Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 1, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:10

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #362

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Theatres for the 1st of April 2022.
	I'm joined by Thomas.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about the stunning and brave and the ugly in regards to a Conservative MP who has decided to come out as the first trans MP. Also, Hassan and Destiny were just wrong, just patently wrong, and I thought we'd go back and check out our discussion or at least a debate Carl had with them in which they just are wrong, flatly, and I'll demonstrate why.
	Also, Chelsea's takeover versus anti-racism.
	Oh, I look forward to that.
	Anyway, so let's mention the new stuff on the website.
	The first thing being here, an old article that has been republished for non-subscribers now.
	So this has an audio track there for people to go and listen to.
	This is on the NHS, and despite its virtues, it's time to die.
	So this is an article by Rory arguing that.
	And also, this is a chance for if you're not a subscriber to go and have a listen to the audio and check out if Silver's subscription is also something you might like, because Silver comes with the audio tracks of the articles, which you can listen to Jonathan Crowe's lovely voice.
	So go and check that out.
	If we go to the next one, we have another republished here, this being a premium article, but it's now been republished with the audio, The Polemic Political Compass.
	So if you scroll down, you can see the audio track there, where you can go and give a listen to that instead of giving it a read, because reading is pain.
	It can be.
	I should know.
	Anyway, so go and check those things out.
	Otherwise, without further ado, we will get into the news.
	So, The Stunning, The Brave, and The Ugly.
	It is LGBT Plus Minus History Month, and in keeping with this theme, we're going to begin with...
	Is that a joke or not?
	I can't tell.
	It's meant to be a joke.
	Literally anything applies at this point.
	Just add anything in front of LGBT, and it almost sounds...
	Honestly, I could believe it.
	Yeah.
	Well, in keeping with this theme, we're going to begin with the stunning and brave unveiling of our first transgender member of Parliament.
	It is the Conservative member for Bridgend, Jamie Wallace, who came out through an official statement that he personally released a couple of days ago.
	It reads as follows.
	He begins speaking about the recent Tory party dinner.
	Yesterday the parliamentary party had a photo in the chamber and then we went for dinner together.
	It was nice especially for those of us in the 2019 intake of MPs who haven't done anything like that before.
	It was lovely to speak to colleagues away from parliament and I appreciated the occasion for a number of reasons.
	I've had a lot of support from the whips since I was elected.
	Not for the reasons you might think, but there's a lot that goes on in MPs lives and the whips play an important well-being role.
	As far as I've seen, they try their best to support and help MPs who are having a tough time, whilst they've certainly earned their keep with me.
	I'm trans.
	Or to be more accurate, I want to be.
	I've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and I've felt this way since I was a very young child.
	I had no intention of ever sharing this with you.
	I always imagined I would leave politics well before I ever said this out loud.
	So there we are.
	He's come out as trans in a rather strange, unconvincing...
	And a few questions with that statement, which is, okay, so you've had gender dysphoria since you were a very young child.
	That's fine.
	You've never wanted to tell this to anyone.
	You weren't going to tell it to the public.
	You were just going to keep to yourself until you left politics, and then you were going to be trans?
	But then, if that was the plan, and now it's changed, he says, I'm trans.
	But he also says, I'm trans.
	Well, yes, but I'm not.
	Yes, I've been transitioned.
	But that's the weird thing.
	He's like, I'm trans.
	I've always wanted to be trans.
	But also, not right now, I'm not actually.
	Because I want to be.
	That means, okay, I'm not now, even though I've told you I am and I want to be.
	Because I'm going to be.
	Yeah.
	I don't even know what to do in this situation.
	He's trans-trans.
	He's trans-trans.
	He's transitioning to being trans, yes.
	Okay.
	So, in addition to having the first trans MP, we might have the first trans trans person ever.
	Right.
	Why has he done this?
	Has...
	Well, we're going to find out.
	But I'm assuming that when he's coming out as trans, he means he's coming out as a trans woman.
	But given, of course, how many recognised genders there are, including trans, trans, perhaps, in the paradigm of intersectionality, we can't know for sure.
	But this is not the only thing he felt obliged to share.
	He, I'm, of course, not misgendering because he said he's in transition himself, said that he is also a victim of rape and blackmail.
	And he goes on to explain in the statement...
	There was a close call in April 2020 when someone blackmailed me, outed me to my father and sent photographs to other family members.
	He wanted £50,000 to keep quiet.
	The police were so supportive, so understanding and on this occasion the system worked.
	He pled guilty and was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison.
	For a while, it seemed as though I'd be able to get on with things and move on.
	Being an MP and hiding something like this was always going to be tough, but I arrogantly assumed I was up for it.
	Well, I'm not.
	A few months back in September, I hooked up with someone who I met online, and when I chose to say no on the basis that he wouldn't wear a condom, he chose to rape me.
	I have not been myself since this incident, and I don't think I will ever recover.
	It is not something you ever forget, and it is not something you ever move on from.
	So I gather from this that he was involved in an exchange of explicit material, as happens in the modern world today.
	I've got no idea why people do this.
	But presumably he was...
	Wearing ladies clothes or something like that?
	Something like that, yeah, and was blackmailed.
	And then individually he sent it to, decided to blackmail him with it.
	Yeah, he was blackmailed for it, and of course...
	That's horrible.
	Yeah, that is awful.
	And of course, the fact that he...
	It's obviously very distressing, but to tell the truth, it's beyond me why people take risks like that.
	And the part after, however, is of course more serious than that.
	Irrespective of gender, being raped is a truly horrible thing to have to go through.
	So he's saying he hooked up with someone, so presumably he texted someone, you want to meet up, they went for drinks, blah blah blah, back to the hotel room, Gary feeds us to wear the condom.
	I'm speculating here.
	And then the guy raped him because he asked him to use a condom?
	Yeah, that's very much, that's how it sounds, yeah.
	It's insane.
	It is.
	It's nothing else to say other than that's just awful.
	Yeah.
	However, there is a big but here which needs to be addressed.
	But before we get to this but, I'd like to give an honourable mention to his wife upon him, of course, coming out as trans trans, given as upon the announcement she's got to come to terms with the reality that she's been a lesbian all along.
	Well no, presumably they're going to get a divorce.
	Yes, going to get a divorce, and that's of course about mentioning his two-year-old daughter who now has to live up to the fact that she's, or at least if we're going to hammer home, the reification of how we understand gender and sex is going to be how we understand it, ultimately.
	That's where we're heading anyway.
	Anyway, as you can probably imagine, some of the responses are what you would expect if we move on to the Daily Mirror article.
	So the Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, wrote, Well done, Jamie Wallace, for speaking out and your brave statements.
	We stand with you.
	Tory Party Chairman Oliver Dowden said, Proud of my colleague, Jamie Wallace.
	As a Conservative family, we stand together and we will support you.
	I hope that your brave statements will help others.
	Tom Tugendhat said that's a very brave statement.
	Labour's Angela Eagle tweeted, This is very brave.
	Look after yourself and take the time you need to recover.
	And Labour MP Chris Bryant wrote, Dear Jamie, I wish you all the very best.
	Colleagues across the House will respect your openness, honesty and the journey you are on.
	I don't know what that next part is.
	And Benjamin Cohen, the chief executive of Pink News, added, This is truly groundbreaking.
	The UK's first MP to share that they are trans.
	I dug out some other tweets.
	I would have thought the more brave thing here would have been saying I'm a victim of rape in my mind.
	I couldn't give less of a crap about being trans.
	I don't think many people actually could.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But clearly Benjamin Cohen didn't pay attention to that part of it.
	The brave thing here is being like, yeah, I've been a victim of rape.
	They're coming out and saying, I also think I'm trans.
	There are lots of publicly trans people.
	This isn't new.
	It's not stunning and brave anymore.
	The brave part of this is the fact that he's admitted that he's been raped.
	Yeah, I mean, this isn't coming out as homosexual in the 50s.
	No.
	This is all accepted in society.
	The saying you've been raped by is more, I imagine, a struggle.
	No one faces a lynching for going home for announcing this anymore.
	If anything, it's in accordance to where the cathedral wants us to go to come out as trans, even if you're not, because you'll just get a round of applause for the sake of saying it.
	Strange responses, then.
	It is strange, and I've dug up some more tweets here, the first of which is from Ian Dunn, who says, But if we move on to the next,
	from Adam Biancoff, who says, What was the joke?
	I actually don't know.
	I couldn't trace it.
	Bad Boris joke.
	Probably wasn't all that offensive.
	I imagine it probably got the approval of his wife, which would mean it's completely non-offensive at all.
	But there you go.
	But let's address this but that I mentioned by reading the rest of Wallace's statement.
	When I crashed my car on the 28th of November, I fled the scene.
	I did so because I was terrified.
	I have PTSD and I honestly have no idea what I was doing, except I was overcome by an overwhelming sense of fear.
	I'm sorry that it appears I ran away, but this isn't how it happened in the moment.
	Tonight I was reminded of the incredible support that you work with can provide.
	Also I was reminded how important it is to be yourself.
	I have never lived my truth and I'm not sure now.
	Perhaps it starts with telling everyone.
	So he's now talking about something completely different.
	We're on to the ugly part of this segment.
	He was involved in a car crash on November 28th when he crashes Mercedes into a telegraph pole and just left it there.
	He's since been convicted for fleeing the scene, which is, of course, illegal.
	Does this not raise suspicion?
	I don't know.
	It's pretty weird, and I don't know someone who's been through that sort of circumstance.
	But he's saying he got PTSD from the crash?
	Yeah.
	And then just ran?
	Well, I suppose the PTSD could refer to all the events that he's mentioned.
	So he's completely lost his mind.
	But he is tying all of this together.
	This is all part of the same statement.
	Because that's the thing.
	If he's saying essentially, like, I've kind of lost my mind, like he's saying he's got post-traumatic stress disorder, I am a mess and I should just be out of this.
