with the idea.
	Another parent tweeted, Ethan should be...
	Ethan, showing his support for hashtag Lennaropa Spanish at school today.
	So proud.
	Why are you proud?
	Teachers were also encouraged to get involved and wear a skirt.
	Now, this may have changed, obviously it has, but when I was in school, if one of the male teachers came in wearing just a big flowery feminine skirt, that would be a point to worry about.
	Yeah.
	I mean, this is going off on a little bit of a tangent here, but it kind of reminds me a little bit of when I was in high school.
	There was a teacher who I wasn't very familiar with, but he kind of disappeared after a year or two.
	And nobody knew where he went until a few years later, when he showed up on one of those My Stranger Fetish shows, and he was a baby fetishist.
	Right.
	Yes.
	Very strange.
	Obviously it's not a one-to-one comparison I'm making here, but it does remind me a little.
	I think maybe he would have come in wearing a skirt one day.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	I love the idea that you just see a guy ever wearing a skirt and you're like...
	Perf.
	I mean, a little bit sometimes.
	But yeah, moving on.
	People may be aware as well that recently, back in August, it was announced that through the guidelines, Scottish four-year-olds can now change gender at schools without the parents' consent.
	So this kind of ties into it as well.
	So the Scottish government has issued...
	This comes back to the point, though, that this is the equality line.
	Yeah, this is where the intentions are originating from.
	So they issued new LGBT inclusivity guidelines advising schools to allow children, including those as young as four, to change their name and gender identity without their parents' consent, claiming that it's possible to come out as transgender at any age.
	Now, I've looked into the guidelines themselves, if you move along again, Michael.
	So I found the guidelines.
	And so one of the statements in here is that transgender people may come out at any age and to varying degrees.
	What's been reported is what they say.
	Some people want to live fully as themselves in all aspects of life.
	Others may want to come out to just a few trusted people.
	So, I mean, if you're talking about people coming out as some kind of gender or sexual identity, there is truth in that, but I think not placing...
	We're talking about kids?
	Yeah, not placing limitations on how young you're talking about.
	How young did this go?
	I can't quite remember.
	What was it?
	Four years old?
	Four years old, because I think that's when kids start school in Scotland.
	Therefore, there are transgender four-year-olds, says the Scottish schooling system.
	And also, we should start inviting all the kids to start wearing skirts.
	Pretty much.
	It all comes across a little bit...
	I mean, I'm reminded of that meme, you know, don't make me tap the sign.
	It's just like, they just want to diddle kids, it's that simple.
	I'm sorry.
	It does, the evidence points more and more to that.
	So, they also have some tips for responding to a young person who talks to you about being transgender or about their gender identity.
	So, these include don't panic, they don't expect you to be an expert, all the sort of, like, inclusive terms that they would use regarding these things, like, Basically, in all of this, there is nothing about potentially pushing back against it.
	It's all just affirm it, affirm it, affirm it.
	So don't push back.
	Whatever the child says, even if they're a four-year-old, is basically true.
	Which is not the case.
	Anyone who's met a four-year-old will know how fickle they are, and they do not have any clue about the world or these concepts that they're talking about.
	So if this is going to be as young as four, these are bad guidelines to follow, I would say.
	And then on the next one that I found further on, if you skip along, it mentions the curriculum that the Scottish schools are aiming for.
	And it says here, Scotland's curriculum for excellence is based on a set of core values, including that the curriculum must be inclusive, must be a stimulus for personal achievement, and must, through a broadening of experience, be an encouragement towards informed and responsible citizenship.
	There's not much about providing quality education there.
	It's about turn you into the sorts of citizens that we want and be inclusive.
	So it's all just...
	New serve your man stuff.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So yeah, that's just a look into what's going on in Scotland, which is, as always, just why.
	Don't make me hit the sign.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	Chaos Tourist.
	Chaos.
	Chaos.
	Chaos!
	The realm of chaos?
	Just a...
	Chaos.
	Chaos Tourist.
	This is what chaos looks like.
	God, they make him sound bloody cool, don't they?
	And then at R equals 3.57, chaos.
	The Mitchell Devil.