	Well, that's why you ran.
	But then I have to wonder, why does that not apply to politics?
	Because you may remember there was a Labour MP who was like, I've got PTSD from doing the job.
	When people asked her what it was, she said it was answering emails.
	Kind of a low bar.
	But okay, right?
	She took like a two-month hiatus from all the politics.
	Has he done the same?
	Has he just left?
	Is he doing a by-election or what?
	No, he's still a Member of Parliament.
	Even though he's saying he's suffering a PTSD, he's just going to...
	Yeah, but this is on his say-so from the statement.
	The thing that's particularly striking is that he's tied in his coming out of trans with, of course, the...
	The prosecution, the accusation of the fact that he was raped, and of course the blackmailing, into this pretext of why he left the car.
	And that's what rings alarm bells with me.
	I mean, why would, for a start, on the car issue, why would you flee the scene unless you were guilty of something?
	Surely the first thing you would do is call the police or whatever and say, I've crashed the car.
	I just had an accident.
	You're not going to be taken to the police station for that.
	If you're sober and, I don't know, you reach down and you crash into a telegraph, you're like, oh crap.
	Why would he have run away?
	Possibly drink driving?
	Drug driving?
	Hiss and run?
	Drive by shooting?
	I mean, he's a member of the gay Tory mafia, potentially.
	I don't think he's gunning down terrorists.
	No, that's a bit hyperbolic.
	But anyway, we can only speculate.
	But he does have a record for being a bit of a sleaze, as Joanna Williams of Spite Online illustrates.
	I'm going to read this out because she puts it actually very well.
	The reputation of Jamie Wallace, MP for Bridgend, has undergone quite the transformation.
	Just days ago, he was best known for being arrested and fined for crashing his car and fleeing the scene.
	Now he's being singled out for praise in Parliament by the Prime Minister.
	Why?
	Because he's announced he is transgender.
	However, she goes on to say, back in 2019, when Wallace was first elected to Parliament, he was profiled in his local paper as a married man with two young daughters, then aged six and three.
	Go back a couple of decades and Wallace would be fending off the scandal of an extramarital relationship.
	Wallace has been at the centre of other scandals too.
	In 2020, the papers exposed his stake in a Sugar Daddy website offering students, single parents and people short of money the chance to be sponsored by wealthy executives, international businessmen and diplomats.
	Shall we have a look at this website?
	I don't think this is the right one, actually.
	Are you sure?
	Because I remember this story.
	Is this a copy of the original idea?
	It might be, but I know that he did run it before, and it is described as it was in that Spiked article.
	There was literally a line just being like, you want to be...
	You strapped for cash?
	Well, come and meet our diplomats.
	And it's just like...
	Okay.
	Couldn't you just get a loan?
	Yeah, but he's a member of the family and thus the company that founded this website.
	Wow, he was the director of the company.
	He was the director of the company.
	Yeah, that's quite right.
	His appointment as director was terminated apparently on the 30th of January 2012, but he was reappointed on the 12th of December 2013, and he resigned from this position actually not that long ago.
	It was a few years ago, I guess.
	Or was it the 20th of December 2019?
	And what's interesting is that his father, Daryl Hamilton-Wallace, It's the owner of a website called, and there's no easy way of saying this, Quickie Divorce Limited.
	So they seem to have a bit of an empire of, shall we say, bohemian activities.
	Yeah, I mean, one of the other aspects with the sugar daddy thing is because he was asked by BuzzFeed, were you the director?
	And he was like, no, no, no, I had nothing to do with it whatsoever.
	Despite the fact that you could find all of this out on company's house quite easily.
	BuzzFeed did the, I mean, it's BuzzFeed, so they did the bare minimum journalistic, which is just look on company's house.
	And that was enough to prove, why did you lie?
	Yeah.
	Like, the weird thing to lie about, why are you not just open about it?
	Yeah.
	So the point is, he has a history of not only engaging in alternative...
	Highly conservative things, is his history.
	But of not being entirely honest.
	And acting in bad faith at times as well.
	Not just him, but his entire, well, potentially his entire family, from how it sounds.
	With a track record like this, the begging question is, of course, could he be announcing himself, perhaps sharing this information with everyone?
	And I know this might sound egregious to the ears of some, but could he be doing this because there's increasing heat about why he escaped what could potentially be a crime scene, depending on what actually happened?
	I mean, maybe.
	I can see the suspicion there.
	Yes.
	I mean, there are other examples where people have come out at a very convenient time, so as to, I don't know, delineate a part of the story that they don't want to come out in the foreground.
	One of whom was, I believe, Richard Schofield, who came out when conveniently someone was giving a, I think, what was it, a 17-year-old boy, I guess, was giving a testimony about a sexual relationship that he had with him.
	Of course these are completely different to people, but it's It's a bit weird, don't you think?
	I can see the argument for the suspicion here.
	I mean, it could also just very well be that he's completely sincere, but then I have to wonder, why are you saying that I'm trans, but I'm not going to do anything?
	If you're a trans mate, just be trans.
	No one cares.
	That's not stunning and brave.
	That's, frankly, vanilla.
	And let's just be perfectly honest.
	As you pointed out very, very quickly, his statement doesn't make sense in a lot of ways.
	He's coming out as trans, but not identifying as trans yet.
	Which almost suggests that he might change his mind about that lazy one, perhaps when it's more convenient.
	When he finishes political career?
	When he's found not guilty?
	I don't know.
	Yeah.
	I mean...
	It's a weird statement.
	No, it's very, very strange.
	But what kind of...
	It's the chat's like, buckle up, buckaroo.
	But I'm not the only one to take this position, by the way.
	And as a matter of fact, the LGBT community, I suppose you could say on the TERF side and the intersectional side, haven't bought this either.
	So I found some tweets from those who made similar observations.
	This is Shea Woolahan, if we get the next one up here, John.
	Yes.
	So Shay says, so Jamie Wallace has declared he is trans and has no plans to transition.
	According to trans, this means...
	Why should he have to transition?
	Well, that's a fair point.
	But according to trans, this means he should have full access to women's changing rooms, toilets and shelters.
	If he gets done for running away from the scene of a car crash, which prison do you think he'll go to?
	I imagine probably said a men's one, given his taste.
	No, he should go to a woman's one.
	That's how the argument should go.
	I don't know what Shay's position is on the TERFs versus the intersectionals, but look, all the intersectional logic here is perfectly fine because transitioning itself is a transphobic act.
	Yes, it is.
	You're saying I need to look like a woman biologically to be a woman authentically.
	Because the concept of being transgender depends on reference to biological sex.
	Which is transphobic.
	So therefore transitioning is transphobic.
	So therefore, no, he shouldn't have to do a damn thing.
	And also, if he wants access to women's changing rooms or their prisons, intersectional logic says that's fine.
	Mr.
	Wallace can do literally nothing and still be trans.
	Yeah.
	Honestly, it will be quite something when we get to the point where the conservative argument on the trans question is upholding the integrity of what trans should mean.
	Oh dear, Amy.
	Anyway, let's move on to the next tweet, which basically makes the same point.
	So this is Sorrel.
	Jamie Wallace has blamed leaving the scene of a car crash on being trans.
	He has no intention of ceasing to use he-him and will not be presenting any differently.
	Should Wallace have the right to undress and shower in a communal changing room with teenage girls?
	Hell no, obviously.
	I think is the answer to that.
	I don't know.
	I'm liking the chaos, frankly.
	Look, if anyone can get out of any crime by just saying, didn't you know I'm trans?
	And then the bartender goes, oh, sorry, do whatever you want all the time, I guess.
	You know, the family guy joke.
	Yeah.
	Why not?
	Okay, yeah.
	I mean, if we're going to go down this route in which we are just going to believe insane things, why not this insane thing?
	Yeah.
	Like, full on Clown World.
	I'm ready for it.
	That is where we are going.
	But on the subject of Clown World, most surprisingly of all, is the next person who I have got up.
	This is Peter Tatchell, standing opposed to Pink News.
	Would-be trans MP Jeremy Wallace is no hero.
	Sacked as local councillor for not attending council meetings, director of 10-plus companies that had 800 complaints, voted against climate change and cracked down on tax avoidance.
	Deports harsh laws on refugees.
	I mean, of course, these are the...
	Peter, that last thing there, you're making me like him.
	Of course, you can see the pink news line down there, which is trans MP Jamie Wallace's colourful history.
	Actually, no, that isn't a particularly complimentary article.
	This isn't Pete's actual supporting or going against the pink news line.
	But nonetheless, he is basically claiming that he is using the movement as a means of glossing over some bad stuff that he has done.
	Or perhaps just being a bad actor in general.
	And even though he's not referring directly to the car crash here, I think it's a lot of people that are clearly joining the dots.
	Maybe, I guess, we'll find out.
	Yes, I guess we will.
	We should suspend judgment to a considerable degree, of course, but I will conclude this segment nonetheless.
	If it's true that he was raped and blackmailed, I think it's fair to say that that's absolutely terrible, as it would be for anyone that happens to.
	But it's pretty extraordinary that he's chosen now.
	The statement itself doesn't really make a lot of sense.
	It comes across as quite fudged.
	And it's particularly odd that he's done this at a time when questions are being raised about the details of his car accident.
	My thoughts go out, of course, not just, of course, to him if he is a victim of rape, but also to his wife and daughter, who have, of course, been betrayed and are probably being coerced into seeing this as a stunning embrace on him to be a victim.
	Well, if it's not January, yes.
	Yes, if it's not, yes, very, very true.
	So yeah, but other than that, given the history of Sleaze that seems to be quite evident, he seems like a pretty morally bankrupt husband and father, and the same seems to apply to his family.
	Moving on.
	Hassan and Destiny.
	Just wrong.
	Just flat wrong.
	Again.
	And this example comes from a debate that Carl had with them a long time ago.
	And I thought we'd go into it because it's all about Disney.
	And Disney's back in the news.
	You know why...
	Because they have a gay agenda.
	Literally, according to their own people.
	So we'll load this up, because also there is the funniness of all that taking place in the United States.
	Them trying to virtue signal about the anti-groomer bill.
	And Fox running a story here, which did make me laugh.
	Disney expanding operations to 10 anti-gay countries as they go woke in the United States.
	As part of its expansion, Disney Plus will be making its way to Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Palestine...
	Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Yemen.
	Christ, what is this colonialism part two?
	No, it's the anti-homosexual expansion.
	I don't know if they're including, I don't know, Kazakhstan next year or something, but just, right, you went with all of the Arab countries, which are very firm.
	Yeah, let's see how well this goes down in Saudi Arabia.
	Yeah, as you can see, I mean, much of those is the, well, I think all of them officially are the death penalty because, well, that's what it says in the Hadith, which is kill the one who is doing it and kill the one that is being done too.
	I look forward to seeing Mickey Mouse's head on a stick.
	That'll be happening in Iran.
	But anyway, as you can see, Disney Plus are at least going out there and just making money.
	Meanwhile, at home, different people run Disney America, it seems.
	Because, of course, they have their own thoughts and feelings about what they should be up to.
	Although maybe they're trying to change the Islamic world in a different way.
	But if we move forward, we can see the fact that apparently Disney employees, or at least according to this chap, used to work for Disney, also think that the guys in charge are just mad.
	So this is a guy saying that most of the Disney employees support the anti-Gruber bill.
	Disney standing up for groomers is not the most popular opinion at Disney apparently.
	Castillo claimed that Disney and similar corporations listen to the loudest voices in the crowd even though the silent majority of employees disagree.
	So this is his perspective on what's going on there.
	But this brings us to why Destiny and Hassan were just wrong.
	Because if we go to the next link, we can see this is the clip I took out of a big, long debate that we organized ages ago.
	As you can see, there's Nick Fuentes, Carl, Destiny, and Hassan who were having a debate, being moderated by Trainwreck TV and Asimogol.
	And the debate point at this particular point in the debate was why do companies do work things, essentially?
	So they were arguing about work movies, but then the argument was why do they do work things?
	And Hassan and Destiny's position...
	Well, I don't think...
	Destiny is a liberal, and Hassan is a socialist.
	So they both ended up agreeing with this and their perspective.
	Well, I should say Destiny's a left liberal.
	And they had the same perspective at the time, which is that they only do these things for money.
	It's only for money.
	They just think that now it's profitable, so we'll go out and do the woke things, because we just love cash, and that's it.
	Well, that is considerably true, isn't it?
	Not entirely.
	It's really not, though.
	It's the understanding everyone has of a company when they first think about these things, but then you have to remember that companies are not monoliths, and they're run by individual people, people you can name.
	But consumers don't tend to buy things because they actually believe in the agenda that's being presented to them.
	They buy it because they know other people are buying it.
	Or at least because it has some social value arising from the fact that other people are buying it or taking it.
	I don't know.
	My purchases are because the thing's good.
	Yeah, because you're more, I suppose, self-aware and aware of a political agenda that's part of how a product is packaged.
	but most but most normies for example i don't know most students or consumers who for example listen to the phrase trans rights are human rights and say oh that sounds fair enough because they don't actually know the how for example that very phrase plays into the hands of those who are trying to completely re-understand how sexuality is orientated i don't agree in the slide i still People don't know what their Well, no, because they do.
	We don't have it in the clip, but he mentions Ghostbusters 2.
	It's just like, well, that was a complete failure.
	I mean, that was clearly a movie driven by agenda.
	Destiny brings up Ghostbusters 3 and is like, well, that wasn't driven by an agenda in the same way Ghostbusters 2 was, the all-female remake or whatever it was.
	And the argument being, well, no, average people of all stripes just look at that and go, oh, they've just added loads of women because, whammon.
	Like, everyone can tell that's what it was about, and therefore it flopped.
	But this is the argument they had, and I guess we should watch the clip.
	It's quite long, but I think it's probably worthwhile, so we can hear the different sides that were presented.
	You think there isn't a political and moral goal in what they're doing?
	It's just wrong.
	There is a political goal.
	The political goal is to show society whatever it is they want to see so they can make the most fucking money off of us.
	That's absolutely true.
	If that was true, then why didn't we get a Black Panther movie like this like 20 years ago or more women in media 20 years ago?
	Because this particular variant of politics is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it's taken the media establishment, the Hollywood establishment, by storm.
	Like, these things are gender-driven, and this is something that's driving Disney into the ground, man.
	Is your argument actually that Disney is, like, that Disney has a moral objective to, like, make the world more progressive, and because of that, they're just, like, burning cash right now, and they're failing?
	I didn't say Disney, no.
	People in Disney.
	I mean, I don't know about, like, the high-ups.
	I'm sure they're fucking hating it.
	Do you not think that the board of directors has a vested interest in fiduciary responsibility in maximizing profit?
	I think the problem that you have is that you view these things as monolithic.
	Yes.
	From a materialist perspective, yes.
	Thank you.
	I know.
	But they're not monolithic.
	No, not monolithic.
	They're materialistic.
	Yeah, okay.
	The thing is more than the sum of its components, but the components within it are individual actors with their own agendas, and they come to these things with a particular perspective, and in many cases to push a specific agenda.
	And this agenda is costing them money.
	They have their hits, but they have many losses as well.
	And it's something that I don't think is sustainable.
	So you think 75-year-old executives at Disney are thinking, we want gay rights.
	We really need to make the world more SJW. You guys can live in denial about this if you want.
	But the people who make these movies have morals of their own.
	And the people who fund these things have morals of their own.
	Of course, they obviously have physical, pragmatic, necessary requirements on them.
	And this is why I think that there's probably a lot going on behind the scenes about...
	Well, probably serious conversations about sort of like, you know, the profitability of woke movies.
	And in many ways, they don't seem very profitable.
	But there's no doubt that there's a push towards this.
	The directors will tell you this.
	The actors will tell you this.
	I don't see why we would sit there and say that they don't have this agenda.
	Because we're Marxists, I guess.
	Evidence is not on your side.
	Well, they're not Marxists, are they?
	Well, they are.
	No, they're not.
	I would agree with Cole and Sapphira as they're quite clearly a political agenda that they're committed to, which is independent of market forces.
	I'll concede on that.
	But they're not Marxists.
	Let's just make that perfectly clear.
	I know that's your contention with the intersectionists, that you don't think they're Marxists in the true sense.
	I should correct myself real quick, though.
	I said Ghostbusters 2 because I couldn't remember the damn name of the movie.
	The Ghostbusters remake, in which it was all female.
	I should correct myself on that first.
	But the argument there was essentially just, like, they're all money-hungry capitalists who are just doing this to make money, and Cole Spector being like, well, no, no.
	Like, they literally do it because you can name the individuals, you can listen to their interviews, and they say why they're doing it.
	I mean, they'll just argue, like, I want representation in the movie, so I've just inserted alphabets because representation.
	Or the movie should represent something that we don't have in media, which is a little black movie or something like that.
	In those cases, I think, for example, what's her name?
	The producer of Star Wars.
	The feminist lady.
	I can't remember what she's called.
	But she made that argument, basically.
	And I take her for her word.
	But there are other...
	It is quite easy to lay claim to doing something on moral reasons, but still to go where the money is.
	It's still possible to do that.
	So, I mean, this is the parts of it, though.
	So, you have the argument about, is this profitable?
	And this does take place, obviously.
	Like, no one's going to deny that that argument doesn't take place.
	But very often, it's also, well, also, I don't care if it's not profitable.
	Like, I have more money than God.
	What if I burn some money?
	Who cares?
	And you can see this in the examples within Disney.
	I mean, Disney being the big leak recently.
	We've shown these clips before, so I won't play them, so we'll just go over them to make this point, which is, well, now we actually have the interviews.
	I mean, Disney was one of the examples brought up in the debate, and, well, we can see it here.
	I mean, this is an individual who works at Disney, and just openly says, yeah, I was able to put my not-at-all-secret gay agenda into the movies and adding queerness to children's programming wherever she could.
	That was her word.
	She would just add it for no reason.
	Just to have characters kissed who were gay because...
	Queerness.
	We're like, right.
	Is that a discussion of, well, it'd be profitable if we had these characters kissed?
	No, it's definitely not.
	It's her adding it in because she can and no one's going to stop her.
	Because to stop her would be politically incorrect.
	Let's give the kids a healthy dose of queerism is what she wants to do.
	Yeah, but she also did it, obviously, for intersectional reasoning.
	She was just like, well, there needs to be more gay representation in media otherwise.
	This country's homophobic, transphobic, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, patriarchy.
	And therefore she added all this crap, and no one stopped her because everyone was too afraid, by the sounds of it.
	Because she also gives the example that she was told before she was there, people would stop them from doing such things.
	There was definitely the presence of repressive tolerance in this meeting.
	Go to the next one, we can also see the fact that apparently there was a lady demanding that 50% of all characters become alphabets.
	I'm including racial minorities as alphabets, because remember, Yukmugimurs.
	Folks, very human.
	All those people with non-white skin are apparently Yukmugimurs, according to the newest guidance.
	No longer BAME, or POC, or BIPOC, or whatever the hell else other alphabet kind of words.
	Yeah, so that's the demand.
	Of course, this doesn't even make any kind of sense.
	50% of all characters need to be gay or brown-skinned.
	What?
	That doesn't even make sense according to representation.
	If we go to the next image, I mean, this is...
	So if you click on the second one there, this is the YouGov poll we've shown before, in which you just have the numbers of Americans who are Jewish, Native American, transgender, blah blah blah blah blah, and then compare that to what most Americans think the percentage is.