	I'm an agent of chaos.
	Someone's gonna make an email.
	There is that is chaos.
	That's fantastic.
	I don't know if you know the series, the If the Emperor had a text-to-speech device.
	No, I've not seen that.
	He's had to end it because of the 40k nonsense.
	What's going on with the 40k nonsense?
	So people make loads of good 40k animations and whatnot.
	Oh, they started copywriting.
	And then that guy made a starties, and it was better than anything Games Workshop have ever made, so they got so butthurt.
	I think...
	I think they bought him off because they needed someone to make good stuff, right?
	And you think, okay, that's a great story.
	The guy makes something great.
	The company's as fantastic.
	He has a load of money.
	Do the thing.
	And then they issued a copyright notice saying they take down any fan stuff from now on.
	Bastard.
	Awful thing to do.
	Stop showing his up.
	Yeah, essentially, no, they got shown up and they couldn't help it.
	But anyway, it's a horrible thing to happen to a good series.
	But I like the meme.
	See you on the next one.
	Like a vindictive classmate sealing a secret behind a smirk.
	Unintelligible Australian claptrap.
	Buy it.
	I'll stay away from that then.
	Unintelligible Australian claptrap.
	Buy it.
	Already?
	Alright.
	CSCooper.com.au because it's burned into our heads.
	I think your point about the bite, you can actually hear it in the original though.
	It's just that they're talking over it.
	Yeah, they were just having a bit of a giggle at the Australian claptrap comment.
	I can still hear you say the words though, so it is there.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	She's brilliant.
	You've got to get her on the show.
	Yeah, she's good fun.
	Thank you.
	I don't know why you would want Al Randodane on your podcast, but I have been told that I am funnier than most female comedians, which sort of feels like a backhanded compliment.
	Also, Callum?
	Callum?
	Callum?
	Sucks to be you!
	Got him.
	I assume that's a reference to the fact that we're not free.
	Because the Danish guys are free.
	They can do whatever the hell they want.
	Yeah, sadly.
	Yeah.
	I suppose you could come on and tell us and sort of explain to us.
	I don't know what it is with Danish accents.
	Like, why does it sound like there's a potato in the throat with, like, every member of Denmark?
	That's a good point, actually.
	Because it's a weird thing, like, the Norwegians, they're a weird lot, but, like, the Swedish, they sort of sound like they're singing the whole time, so they sound like kind of pixie people, but the Danes, the Danes sort of sound like, it's weird, especially when they're speaking Danish, but anyway.
	I don't know how accurate that impression was, but close enough.
	My bigotry towards the Danish.
	Give us a little stand-up set.
	Yeah, we're good.
	You'll be better than Hannah Gadsby.
	Yeah, well, I mean, who isn't?
	Exactly.
	I'm not wrong though.
	Learning Danish is like just sort of like lower your octaves.
	Anyway.
	I'm going to get back from her being very upset now.
	That was good fun.
	Let's go to the next one.
	We'll experience part three.
	Once I was diagnosed to have the ultrasound, a doctor is setting me up with the surgeon and I have some questions to ask.
	And so he, rather than typing on his computer notes, he's using a little recorder to record notes.
	And about every second question I ask mid-sentence, he just starts saying his notes into the computer because he remembers something and just cuts me off.
	Does this patient care?
	Not really.
	Sounds like you're getting ripped off.
	Doesn't sound like it.
	I don't really know what Americans can do usually with changing dogs because I assume it's pretty easy because of the free market.
	Canadian.
	Oh, you're buggered, mate.
	Sorry to hear that.
	Good luck.
	I don't really know what to say to that.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey, guys.
	Omaha, Nebraska.
	Callum?
	Tulsi Gabbard is...
	Pro-gun control, pro-assault weapons ban, and pro-Medicaid for all, including illegals.
	Voting Democrat is like smoking crack.
	Not even once.
	Okay.
	I stand by that final statement there.
	And I did see on yesterday's podcast a number of people basically going, actually, let me tell you something about Tulsi that's not going to make you very happy.
	Well, I mean, those are three of them, which, yeah, that's disappointing to hear.
	Yeah, just don't vote Democrat.
	But she is still a dem, I don't know what I was thinking, but thanks for enlightening me.
	See you then!
	And that's why we don't upload this part to YouTube.
	And that's why we don't upload this part to YouTube.
	Now, if you want to talk about meta...
	Well, my work is done here.
	What do you mean your work is done?
	You don't do anything!
	Didn't I? You paid for that.
	I don't even know what the point of that was.
	Thank you very much.
	One of the best Simpsons episodes.
	Yeah.
	Moving on.
	Let's go to the Dildo Man.
	So a few months ago I tracked down a book that I wanted to own.
	It's very hard to get here in Germany, they don't sell them here, but I have all three volumes imported of the Gulag Archipelago.
	And I told myself that I was going to read all three volumes, but it turns out I've made it only about halfway through the first volume and I have to stop because it's way too much of a black pill.
	I really just can't handle it anymore.
	So I'm going to move on to my next book, which is a book about creating a utopia, which sounds amazing.
	So yeah, let's go, Brandon!
	Oh no.
	Klaus Schwab, not even once.
	Now, big props for actually trying to read the full three editions of Gulag Archipelago.
	I don't know if...
	I've only read about 300 pages of the abridged version, and it is pretty heavy going.
	Why is it banned in Germany?
	Why can't he get it?
	Because Germany.
	I don't know why they banned Mein Kampf.
	It's dumb, illiberal nonsense, but you expect it.
	I don't know why they would ban it in Germany, but fair play for getting it and fair play for trying it, but it is pretty disheartening trying to get through it.
	I don't know what point you're at.
	Last I remember, he was gibbering on about the prison system and the torture and whatnot.
	That's basically most of it, sadly.
	I think it's after the first prisons and he's been moved around and he's had to take a dump in the middle of the fields covered in snow and whatnot.
	It's not been fun.
	Then he's talking about the fact that he's getting beaten by the guards.
	I was just like...
	Oh, I'm bored of this.
	It's just the same thing, and it just keeps going.
	I mean, I understand the importance of the book, I understand what he's telling people, but as a reading experience, it's not particularly pleasant, sadly.
	A lot of people seem to make the counter-argument that it's basically, well, you know, that's how bad it is, so he's going to go through it all.
	It's not like I don't get that.
	But I've got to read the books of North Korea, and they're able to summarise the prison experience in enough detail to make you get the point.
	But it's not feeling...
	To be honest, it kind of seems like he's putting too much in.
	For a historical document, absolutely, but at least for the public...
	I think it is more of a historical document.
	I mean, he spent his years in exile finding all the stories.
	And one of the points that he makes when talking about it is that there is a certain element of survivor's guilt that he felt from having survived the gulags, where so many that he met and saw didn't.
	So perhaps he just felt some kind of duty that he was having to tell these people's stories, whether or not it made for an enjoyable reading experience, just because of the fact that nobody else was going to.
	But there's a thing.
	There's three volumes in English which you can get.
	The huge bundle he's got there.
	And that's the first version.
	And then there's the abridged one that I've read.
	I got a copy from Josh.
	And it just seems like there was a lot more abridging that could have been done.
	And it seemed like, quite frankly, you're having your time wasted reading it.
	I wouldn't agree with that at all.
	I wouldn't say it's having your time wasted.
	I would just say that it is just very heavy reading.
	Anyway, I disagree because you can read the North Korean stuff and it's so much easier and they're not wasting your time.
	I don't feel like I'm having myself beaten over the head constantly.
	I get the point.
	It's the bloody prison system and no one gives a toss about your life.
	I would need to contrast it potentially with I need to read an Applebaum's book on the gulags and I imagine that that's much more meant for casual reading, condensed version of everything that's going on there.
	But anyway, there's the short version of the book club on the damn thing, because I'm never going to get it done, so...
	Nice meanies.
	Move on to the next one.
	If Podcast of the Lotus Eaters is to talk about the truth of the world, Book Club is to talk about and review books.
	Enoch is to talk about history.
	I feel like you should have another category entitled The Lives of Odysseus, where you talk about fun conspiracy theories like Carl's endless obsession with Bigfoot, Flat Earth, and my possible favourite, how time travellers were involved in the assassination attempt of Archduke Ferdinand.