	And it's just wildly wrong.
	I know.
	And as you can see there, if you just add up the percentage, it's not going to equal 50%.
	But you add up all the alphabets, it's not going to do it.
	And yet, when you look at the proportions estimated by the Americans asked in this poll, oh god, is it off?
	I mean, like, what was the funniest one?
	I think half of the country is black.
	It's just like...
	How could you think that?
	Like, how out of touch do you have to be to think that?
	Oh wait, no, it's no one's fault, is it?
	Because where do people get a lot of their information?
	Media, who is literally perverting the media to socialize things as 50% alphabets?
	Yeah.
	The lady we just showed before, who works for Disney.
	I'm just amazed that people by this point don't just believe the opposite of what the media tells them, to be honest.
	But this obviously goes back to the argument, it's like, oh, they're just doing it for money, bro.
	They're just trying to make money off this new woke fad.
	No.
	There is more to it than that.
	We can literally point to the individuals.
	I mean, we used to just have names or occasional interview.
	I mean, now we have the leaked Zoom calls we can point to, in which the individual literally says, I'm going to add 50% all characters being alphabet.
	Why?
	Because ideology.
	She's not arguing because profit.
	This is not even a factor in the discussion.
	So there you have it.
	I mean, just wrong.
	Just flat wrong, and we have the video evidence to prove it on that.
	But if we move forward, we can all see more of this.
	There is a guy who was apparently his entire job, or at least part of his job, is being an alphabet tracker as well.
	What?
	Literally all he does, just tracker.
	As you see, he says he made a tracker so they could track how many queer stories are going on, gender non-conforming characters, canonical trans characters, and canonical bisexual characters.
	That's his job.
	That's all he does.
	If not, if it's just part of his job, he's wasting that amount of his job.
	Literally just tracking queerness.
	Within Disney movies.
	That's got to be one of the most useless jobs I've ever heard of.
	Again, for money?
	You think that's worth money?
	No, no, that's a waste of money if there ever is one.
	Yeah, but that doesn't matter.
	Because again, the whole system is not monolithic.
	You have these individual actors and, well, they're not concerned with just, ah, I'm a greedy capitalist caricature that the Soviet Union would draw.
	You know, the pig man just shoving money into his mouth.
	No, they're human beings, and human beings have their own ideological will and ability to carry it out in this example.
	If we move forward, we can also see another individual at Disney who said that, well, they had instituted censorship upon the staff at Disney, to use any kind of gendered language, Because you just declared this haram.
	Bloody hell.
	Right?
	Again?
	Yeah?
	This is for money, is it?
	This is about money.
	No, there's no way you can...
	This is Mr.
	Krabs.
	Not unless they have a penny jar every time you break the rule.
	Then it's about money.
	It's about, I don't know, fixing the church roof or something with the penny jar.
	Oh yeah, it would definitely go towards that.
	But no, this is clearly not Mr.
	Krabs thinking, money!
	This is someone with ideological will who doesn't want gendered language because it might make people feel uncomfortable.
	Yeah, they're not adhering to market forces.
	They're trying to change the way market forces operate.
	It's gaslighting.
	We have the individuals, okay?
	We have the individuals at the company level discussing what they're doing with ideological will.
	And, well, there you have it.
	This is how companies really work.
	Which is, sometimes, you might get the perfect capitalists who run such companies...
	Yeah, it's amoralists.
	Then, well, actually, these things turn out to be a moral good, because they can just produce lots of stuff for the public, and cheaply, and it's good, and no one's really harmed.
	Like, everything is good for everyone in that situation, and everyone wins.
	Whereas, when you have ideological actors who want to insert their politics, well, then everyone who doesn't agree with that politics is screwed.
	Yeah.
	In this regard.
	So, we'll move forward because there you have it.
	Wrong.
	But also we can see some more developments on this.
	So in response to that footage you're getting released by Mark Rufo there.
	Sorry.
	Yeah.
	Is it Mark Rufo?
	Chris Rufo.
	Sorry.
	Getting his name wrong.
	But this is apparently that Rod DeSantis and the GOP are also looking at getting rid of Disneyland's autonomy.
	So you know they have their own little special area?
	Do they?
	Yeah, well they've got their own special rules.
	I don't like the sound of this.
	No, it's like ANCAP Dream, frankly.
	There's just a bunch of regulations just taken back.
	Disney's in charge of them.
	Security stuff, they just have their own fleet of security.
	This is the Epstein dimension of Disneyland, is it?
	No, it doesn't seem to be Epstein-y in a way, because the security guards, for example, are all there and they're able to boss you around, but it's the Florida Highway police officers who actually do any of the legal stuff.
	So it's just the fact that they have a bunch of autonomy in this regard to build their own things and whatnot.
	But if they're just going to be weird ideological leftists, then, well, the GOP who run Florida are just going to be like, hmm, yeah, better put my thumb on that.
	Just put that down.
	Close it.
	Which is what you would expect.
	Yes.
	If we move forward again, we can see that also the White House is still trying to counter this horrible, horrible anti-groomer bill this time by bringing in a wonderful woman.
	That doesn't even have get the word gay in it.
	It must be stated.
	Nope.
	But they're going to bring in a wonderful woman.
	Oh, the best woman.
	Jeopardy.
	That's for sure.
	I love that.
	The highest-earning female contestant of Jeopardy is Amy.
	Right.
	Female contestant.
	Highest earning.
	The male contestant presumably busy training.
	Yeah.
	At least the highest one.
	And she also says these bills will cause the deaths of children and that's really sad to me and frightening.
	Name how.
	How exactly.
	The bill is that you can't groom kids.
	If you're a teacher, you can't be bringing up all this stuff, sexual orientation stuff, gender identity stuff to kindergartners, and then keeping it from the parents as you groom the child into being transgender.
	You're not allowed to do that anymore.
	Serious question.
	What's more likely to kill children, do you think?
	Actually allowing them legally to be groomed.
	Or denying them from doing something that could actually come to their detriment in adult life.
	And again, if the family wants to have this discussion, or in society, that's fine.
	Just not at the state-funded school.
	You freaks.
	Yeah.
	It's simple.
	Moving forward, there's also just the obvious point there about passing, which I just want to throw in this article for no reason.
	No reason.
	It has no relevance to the previous contestant.
	Not all trans people want to pass.
	This made me laugh.
	Passing has long been a standard, and for some, even a goal in the trans community.
	You would have fought the goal for everyone.
	Surely.
	Yes.
	Do you remember Willis earlier, who's not changing his pronouns, is going to look like a man, is not going to make any effort?
	No, no, apparently that's the true transgenderism.
	Right.
	Whereas transgender people who don't want to do, well, actually do try to make an effort to look like a woman, you know, wear a dress or even anything, apparently, they're not real transgenders.
	They're not authentic transgenders.
	So trans passing, when used to describe trans people, to pass means to be perceived by others as one's gender, not one's sex at birth.
	Right.
	The whole point of being transgender, you would have thought.
	Yes.
	Quote, I worry sometimes about even passing as cis because I do want people who are in the community to know that I'm there, that there's people like you out there, well, altogether, if anything happens to you, I'm here, said Richie in response to this article about her arguing why she shouldn't have said Richie in response to this article about her arguing why she shouldn't have to pass because in her words, she wants to show off that there are trans people in the community?
	Yeah.
	That's a good excuse, isn't it?
	Jeopardy players, certainly, representing the trans community.
	Anyway, there's also no shortage of reasons why this bill had to pass, and we can just demonstrate them, because they keep popping back up every day, because the United States is infested with this stuff in every state.
	If we go to the next one, we can see Nickelodeon.
	So it's not just Disney, of course.
	Nickelodeon as well decided to make this advert, in which they're telling your 12-year-olds that they can be trans too, just like us.
	Come and be cool.
	And this is part of their Trans Awareness Day, so there's a big old advert there for your kids.
	Why are they obsessed with the kids?
	Sick cretins.
	Clear them out.
	What do they want to do?
	Why are they always obsessed with the kiddos?
	I mean, that's the argument that they're groomers.
	But groomers, for many things, takes place.
	I mean, you have groomers for...
	Yeah.
	But you also have groomers for ideology.
	And this is what a lot of this, frankly, is.
	And we can see it going forward as well.
	I really don't think there is much of a strong distinction as one could claim.
	They're quite literally committed to collapsing everything we understand as sex into gender, which would actually negate the material dimension of sexual attraction, which would make age a non-factor.
	So they are committed to normalising paedophilia, whichever way you look at it.
	Queer theory is based in being a nonce.
	Yes.
	Like, that's absolutely true.
	Yeah.
	Sorry, I don't know what's happened to our TV, so I can't see the screen anymore.
	But if we go to the next one, we should be able to see that I also just love the fact that whenever people look at this, and they were like, that's stunning and brave, you know, the trans 12-year-old there.
	But the Soph character, for example, Soph, you may know, do you not know?
	So Soph's a YouTuber who, well, was a YouTuber.
	She got scrubbed.
	For doing memes.
	Very funny memes.
	She's a victim of a horrible right-wing movement that's trying to coerce her into being horrible and right-wing.
	Right.
	But the trans 12-year-old standing in Brave Bro.
	Of course.
	Okay, yeah.
	Makes sense.
	Alright, sure.
	If we move forward, we also have the fact that there's no shortage of memes for this bill to exist.
	This is a story here.
	Lauren Chen promoting it.
	Saying, exclusive.
	Connecticut school nurse is suspended.
	What's she suspended for?
	Hmm.
	She was suspended over transphobic Facebook posts.
	Damn it, the TV keeps turning off and I can't read her there.
	Revealing students 11 were on purity blockers, 12 others were non-binary, and that teachers were helping them keep it a secret.
	Why are you keeping it a secret?
	Why don't you just tell the parents?