	Yeah, it's not a bad idea.
	Alex Jones corner?
	Yeah.
	Why not?
	To be honest, yeah, that is a bit of...
	We might be stepping into his territory there, although, to be fair, how many of them have ended up being conspiracy theories?
	Yeah.
	On the Attitude-Fan Ferdinand stuff, I do find that funny, because you know about, like, they tried to bomb him and then they missed, and then, like, he gets lost, the driver, and then they turn around and move around, and then some random guy shoots him in the head...
	So the theory goes that essentially there was a guy who was going to bomb him and someone pushed him out the way and the bomb missed and they were like, haha, I fixed it.
	No World War I. Went back to the present and like...
	And then opened the newspaper.
	Yeah.
	Oh no!
	And everything had gone so bad that he was like, I need to go back to World War I and make World War I and then World War II happen.
	Like, it was so bad that quite frankly we needed both World Wars was better than whatever happened with him not dying.
	I went back and shot him in the head.
	I've not heard of this particular conspiracy.
	It sounds fun.
	It sounds fun, if nothing else.
	You have to wonder, like, how bad was it that the guy, the time traveller, was like, you know what, I need to bring back the Third Reich.
	Like, it just...
	That was better than this.
	There were murals of Stalin everywhere.
	Yeah, maybe.
	Maybe Stalin takes over the world if Ferdinand isn't killed or something.
	But then that doesn't make any sense, because then the Soviet Revolution wouldn't happen, presumably.
	Yeah, true.
	God, I mean, I don't know.
	A butterfly effect, you never know.
	It's a good conspiracy theory.
	It's good fun just thinking about how bad things get.
	I can't remember.
	What was the other one you mentioned?
	The other conspiracy theory?
	So it was Bigfoot, and then one more, and then ArchG399.
	I guess it just got sandwiched, so I can't remember.
	Anyway, but yeah, not a terrible idea.
	That's a fun idea.
	Yeah, let's go to the next one.
	Looking into your comment, Daniel, I think we're addressing the same issue, just in different ways.
	Your point seems to be speaking to the root of the issue, which is this perception that exists that a college education will lead to a better job and salary, and universities have adapted this, becoming inflated vocational schools when they really shouldn't be.
	And I agree with this.
	My point is a concession of the fact that this is the current paradigm of our education system.
	Just be rational in how you navigate that.
	But I think we're both critiquing this perception that a college education will lead to a better job and salary.
	My point is that it depends on what you pursue.
	Yeah.
	I don't really understand what the disagreement is, so I'm not going to comment.
	Yeah, sorry, mate.
	I don't really want to say that.
	Conversations happening between commenters.
	So, yeah.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So first, Joe Rogan, and now Tim Pool.
	The media is on to us.
	Soon they're going to know what we as medical professionals are trying to do.
	That we're building an army of centaurs to stop Anthony Fauci from murdering all the puppies.
	I never would have thought that all their years of not studying pharmacology would give them such an advantage over us.
	God help us if they ever figure out the different things we use this for.
	I just love it.
	It reminds me of when, I think it was Donald Trump was asked by the press.
	I think they said to him, what was it?
	QAnon thinks that you're fighting satanic demon pedos who run the government?
	And he's like, is that a bad thing?
	That's a good point.
	That's a good question.
	What if I am?
	Whether it's true or not...
	Would you have a problem with that?
	It was a great point, though, because you sort of asked it like it was an accusation.
	Like, how dare you fight our demon pedos who run the government?
	It took years for us to install them.
	I mean, there is a reason I beat Hillary.
	Can I also say I enjoyed that headline there because it made me just think of Tim Pool's going to get COVID and we're going to make Joe Rogan pay for it.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Tony D and Little Joan with an update on the New Jersey election.
	They're still counting the votes and this news just dropped.
	It appears to be legit.
	Someone found boxes of mail-in ballots in a recycle bin in West Deptford, New Jersey.
	That's not very far from me.
	Shredded ballots as well.
	Project Veritas has been called.
	The cops have been called.
	Project Veritas also had a video of what appeared to be an Irish citizen voting in our election.
	It ain't over.
	I'm looking to see what happens.
	I did see some of the stuff around that.
	I wasn't too sure.
	It's definitely interesting with it being so close.
	I think it was 3am this time around.
	That was a huge dump, which was of interest.
	After watching what happened in Belarus, I'm far more sceptical of everything at this point.
	Even the finding of the footage there.
	I don't even know if it's logical.
	It's just something I've got now.
	There was this lady who was caught.
	She took a stack of legal ballots, presumably legal, who even bloody knows?
	Belarus elections, who cares?
	Yeah.
	She took the ballots upstairs, and she took out her phone, and then someone had filmed her in the bathroom, because they were like, what the fuck is she doing with the ballots?
	So they filmed her being like, what was she doing?
	She took out her phone, and then made a TikTok, being like, oh my god, guys, I just found these ballots, and they were hidden, and then the video recording her, and he interrupts and goes, what the hell are you doing?
	And she gets called out, and because over there, there are people trying to claim that it's rigged, and here's the evidence, and there's a call for that.
	Probably is.
	Belarus.
	I mean, whatever.
	Yeah.
	But it's blackpilled me to hell on even evidence of voter fraud at this point.
	Yeah, I think a healthy scepticism of everything, to a certain extent, no matter which side it comes from, is probably good because, you know, I think being too trusting of any one particular side of the political aisle may lead you wrong.
	I'm not saying anything that's been found is faked or anything either, but it's just that there was, like, cool for 5D chess at that point, where it's like, Hang on, how is he even filming her like this?
	Is this 5D chess where they want her to get caught and the whole thing's been staged again to try and make the opposition look silly?
	How deep does this go in terms of how far it's been staged?
	My brain has melted on that topic at this point.
	But thanks for letting us know.
	You and Joan are looking great.
	Sponsored by Evan Durstan.
	I know I'm late to the party on this one, but whoever's responsible for the huge hike in gas prices in Canada a few weeks back, I spent $149 filling up my parents' truck from empty.
	I hope that for the rest of the winter, your feet are cold.
	Also, welcome back Callum.
	I'm glad to see that you've fully recovered.
	Thanks.
	And, yeah, I agree.
	We're all getting made poorer by these bastards.
	Yeah.
	And Callum is better, but we are all still keeping him at arm's length.
	Don't worry.
	What am I going to do?
	Sneeze on us.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	Hey, lads.
	I'm not sure if you'll cover this, but apparently Nicholas Sturgeon was on the cover of Vogue recently with a £4,000 jacket.
	Yeah, it's nice to see the socialists are...
	I'm sticking to stereotype, I guess.
	Fashion icon, Nicola Sturgeon.
	I don't know what the point of those people is anymore.
	No, me neither.
	Sorry.
	I think that's...
	That's them, so let's go to the written comments on the site.
	So, on the Martin Luther King topic, Free Will 2112 says a person's character is unique to that individual.
	It is not surprising then that collectivists who judge people by various victimhood groups attributes would not be interested in judging people on the individual characteristics.
	True.
	Yeah, makes sense.
	I mean, it is antithetical to their worldview.
	Again, Freewell says, they have stated that whiteness is equated with the liberal capitalist democratic tradition.
	As Marxists, they want to destroy capitalism, and logically, that means the destruction of whiteness, which would entail the destruction of white people, in part, or entirely.
	Their agenda is plain to see if you follow the logic of what they are saying.
	Yeah.
	Absolutely.
	This is one of the things I kind of hate, especially, let's say, there's some memes about this as well that really irritate me, which is that they'll display the far right and the far left discussing, and you've probably seen some of these leftist memes, where it's like, you know, the centrist there, far left, we want to reform taxes.
	Far right, I want to kill everyone.
	I can't tell the difference.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, can't we find some middle ground?
	All the communists do is kill people.
	All they do...
	Historically speaking, yes.
	All the socialists have ever done is decide, let's get this group of people, kill them, and then the world will be solved.
	And then society will be paradise.
	I mean, no, but like, literally endlessly.
	I mean, the number of genocides is unbelievable.