	It's almost like they don't want the parents to know.
	What's with the deceit?
	Hmm.
	Funny that.
	Yeah.
	Funny that.
	Hmm.
	Strange.
	Also, just 12 kids will become non-binary in a classroom.
	That's a proportional amount.
	What is happening?
	Seriously.
	What should happen?
	Again, I don't even believe non-binary is a thing, but okay, sure, if we accept that non-binary is a thing, what percentage of the population is that?
	0.075.
	No, apparently 12 out of a class of 30.
	Oh, really?
	Oh, great, yeah.
	If we move forward, we can see more of this as well.
	Just more examples.
	This one, the teacher explains how she sneaks into her LGBTQ activism, into her teaching, whilst hiding it from the parents.
	And she just explains in here, she tries to argue.
	She has that pink triangle up there.
	You know what that's for?
	What?
	For the Holocaust.
	So, he would put it on gay men.
	So, you would single them out as gay men, and therefore they would be killed.
	Why are they using this for...
	So she puts it up as a symbol of solidarity with gay men?
	No.
	What?
	Because she's an idiot.
	She doesn't know what it means.
	She says it was a symbol for gay women and asexuals during the Holocaust.
	Is it really?
	No, it was only for gay men.
	So, I mean, just wrong on one count.
	I mean, already, just on her teaching...
	Matter about the Holocaust, you're an idiot.
	So, I mean, you should be struck off for that anyway.
	But also, she openly says that this is part of her trying to sneak in LGBTQ activism.
	How do they become teachers?
	I don't know.
	How?
	It's always stupid.
	But also, it's not really the point about the triangle, it's the deceit.
	Why are you engaging in deceit, lady?
	Your own words.
	You're keeping it a secret.
	Why is that?
	Funny.
	Let's move forward.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Of course, we can also see a cadetic at school here.
	A lady saying, I may be tired, but I'm out here doing my best on Trans Day of Visibility.
	So, this was the fact that she was trying to promote her activism and sneaking it in, and also trying to hide it from students, sorry, parents, who complain about the whole situation.
	Unsurprisingly.
	Thank God.
	She wants to sneak in her pronouns.
	Interesting.
	She deleted this post after it was made available to the parents.
	Funny that.
	Moving forward, it also goes to the next one, in which we see lips of TikTok, also listing here that some schools are now giving you an unbelievable list of pronouns.
	I love the future.
	If you go to the next image here, please, John, you can see the full list.
	Many of them made up.
	He, him, his, she, hers, hers, they, them, theirs.
	Alright, those are English words.
	What the hell is that?
	How do you even say that?
	This is for children of what age?
	I mean, is it a Russian X? Is it a Chinese X? How do you transliterate this into English?
	It kind of works.
	Right.
	You better respect my gibberish, though.
	And if you don't respect the gibberish, well, apparently the intersectionals don't like that very much.
	Here's the next one we can see a student nurse who didn't take very well.
	She didn't take kindly to someone not respecting her gibberish.
	So she decided to tell her patient that she must respect the pronouns and the patient laughed.
	Because that was ridiculous.
	So apparently the nurse in this circumstance decided to mess up putting the needle in and did it again just so she could inflict pain on the patient at this university.
	Wonderful people.
	So Tucker Carlson making a segment about that.
	And if we go to the next one we can also see another teacher who's just...
	This is the bit I can't get over.
	They all film it.
	Put it on the internet.
	So this is her saying, it makes me very angry when people don't want me to talk about gender and sexualities in the classroom.
	Yes, because as you can see, non-binary teachers are responsible for two-year-olds at daycare.
	The hell are you doing?
	But why would you want to teach those concepts to two-year-olds when they can hardly even hold a crayon at that age?
	You wish to bring sexual concepts to two-year-olds, even though two-year-olds are not sexual creatures.
	Strange.
	Strange desire.
	But also just like, why do you keep filming your crimes and put them on the internet?
	I'm glad you do, because we can all see them.
	Yes.
	I mean, there was a funny story from when I was a kid.
	There was some girls who decided to steal a bus from my local town, and then they filmed the whole thing, drove it into a wall, smashed up the bus, and uploaded it to YouTube.
	And then said, oh, I hope no one catches us.
	Yeah, they got caught.
	Nice work.
	It's the same thing, if you're going to keep uploading it.
	But there's also just the point, and it was mentioned earlier, but I'll end on it, which is that there are groomers of many kinds.
	There are not just groomers for that.
	There are also groomers for revolutionaries.
	And that is why they go after the kiddos all the time.
	It is why revolutionary movements are obsessed with the kiddos.
	And how they want them taught in their special way, while indoctrinated in their special way.
	And you can see it here, in which they're just trying to indoctrinate them into being intersectional revolutionaries.
	There is also the idiot teachers, who just think that it's about being more accepting, bro.
	Yeah, the useful idiots.
	Yeah, but I really think they're outnumbered by the active...
	Cynical...
	Freaks.
	Yes.
	That's the nicest way you can possibly put it, really.
	But there's that.
	And now we can see the evidence that Hassan and Destiny, wrong on that topic.
	They did.
	Go to Chelsea.
	So, Chelsea takeover versus anti-racism.
	As many are aware, because we've covered this before, Chelsea have been put up for sale by their owner, Roman Abramovich, because he had his assets frozen by the UK government, for reasons we all know.
	This has had huge consequences for the club, because it means until they find a new buyer, they can't carry out any transactions, to my knowledge, at all.
	This means they can't pay their own staff.
	Can't even pay their own players.
	No.
	Can't pay their own players, they can't offer new contracts to those players, they can't enter the market for new players, and of course there is the logistical problem as well.
	It was calculated at the time that the club was put up for sale that they had three weeks before entering insolvency.
	Very recently they lost their free sponsorship and their kit manufacturer Nike are prohibited from manufacturing shirts for them as well.
	Somehow, however, the club has obviously survived.
	It's been rumoured that the players have been chipping in to pay for travel to matches.
	It was rumoured also that Chelsea have prolonged their survival by not paying wages at all until a takeover is completed.
	This was outlined as a possible cause of action by director of football Petr Cech.
	But whatever the case, the most important thing for them, of course, is to find a buyer and formally complete the takeover.
	Because it was the UK government who effectively seized control of the club, they inherited the responsibility of...
	That's what happened.
	I agree.
	I just love the idea that the UK government should become the one who's the buyer.
	It's just a state-run club now.
	In effect.
	In effect, it is at this present time.
	I never foresaw this.
	Oh, not in my wildest nightmares.
	UK GOV FC. Yeah, but they inherited the responsibility of finding a suitable buyer and ensuring that it goes through as quickly as possible.
	They delegated this responsibility to the RAINN group.
	It normally takes six weeks to complete a takeover, but Chelsea probably don't have that time, financially speaking.
	But if we get to the next clip, but in short, a shortlist has been made for all the possible or the most suitable candidates, according to the RAINN group anyway.
	It includes LA Dodgers owner, you've probably never heard of these, but LA Dodgers owner Ted Bowley, Sir Martin Broughton, Swiss businessman Hans-Jord Wiss, Jonathan Goldstein, Lord Sebastian Coe, you've probably heard of them, and the Ricketts family, who own the Chicago Cubs baseball team.
	It's rumoured that the Ricketts family are the rain group's preferred bidder, which would make them favourites to acquire the club, but they're not very popular.
	And the reason for this, according to the Chelsea Supporters Trust, is because they're Islamophobic.
	What?
	Because they're Islamophobic.
	Sorry, they know what Islam is.
	Is this where this is going to go?
	They know that Islam's opinions on homosexuality are not...
	Kosher.
	It's along those lines.
	We're going to go into detail on precisely what the object of contention is.
	But if we move on to the I article, which covers this.
	Okay, so the Chelsea Supporters Club, trust, sorry, who have been vocal in the weeks since Obama was sanctioned by the UK government for alleged links to Vladimir Putin's regime, have reiterated that they will do what we can to protect the club from falling into the wrong hands, insisting any prospective new owners must support inclusivity and diversity.
	Perhaps of greater importance than our asks for greater fan representation and protection of the club's heritage, any new owners must share the inclusive views of Chelsea FC and our diverse support space.
	The Trust said in an open letter on Wednesday, we will challenge any prospective owner where there are concerns over their commitments to these values.
	Ricketts said, in an email in 2012, Christians and Jews can have mutual respects for each other to create a civil society.
	As you know, Islam cannot do that.
	Therefore we cannot ever let Islam become a large part of our society.
	Muslims are, naturally, my, are, enemy, due to their deep antagonism and bias against non-Muslims.
	His son, Tom...
	Okay, hang on.
	Go on.
	That's 100% true.
	That is 100% true.
	Because they're arguing there about civil society, right?
	That's the word to use.
	But what is civil society?
	It's the different clubs and organisations we make up outside of the government, in our own town, or wherever else, right?
	Yeah.
	And, well, there are literally quotes in the Quran, and I'm sure people will, lovely enough, find them and put them in the comments, in which you can just have quotes from the Quran or the Hadith in which, endlessly, you are commanded by God to not make friends with non-Muslims.
	You have to live separate from non-Muslims at all times, if you can help it.
	And it's like, okay, there.
	This is why you end up with Muslim cycling clubs.
	Yeah, and then there is, of course, the theological differences between the Islamic world and what you could call the Judeo-Christian world.
	Where, of course...
	I find it quite well said.
	But of course, if...
	Again, I'm not particularly well versed on this.
	I studied this in one of my critical base theory episodes a while ago.
	But in short, being a good Muslim entails, in effect, obeying the law, or obeying Islamic law, in effect.
	It's not called...
	It doesn't translate to submission for no reason.
	That has more proactive application in the case of Christianity, where good action amounts to doing good, ultimately because you know it's in your heart that that is right.
	There's actually a concept of free will intrinsic.