	Just look up Soviet genocide, and you'll get list after list after list of different groups they kill.
	I mean, never mind the kulaks, I mean, just all the ethnic groups alone.
	And then it's the same here with the, well, you know, whiteness is the problem.
	It's like...
	Right, okay.
	And the hatred you guys have of white people, if there was a civil war in the United States, and I don't know, the Union of Socialist Republics was set up in the Detroit area or something, they would just kill white people.
	And they would say that they're freeing themselves of white supremacy.
	I mean, don't believe it for a second, they wouldn't.
	And elements of the media might clap them along while they're at it as well.
	Yeah, before they get their head chopped off as well.
	So Callum Dayton says, Martin Luther King never called for a colourblind society.
	Well, Hitler wanted a racial Germany and nation, but that doesn't make him a true socialist.
	Yeah, I can see the parallels in the imperishable logic and claims.
	I'm not sure I followed that one entirely.
	I assume you're making fun of the statement there, but sorry, my brain's not turned on.
	I think they're making fun of the constant claim of, oh, well, Hitler wasn't a real socialist, even though he was.
	Yes.
	Ignacio says universal suffrage is a mistake.
	All government and public sector employees, as well as people on benefits, should be banned from voting until they are no longer one of those categories.
	People have been voting themselves a paycheck for long enough.
	We're having this discussion in the office sometimes, especially Carl, when the tax bill comes for this or the other.
	And he's like, why the hell are these people voting?
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah, I mean, if you're on...
	If you're off work and you're getting paid to be off work, even though you could work, for years...
	I mean, the argument could be...
	Definitely the suffrage should be reduced.
	You are being a drain on society, you're not contributing to society, so why should you have a say in society?
	Yeah.
	Like, if you can't work because of medical reasons, of course.
	It makes sense.
	It's like, well, it's not the guy's fault.
	But if the guy just ain't working and he could, and he's one of the guys down that we see getting lunch sometimes, the alcoholics down there seem to be wasting their lives.
	Yeah, I don't want to give those people money.
	Fuck those people, man.
	I need to stop swearing.
	I don't know why to try so much.
	Because it makes you angry.
	Yeah.
	Kevin Fox, the reason the 16.9 Critical Race Theory crowd hate Martin Luther King is because that one line of his speech will be judged by the content of his character.
	Yes!
	Entirely true.
	They show on a daily basis that their characters are absolutely heinous, so they be outcasts and they know it.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the BLM martyrs all being some of the worst people.
	Yeah.
	I mean, none of them are Rosa Parks.
	Once again, Martin Luther King's speech, he's saying it with his head held high, he's showing an incredible strength of character.
	Showing his face, he's not wearing a balaclava, bombing his local black-honed business.
	He was arguing that people should be responsible for themselves and allowed to be responsible for themselves, and these people, that's the death knell for these kinds of people.
	But I just remember the BLM riots.
	I mean, especially the one where they burnt down that car shop that was owned by a black guy.
	The sports bar that was owned by a black guy.
	I think the hairdresser's owned by a black woman.
	They shot that former retired police officer who was a black guy.
	But they're all in balaclavas throwing Molotov cocktails at black-owned neighborhoods.
	Like, yeah!
	It was like, yeah, your content of your character is trash.
	It's empty.
	So, Richard Cheesehead says, You're racist if you're not being a racist.
	It makes sense.
	Francis Taylor says, When I was a kid in the 80s and all throughout elementary school, we studied MLK every year.
	We watched that video of his speech multiple times.
	I have no idea if kids don't get taught this stuff now or not.
	The No Child Left Behind policy that passed in the W. Bush admin made standardized testing the goal versus critical thinking.
	All the great teachers I had retired right before they passed in the early 2000s.
	Yeah, I hear terrible things about the No Child Left Behind policy, so...
	I don't know too much about it, so...
	We studied it.
	I mean, it's weird that we even studied it as a topic, being British.
	I think we did it in history class.
	It was one of the modules in secondary school.
	It was the civil rights movement.
	We just went through all the legal cases.