	You could say, in Christianity, which actually places it in, you could say, tension with Islam on the grounds that you have one claiming these are the laws and you just must obey them whether you like it or not.
	So then you have those who are, of course, look at the world in a much more, you could say, historicist way.
	I mean, that's very vaguely explained.
	But in short, it's not an unfounded point at all.
	It's very, very strongly put and put in the most non-woke way imaginable.
	It's not hedged in the slightest, but it's not the most misguided observation about Islam that has ever been said.
	That's absolutely right.
	But even so, the person who made that comment didn't actually make a bid for the club.
	It's the father of the person who's made a bid for the club.
	Yeah, but he's still not wrong.
	Yeah.
	I found a query if you want it.
	Go on.
	So, from the Quran.
	Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers.
	And whoever of you does that has nothing with Allah except when taking precaution against them in prudence.
	Yeah.
	So basically, do not take non-believers as allies, as in friends and whatnot as well, this extends to, unless you have to, in prudence, because you're in enemy territory, or because you just need to.
	Yeah.
	The case made, it's fundamentally not wrong.
	And there are many more.
	I just don't have time to find them.
	And then there are, of course, other matters which we won't go into to justify that point.
	It's just endless articles just as soon as I googled it, like, can Muslims and non-Muslims be friends?
	The comments, anyway, were made 10 years ago.
	Joe Ricketts, the man who made the comments, is not actually involved in the takeover bid.
	So you have to ask, like, why has so much of a fuss been kicked here?
	Are the Chelsea supporters' trusts, like, I'm really disappointed at them, really, really suggesting that because the bidder's dad said something strong about Muslims once, that they should be prohibited from acquiring the club altogether at a time that it's in an existential crisis, literally.
	Is it me, or does that not sound a bit insane?
	No, it sounds perfectly reasonable if you're an ideologue.
	Yeah.
	That's what this is all about.
	We cannot have an ideological enemy owning the club.
	Yeah.
	And it's someone who believes something which is true, but not politically true, as in politically correct.
	Of course, the Ricketts family have been forced to do the politically correct thing if we get the next article up here.
	And they've basically come forward to denounce the comments included in the email that leaked in the hope that it would win the Chelsea fans around.
	The statement reads as follows.
	Our family rejects any form of hate in the strongest possible terms.
	Racism and Islamophobia have no place whatsoever in our society.
	We have developed deep and abiding partnership with the Muslim community in Chicago, as well as with all communities of colour.
	Respect for diversity and inclusion are central to our family's values.
	If we prevail in our bid for Chelsea, we commit to the club and to the fans that it will actively promote these values.
	Well, it's needless to say, that didn't wash with the fans.
	But I'm just going to say, I'm sceptical about the Ricketts family too, but not for this reason.
	I'm not convinced, and I'm really, really sorry if this comes across as snobby, but after the European Super League, I don't trust American owners in English football.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm not going to elaborate on the European Super League, because it was...
	In short, the fact that they thought that that franchise was a good idea, effectively completely changing the face of the game for the sake of appealing to the eastern markets, in effect, just goes to show how far away they are from understanding the The value that British people or European people see in football or what they call soccer.
	But at that point aside, apparently they haven't been particularly good owners for the Chicago Cubs baseball team either.
	Apparently they're suffering from quite a bit of debt.
	And if they're in debt under their ownership, I'm not entirely sure that acquiring another club is either responsible or a good idea or For, of course, the club that needs to be taken over, which is Chelsea.
	But anyway, despite the contrived source of anger, as you could probably expect, hashtag NoToRickets has become a movement.
	So if we move on to the first tweet of NoToRickets, you can see, yeah, this is an organised protest which is going to take place tomorrow at 12pm at Stamford Bridge, uploaded by Con.
	As you can see, it's near enough an official movement hosted by the Chelsea Supporters' Trust If you move on to the next, we can see another fan who's unhappy from all Chelsea fans.
	Good luck to Todd Bowley and co.
	I don't know much about Todd Bowley, but for the sake of our football club, win this race for us.
	He's, of course, one of the other bidders who made the shortlist.
	And if we get to the next clip up here, we can see someone who actually made an attempt to claim that Thomas Tuchel agrees of their cause.
	But if you move quickly on to the next, we can see that that was actually photoshopped by an opportunist.
	But there is a petition that is trying to stop the Ricketts family from acquiring the club, which has exceeded 8,000 signatories.
	Which, even though that's of course not enough for it to...
	18,000.
	18,000, yeah, you're quite right.
	Even though that's not enough to demand a debate in Parliament, I don't believe.
	That's quite some number.
	Well, I think it is enough to get a response from the government.
	Yeah, but is it enough for it to be...
	No, that's 100 rounds.
	Yeah, that's what I thought.
	So, yeah.
	A lot of unrest about this.
	What do you think, though, this says about English football, the fact that this has happened?
	It's out of interest.
	I don't think the government gives a toss.
	No.
	No, but then again, there were rumours, and I heard this when it broke out on TalkSport, that the government were considering actually blocking the Ricketts family from the short, or not including them on the shortlist, for the reason that they've said some concerning, or, shall we say, emitted some concerning views on certain social matters.
	The fact that we're monitoring people this closely for their political views on the subject of whether they deserve to complete a major takeover, I think marks a very concerning time.
	Yeah, I mean, this may very well be expanded to a lot more things.
	If you said one thing that's anti-politically correct, then you can't do business.
	Yeah, you will be barred from buying a football club for the rest of your life.
	Many people say absolutely terrible things, but it's one thing to acknowledge that as a terrible thing and another thing to say that it disqualifies you from, I don't know, doing, for example, doing good in developing a football club.
	I just think this is an extremely bad way to regulate how business takeovers.
	I agree with that.
	Yeah, somewhat uncontroversial, I know.
	But yeah, I'm going to wrap this up anyway.
	So a few months ago, as you may be aware, I wrote an article about how sports broadcasting has metamorphosed into a woke kleptocracy.
	What this story suggests regressively is that this culture has finally reached fan-based institutions, which I didn't even anticipate.
	I had some hope that there was still the old spirit of football there, if you like, when the European Super League kicked off.
	And you actually had good working-class people, the old guard of football supporters, if you like, who supported the clubs on the terraces.
	Taking to the streets to actually contest this, to contest the European Super League, to the point where it actually never happened.
	It was a remarkable victory.
	But on subjects like this, it really does feel like the woke zeitgeist has got them.
	So you know, your argument, for example, against Hassan Paikou and Destiny, this, in a sense, suggests that the intersectionalist attempt to alter the way that markets function is working, to the point that capitalism is altering to become more progressive.
	Well, you can't engage in business unless you agree with the ideology.
	Yeah.
	It's the same as any socialist country.
	Yeah.
	You could understand it as a new managerial class, in a sense, who like capitalism in as much as they're the ones who benefit from it.
	Because on that note, should we go to video comments?
	Yes, let's do that.
	Okay.
	Note here, this article from last year, they hadn't added the A yet, so they're already behind the times.
	Is the A asexual or something?
	I don't know.
	Such bigotry.
	Everybody knows it's LGBTQQIAAP2S+. Say it with me.
	Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual, two-spirited, plus.
	What's two-spirited?
	And if you believe all that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
	I almost didn't realise who it was, though, with that voice.
	Was it too spirited?
	I think...
	So it's meant to be an Indian thing, where I think you're in tone with the river gods or something.
	I bloody know.
	What?
	But questioning weirds me out even more.
	I thought that was what bi-curious was.
	I suppose that's only for bi-peoples.
	Isn't that just don't know?
	Like, you've held a man's hand, how does this feel?
	But are you only questioning in that moment?
	Surely that's not an identity, is it?
	Because you are questioning.
	Well, I suppose that's what the plus is for.
	Just any old crap.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Oh, boy.
	But there's no minus.
	Sorry.
	No marks for that.
	Let's go to the next one.
	It's every day when I get home from work, my cat is here in my front window waiting for me to come home.
	And they usually yell at me when I get inside.
	How's it going, cat?
	It's a nice cat.
	Yeah, it's cute.
	I always enjoy it when people say animals.
	I do want to...
	You know you can pick them up by the neck because their mums used to?
	Yeah, it doesn't hurt them.
	That doesn't hurt them?
	I don't think it does, no.
	Because I remember there was a debate about this with rabbits as well.
	You can pick rabbits up by their ears and of course they go limp.
	But I got told that hurts them.
	Don't try it on my behalf.
	Someone did tell me once that they have no nerves on that part of the neck or something.
	I suppose if there's teeth...
	Or very little, yeah.
	Wouldn't make sense.
	No, I don't think it does hurt them, to my knowledge.
	Let's know in the chat.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Hey Shadow and that oil guy.
	I know you planned a nice little meetup on the Shadley Discord.
	Here's the thing, you know of my grandad's illness and me looking after him at the moment I can't attend, so I've got a bit of a compromise.
	When this video goes up, I'm going to have some cider when this place unloads eaters, and presumably you're going to start drinking when you meet up, have a cider when the video goes up, and it'll be like we're drinking together symbolically because I can't be there.
	I've got to look after my grandad.
	Maybe I'll get to see you guys next time.
	Who knows?
	We'll give you a toast, we promise.
	Reminds me of a joke I heard the other day.
	So, Irishman walks into a bar, orders three pints of Guinness, right?
	He sips the first one, second one, third one.
	He goes, each one, until it's all gone.
	And he says, the bar's like, I can just pour you a new one each time.
	What the hell are you getting three?
	He's like, no, no, no, I've got a friend in Australia and a friend in Canada, and we all drink at the same time, so it's like I'm drinking with my friends.
	He's like, oh, that's weird, but that's a cool tradition, whatever.
	Goes on for like a year or whatever, and then he comes back and he says, oh, can I get two pints?
	Today.
	Two points.
	This goes on for a while.
	He's like, look, I know your tradition.
	I'm very sorry to hear about your loss.
	Presumably one of your friends died.
	He goes, no, I just quit drinking.
	They're still drinking.
	Doesn't make any sense.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Very Irish joke.
	So something I noticed while I was in Florida, and I just want to get your guys' thoughts on this.
	I remember seeing a few months ago the Democrats releasing their plans for the 2020 midterms and 2024 election, and they didn't include Ohio and Florida on their swing states list.
	Which kind of gave me hope because, well, maybe they've given up on Florida.
	It's a very big state to win.
	But when I was in Florida, I could see lots of billboards saying like, you know, I'm not a Republican anymore.
	That's Trump's party.
	And like, I'm a Cheney Republican, not a Trump Republican.
	And so there are still a lot of people out there trying to turn it blue again.
	Yeah, they've got no chance of taking Florida whilst Ronda Sanders is there.
	I mean, that kind of talk definitely comes off as the Dems who remember it being a flip state just coping with the new reality, which is now their votes mean nothing.
	They will never change it black.
	So...
	That's good to hear, because whenever I see anything from the people who live there, or just friends or anything else, everyone's just like, yeah, things are better.
	I don't want the Dems back.
	Those people are bloody crazy.
	It's just like, good.
	Yeah, I underestimated just how crazy they would be in power.
	But we should also celebrate it, because there's a lot of Doomerism on the right, and especially with more territory has been ceded to the left, the left have taken this state full-time.
	Alright, look, we're two and one back.
	Yeah.
	Like, come on, we're taking territory back for fun.
	No, no, DeSantis is a serious white pill.
	Yeah.
	He is.
	But also just like, that's another state.
	That's okay.
	That's one that's not mad.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	That's good ground.
	Keep it that way.
	One exists.
	Go to the next one.
	Hey guys, just a short story about how inclusivity ruins everything.
	My daughter's going to be turning seven soon and she wanted to invite some kids from her class to her birthday party.
	Unfortunately, due to school policy, unless we invite all 23 kids of her class, we can't invite any of them.
	So, we're being so inclusive that nobody gets to come to my daughter's birthday party.
	Incredible idea.
	But you're going to send secret invitations to those you actually want.
	I mean, that's a great story, and it does show the madness, but like, what the hell?
	How do they have any jurisdiction over what you can do in that regard?
	That's just cruel.
	I don't know, maybe it's your birthday friend, and your daughter happens to come, and maybe, I don't know, you invite the family you also happen to know, but none of them could show up but the daughter.
	And then the two daughters can go off and play laser tag or whatever, and you can sit there and drink.
	You could kind of reconceptualise it as an event of self-hatred and shame.
	Yeah.
	What, a struggle session?
	No, no, against our inability to facilitate inclusivity, which is why we've, you know, collected all those who we were going to invite anyway to this event, where we talk about inclusivity.
	That's just the way that you could frame this in a social justice context.
	I know this is a moment.
	Me and Harry are going to do a book club on the Cultural Revolution soon, and there's a wonderful moment in there.
	I mean, spoilers, but...
	So after the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward and all the famine and all that, there's a lovely sentence in which they mention the fact that everyone just became a capitalist after.
	Everyone knew how they had their own little side game, their own little corruption, trading goods, whatever, to make money.
	Because everyone else is dead.
	Everyone else who didn't engage with that is dead.
	So then the party tries to reinstitute order by sending out these men in tax uniforms to patrol certain roads and try and stop people.
	And just, Frank DeColla just writes, like, these people weren't about to be intimidated by some guy with a cap.
	Like, they lived through the horrors of the famines and the Cultural Revolution.
	I just love the idea in his head where it's just like, there's no respect for authority.
	But also that the masses, frankly, will just eat people at this point as well.
	It's like, you can't do that.
	That's against the law.
	That's a terrible shame, but also you look very tasty.
	Any of the authority figures are just going to get removed.
	Extraordinary situation.
	Yeah, but also any kind of authority in your life that's just ridiculous.
	Just don't respect it.
	Just don't.
	That's all it takes.
	I wish I had that level of bravery, but my god, it must have been bad.
	It's unbelievable.
	Go to the next one.
	So the other day, Callum asked, what will be the next progressive revolution after trans women in sports?
	And I think it's going to be polyamorous legal marriage.
	See, if you look at it, a lot of the groundwork is already there.
	You know, don't sweat shame.
	Love is love.
	The government can't tell consenting adults who they should marry.
	It's all the same rhetoric.
	And if you look at just any dating app, they're all absolutely riddled with, in an open relationship, looking for more partners.
	Absolutely spot on.
	That's a great observation.
	I hadn't even thought of it.
	But you see it all the time.
	Anytime you log into Vice.com, for example, there's always something on why you should become polyamorous.
	That's why being an insult ain't so bad.
	Go to the next one.
	Tony D and Little Joan with another legend on the pines from hauntedhouses.com comes...
	Tony D and Little Joan with another legend on the pines from hauntedhouses.com come the story of...
	Yes.
	Joan, you're being so loud.
	It's very late.
	I shoot these very late at night.
	laughs Tony D and Little Joan with another Legend of the Pines from HauntedHouses.com come the story of...
	Alright, forget it.
	Maybe next time.
	It looks like a Jedi or something.
	Alright, I presume you're listening to this or something, mate, so if you can make sure Joan's in the room.
	Joan, good girl, keep doing it.
	Fantastic.
	Go to the next one.
	Hey Lotus Eaters, so if you remember this video that I showed you about me being an electrical engineer, well...
	It's false.
	No way.
	Not this time.
	Not this time.
	No, not this time.
	It's totally made up.
	I approve.
	The video I actually showed you is from this video here that I found on YouTube.
	What I actually do for a living is car detailing.
	I was going to do a prank involving me being trans and revealing my new gender identity, but I thought that was way too cringe, so I decided to do this instead.
	Well, thank you for sparing us the cringe.
	Also, because I did say, is that you?
	Because I was like, hang on, I swear I've seen that footage before.
	I couldn't put my finger on it, but yeah, yeah, you got us.
	Yeah, you got us.
	These Disney executives are people who have clearly never written or even made anything creative in their entire life.
	They don't have a single creative bone in their body.
	You work for Disney.
	You can make anything happen.
	You can make...
	Princess of thieves in ancient Egypt, aided by the African gods.
	You can do anything.
	But the only thing they can do is just following the latest TikTok trends so these old farts get to say, hello, fellow kids.
	I'm here.
	God, these people are boring and dead inside.
	Do you know who said that Disney is potentially the most dangerous corporation in history back in the 1940s when it was pretty...
	It had only been around for a couple of decades by that point.
	Eisenhower or someone?
	No.
	It was High Priest of Critical Theory, Theodore Adorno.
	Huh.
	Turns out to be pretty based, huh?
	Well, not really.
	It's like, well, they're a terrible weapon, but they're a terrible weapon for who?
	You can use a media outlet like that.
	Well, that was precisely his point.
	They're a weapon for something.
	They could be a weapon for anyone who has the cash.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if it's for critical race theory, or for critical theory...
	Well, he wasn't a critical race theorist, so we'd condemn critical race theory.
	Yeah, I'll stop idolizing.
	Stop arguing on this for now.
	I also just...
	She was mentioning about the fact that they just want to be down with the kids.
	And some of that probably is true.
	I bet there are a bunch of boomer teachers.
	Sorry, not teachers.
	Like...
	What do you call them?
	50-year-old women who have never engaged with politics, but they know that gender stuff is a big thing now, and therefore they're just permittive of the ideological person, like the lady who said she's insulting queerness and stuff, and they just go along with it because they just think, oh no, that's a good thing.
	The same type of people who decided to include, was it, breakdancing at the next Olympics?
	Apparently there's an easter egg.
	I just saw John put it in the chat.
	Where's the easter egg?
	Ah, I'm scared.
	I'm scared now.
	I wonder if oil guy's in a bunch of them or something again.
	I guess we'll see.
	But anyway, good to see you again, Sophie.
	Glad the computer's fixed.
	But also, yeah, sucks, doesn't it?
	Let's go to the written comments on the site.
	Excellent.
	So, Robert Longshaw says, if I was to identify as a woman for a day, but then identify as a man again for the rest of my life, am I still trans?
	Or do I get my get-out-of-jail-free card revoked?
	What do you reckon?
	I'm scared about this Easter egg.
	Apparently there's something behind me.
	What?
	Well, I... Hmm.
	Oh, for God's sake!
	Found it.
	You!
	I'm not going to say it.
	No, I think you'd get your get-out-of-jail-free card revoked if you returned as a man, in the same way that if you came out as gay and then said, actually, you know what, I am straight.
	You wouldn't get your card back for that, would you?
	I'm buying you shots later, and you've got to drink them, that's why.
	Sorry, that's annoying.
	Anyway, Siddy Milan says, well, the eye crashed my cart and fled the scene, so I'm now trans, so let me off.
	Angle works for Caitlyn Jenner, and they killed someone.
	Yeah, I didn't actually forget.
	I should have remembered that.
	That happened with the pedos, too.
	Yeah.
	I mean, we've had, I think, three or four cases in the UK in which someone's been done for noncery, and they've just said in the courtroom, oh, by the way, I'm trans, so don't send me to prison.
	And each time, the judge has gone, well, fair enough.
	No prison time for them.
	It's an effective strategy of perverting the justice system.
	Yeah, because you can argue, well, because of my identity, I am more at risk, therefore I can't be sent to prison.
	And apparently the judges are stupid enough to just go along with it.
	Oh, dear God.
	Individual justice, my ass.
	Yeah.
	Well, SmallLLibertarian says that the whip is super supportive.
	The police and family is super supportive.
	Horrible story and all, but isn't the idea of politicians to be leaders?
	Yep.