	Strangely enough, I remember going on about all of the American civil rights stuff, but I don't remember learning about Windrush or anything like that that would actually be relevant if you wanted to talk about those kinds of subjects in England.
	Yeah.
	I assume because it doesn't have the same narrative to it, so it's not of interest on a level like that.
	Anyway, so Sophie Lev Peterson says, Wait, there's a difference between Somali-American and African-American.
	Somalia is a country in Africa.
	Yeah, not really.
	And so, is South Africa the entire term African-American as a load of bull?
	How many of these people do you think actually know that Africa is a continent, not a country, and there are multiple countries in it with various cultures, languages, and level of wealth?
	That's totally true.
	I also hate the fact that this seems to just get taken for granted.
	I mean, there's no European-Americans.
	No one talks like that.
	Americans love to talk about how 10 generations ago they had a Scottish member of the family.
	Yeah, but they'll do both.
	They'll talk about the 10th generation Scot and then be like, yeah, African American.
	What?
	How far back?
	One of these things is quite in-depth and one of them is so low resolution you've given up.
	The point has been made that a lot of the African Americans have probably been in America for longer than these European Americans have.
	What do you mean?
	In terms of a lot of people who are in America at the moment who are descended from European people may be entered at the beginning of the 20th century, whereas a lot of African Americans might be the direct descendants of slaves, and therefore they're more American than a lot of...
	Swedes and Germans and...
	Yeah, they're more American than a lot of these other people.
	Sorry, just dabbing on the chin.
	Anyway, also the Somalia thing.
	I can't get over it.
	I mean, literally half of a black American's earnings.
	Yeah, these are the same thing.
	They just get thrown in the same category.
	They're both black.
	Constructing the monolith, just so that, because it's politically expedient for them to do so.
	Anyway, let's move on to the Western side.
	Yeah, so Chris Wolfe says in a thousand years, this period may be known as the burning of the library of Americana, possibly.
	Joseph Smith, it's funny because the Catholic Church also had to deal with issues from the past lives of example saints.
	The fact that this does not define their public appearance is encapsulated with the saying, there is not saint without a past and no sinner without a future.
	I think the world would be a better place if we all tried to remember that teaching.
	That's funny coming from the Catholics.
	Sorry, I was reading the chat and someone's like, we love our Somalis, they're so beautiful.
	I don't know if you've seen the song.
	I have seen that.
	Look, I'm sorry if there's Somalis watching, but come on, we all know that that place really didn't produce the best culture.
	No, it certainly doesn't appear to be so.
	But yeah, obviously what you're talking about there is that people are trying to completely erase the idea of redemption as a thing, whether that be on an individual or a cultural level.
	I mean, not that I would say that our culture needs redeeming for anything.
	You know, we stop the slave trade, I think.
	If you can point to big cultural things in a nation's history, that's a pretty big one.
	I mean, we'll take the W, thank you.
	Yes, thank you very much.
	David Shipton, you're welcome.
	David Shipton, wow, an attack on classic rock now then, starting to sound like 60s parents at this point.
	We've gone full circle.
	Absolutely, back in the 60s and 70s it was the Christian conservatives who were saying, you know, bands like Deep Purple were problematic and they're going to turn all of our kids into Satanists and now it's turned straight back around to be...
	The fanatical left-wing basically doing the same thing, except it's going to turn them all into racists and homophobes.
	So, horseshoe confirmed, I suppose.
	Free will 2112.
	Given how much of our society and culture they want to replace with their own ideology, why don't they just get it over with and rename their movement Ingsoc?
	Good question, because that would be too obvious, I suppose, too transparent.
	Literally means English socialism.
	That's where the term Ingsoc comes from in the book, so we'll stop at him.
	Angel Brain, it's hard to know why younger versions of ourselves.
	Maybe because you hadn't been indoctrinated at that age.
	Luckily the cult is now aggressively marketing as a younger demographic.
	That's depressingly true.
	Robert Miller, The Great Leap is gaining pace and Year Zero seems to be just around the corner.
	Maybe, hopefully not.
	I hope we can push back against all this sort of stuff.
	I think we are pushing back against this sort of stuff.
	Just maybe not.
	Is that a reference?
	I don't get that reference.
	Year Zero.
	It's definitely a reference to something, what specifically I can't bring to mind, but Year Zero is probably when some great catastrophe has unfolded in the Mad Max universe or something.
	It's a political idea where the entire society is destroyed.
	Yeah.
	I can understand how it feels.
	Hang on, wait, does that- I just- Oh, Pol Pot actually tried to put this into practice.
	Oh, okay.
	Okay.
	Yeah, of course, it comes from commies.
	Alpha of the betas, Cardi B's WAP has done far more to demoralize society and act as a cultural vanguard to degeneracy than American pie ever did.
	Yeah.
	I can't really deny that.
	I can see the analogy comes from the French Revolutionary Calendar.
	The idea that they did the whole calendar again.
	So, again, socialists.
	You know they do that in North Korea as well.
	Oh yeah, I know they complete...
	Isn't it only like year less than 100 at the moment in North Korea?
	It's like 87 or something like that?
	Yeah, something like that.
	Wasn't the Kim family descended down and handed to them by God or something like that?
	Yeah, it's really weird because with the revolutionary stuff here, like with the Khmer Rouge or whatever, you can make the argument of like, oh, the revolution is year zero, right?
	And that could make sense in a socialist framework.
	You know, you could justify it in a really strange way.
	But with the Kims, it's just like...
	I think it's when Kim Il-sung is born.
	Like, what?
	It just is.
	It's just when he was born.
	Society started with me, thank you very much.
	Yeah, it's not even the revolution.
	It's not even when the Soviets installed him or anything.
	Or the war.
	Or anything like that.
	I mean, it just makes him more transparent, doesn't it?
	Yeah, I just think it's really funny.
	It's just like, yeah, when I was born, that's when the world started.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	Chango98.
	Can't wait for us to cancel modern rapper's music for their criminal activities.
	Good luck with that.
	The land of the white people.
	Those psychedelic crushing shouldn't be paused.
	They should be removed.
	Yes.
	Student of history.
	That crosswalk actually bothers my goddamned eyes.
	Same.
	And then transitioning.
	We'll get into the transitioning stuff.
	So, Justin B says those 18-year-olds may be adults and making their own decisions, but there's also a duty of care on the head of the professional that is meant to perform due diligence before prescribing drugs.
	This is true.
	You know, these arguments are there.
	Although, technically they're not in law, because as mentioned, it's very confused, or there are no...
	I would say, because you're bringing up the law, it's more of a moral imperative on the practitioners.
	I agree with that.
	You've got me on that.
	So, it would be like a loan company giving a loan to someone who can't possibly bear back.
	Is this the loan company that gets in trouble for mis-selling, even though the person they're lending to is an adult?
	That's true, and those aspects are there.
	I suppose we would have to look into the individual cases of those teenagers.
	Yeah, I mean...
	There probably are some legitimate cases of gender dysphoria that are going through those sorts of clinics just if it's a...
	Because the NHS is so backlogged.
	Yeah, because it's backlogged and it's just one hour to determine whether or not it's legitimate or not brings up the question of how many of those are going to be false positives.
	Yeah.
	I imagine part of the backlog is the push for false positives.
	Yeah.
	So, let's move on to a short one, because we've only got a minute left.
	So, Alpha of the Betas says, most 18-year-olds are morons, because most people are morons.
	Change the age of legal adulthood to 21, solve a lot of these problems, or ideally 30, perhaps 40, when Alpha of the Betas turns 40 as well.
	I mean, we wouldn't be adults at 30, would we?
	I'm sympathetic to the idea of saying, well, brain development ends at 25, therefore voting, being an adult, is at 25.
	I'm sympathetic to that idea, because at least you can make the argument.
	But when it goes to anything else, this is obviously just a meme at this point.
	Yeah.
	The age below me.
	25, I feel like you can make the argument.
	Everyone younger than me is a child.
	I mean, raising the age of voting to 21 is a no-brainer anyway, but whatever.
	We're out of time, so if you want more from us, go to LotusEars.com and sign up to get access to the premium content, and also that's how we keep the show running.
	Otherwise, we will be back on Monday, 1 o'clock.

▲