	I'm sorry, I might sound like an arse, but I couldn't give a toss about the mental health issues of my MP or how hard the job is.
	If you aren't up for it, don't run.
	There's a job to be done.
	Well, it's not like they're paid poorly, is it?
	So there's a big debate on this.
	This is like fringed governmental nerd stuff.
	Yeah, isn't it the case that the 82,000 that they get is in effect disposable income?
	Because they get their house paid for, they get their expenses paid for on travelling to see their constituents from London, but they get their lunch paid for, their meals paid for.
	What's that £82,000 for?
	That's to their own discretion, right?
	Yeah, I can't remember.
	I think it is taxed as well.
	But there's the argument of how much you actually have to do as an MP. And on paper, officially, there's like a 40-hour workweek.
	So people think, you know...
	Same as any other working person.
	Yeah, but that's on paper.
	In reality, if you actually took the job as a job and weren't just some layabout who's like, I've got PTSD from answering emails, you're going to end up with at least 70 hours working week.
	Yeah, but there are many jobs like that.
	Investment bangers, for example, tend to work those sorts of hours, granted a lot more than politicians do, but...
	But that's where the debate is.
	I don't really know what the answer is, but I do agree with Libertarian's point of view that I don't really care.
	If Nadia Whittem's like, I've got PTSD from answering emails, eh, I don't give a toss.
	Even if some MP was like, I've got serious depression, it was a serious case, I'd be like...
	Either step down or don't.
	I don't know what to do.
	I don't understand this pathological need.
	In this case, there's probably, as we've alluded to, a reason for making this public.
	But if...
	The crime is never having a mental problem, is it?
	It's...
	Almost politicising that for a different end.
	And that's what a lot of people, including myself, suspect might be going on here.
	But I guess, again, we're going to have to see and suspend judgement for now.
	Teach Potato says, I can understand legging it from a car crash you weren't expecting.
	I'm autistic and my response to unexpected and overwhelming situations tends to be to flee and isolate myself somewhere quiet.
	It's also for these reasons that I have no intent of becoming an MP. I have difficulties taking responsibility for myself in stressful situations.
	And thus, I'm not going to put myself in a position where I'm taking responsibility for approximately 80,000 constituents.
	That is precisely the reason why, or not the exact reason why, that's why I wouldn't become an MP either.
	Because there are times when I just want to shut myself off from literally everyone and everything.
	But when you're in a position of public authority like that, you can't afford to do that.
	If you accept a job or a position of authority in the knowledge that you're going to be a liability to it, I think that comes to your moral detriment.
	Yeah, you shouldn't have done it.
	No.
	Like, if you know you weren't able to fulfil the role of the office, then don't apply for the role of the office.
	Yeah, but of course the question begs as to whether that truly is the case with Jamie Chalice.
	Anyway, Sheep83 says, "Can't help feeling the timing of Mr. Wallace's revelation, positioning himself into the current things most affected.
	It's spectacular convenience as he is facing prosecution." Sorry, I'm laughing because I haven't said Wallace.
	I'm just thinking of him as Wallace from Wallace and Gromit.
	And now I'm just imagining an episode of Wallace and Gromit where he's like, oh, I've crashed the car, better become trans.
	I don't know.
	I can't do a Wallace voice.
	Oh, what a pickle, Gromit.
	What do we do about this?
	Yeah, anyway.
	Small L Libertarian says, Kevin Spacey, accused of inappropriate behaviour for teenage male actor.
	Statement, I didn't want it to come out.
	I was gay like this.
	What?
	Yeah, remember that?
	Yeah.
	I may be an aunt, but I'm gay.
	It's like, uh, no, you're going to jail, that's why!
	Jail for you, son.
	Anyway, Robert Longshaw says transgender people who don't even attempt to pass simply want to be the way they are to enjoy the woke societal perks of being trans.
	Clap, clap, clap, so stunning and brave, yeah.
	Although there is definitely an incentive to come out as something you're not because the cathedral unanimously applauds it whenever it is done.
	Yeah.
	Stunning and brave to come out as trans.
	I did see this.
	I mean, I saw Helen Dale was upset with some of the right-wing response to her.
	And there were some that were just, like, unfeeling in that sense.
	I can agree with those.
	Like, I can agree with her on those.
	But the...
	I don't know if she was actually referring to this.
	I don't really know why I brought her up with this.
	But the saying that coming out as trans as an MP is stunning and brave, I just don't get.
	Maybe I'm just from...
	Because we deal with this every day.
	But just it's so vanilla.
	I'm not even fazed by it at all.
	No.
	I just see Guido Fawkes, of course, the conservative response.
	They put up a big sign saying, first transgender MP is a conservative.
	Okay, yep, that's what I expect from you people.
	Yeah.
	Well, Omar says, I think they do see it, but they're...
	This particular MP, I think there's not much, if you want to be a realist about this, the party can do because they have to believe that he's telling the truth unless proven in court otherwise.
	Yeah.
	So I'm not too mad about those responses.
	It wouldn't make sense for someone on the same bench to kind of refute the claims being made about himself or the cases mentioned.
	There was obviously the chances where it could all just be genuine and he's a weird, weird guy.
	Yeah.
	And well, if you're an MP and you knew him, you could be like, well, fair enough.
	Yeah.
	Not wrong, is it?
	Do it in school and it'll be another statistic.
	Yeah.
	It's not even an event.
	No.
	Robert Longshaw says Jamie Wallace is stunning and brave for stepping out on his wife and kid like that.
	Yeah, again, it's funny how they've been completely forgotten in all of this.
	M1Ping says by being trans, he might get his way into a woman's prison, assuming abandoning a vehicle after a collision could lead to jail time.
	It won't.
	Probably not.
	I mean, remember Claudia Webb threatening to throw acid in someone's face?
	Yeah, that came to nothing.
	No jail time?
	Nope.
	Suspended sentence, wasn't it?
	Yep.
	And Hammurubi, is it Hammurubi?
	Says, the sixth says, as horrible as it may sound, I'm starting to wonder if maybe kids were better off having to deal with school shooters as opposed to this vile brainwashing.
	That's a genuine moral question.
	Genuine moral question.
	I don't even want to answer that.
	And with that, let's talk about Hassan and destiny.
	Oh boy.
	Alright, so...
	Oh god, that's a long comment, but I'll get through as much as I can.
	Radical Cintrist God says, I agree with Thomas.
	They aren't Marxist, or at least not in the original sense.
	They are post-modernist and social constructionist.
	Post-modernist roots itself in Marxist thought.
	However, it is completely illogical for them to do so because they do not adhere to objective reality and, in fact, question it.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Yeah, I don't really...
	I don't really get into debates about postmodernism because I just...
	As in, when you start listening to people talk about it, it just annoys me.
	Put simply, the second you start making moral truth claims about oppression, you're no longer a postmodernist because postmodernism sets up to deconstruct that very mode of thought.
	Nothing has any meaning outside the discourse from which it emerges.
	So to claim that you're a postmodernist and say, I believe in this model of social justice, is a contradiction.
	I can follow that, but it's just all of these...
	I mean, I don't enjoy my philosophical talks with Carl when we're talking about things because it just annoys me with stuff like that because it's so far removed from what are we actually dealing with on a day-to-day basis.
	But with these guys, I don't really agree.
	I don't want to get into the meat of it here.
	I'm sure we'll have some conversations about the time.
	But the people doing it literally define themselves in their own terms, and I see no reason to take them not at their own terms.
	In the same way that if someone's a crusader or a jihadist, And you just say, well, that wasn't real Islam.
	That doesn't seem good enough to me.
	I'm sure you can make a theological argument about why it's not real Islam.
	Surely you have to understand why they're laying claim to a certain cause.
	And by conceding them that's ground, you are helping them monopolise the discourse.
	Well, no, I'm taking people at their word for what they are.
	You shouldn't.
	That's always been my contention.
	Right, but then the jihadist isn't a real Muslim because he's violated these...
	Well, no, because what you can do is read the Quran and actually spot similarities between what the Quran says and what they are doing and actually find some consistency.
	By calling these people...
	Well, we can find it with them.
	No, you can't.
	You can with socialist principles.
	Well, not socialist principles, maybe.
	They're not Marxist principles.
	You cannot reformulate dialectical materialism to make their concept of social justice work, because it literally is based on the negation of matter itself.
	It's getting so far into the weeds of what's real socialism.
	We need to have a debate about this.
	To be honest, I don't really feel like I care enough about the differences between different kinds of leftist thought to really matter to my mind.
	No, but we must, if we are committed to rooting it out, which we all are.
	I don't know, because I just reject everything from this strain.
	Like, I'm not differentiating between the Trotskyists and the Leninists, because I just don't care.
	Like, they're both terrible, in the sense of just, like, all of your presuppositions are terrible.
	I'm not going to engage in that way of thought.
	Like, I know from any other route out of that, it's always, always going to be bad.
	Yes, but of course, it's important to understand the differences of both to see what they're actually trying to achieve.
	Sure, you could argue that.
	Yeah.
	I could agree.
	Free Will 2112 says these hard-left teachers know that the road to power and ideological victory lies in creating a generation of indoctrinated children who are no longer influenced by their parents.
	This was a policy practiced by both Mao and Pol Pot and a long-term strategy to change our society by undermining the basic unit that is its foundation, the family, and replacing it with an ideological collective.
	Hence why these teachers see no reason to give parents any choice in the education of their children.
	This is obviously true.
	I've also finished reading another book about North Korea, and again, it gets even more stark in camps.
	Like every socialist system, they try to destroy the nuclear family with the indoctrination, the fact that mommy and daddy may be close, but Kim Jong-un is even closer.
	You should trust Kim Jong-un.
	Turn your parents into the authorities if they say something bad.
	It doesn't work.
	Even to the levels of the concentration camps that they have, this one was specifically about that, the family unit became the strongest thing in the camp.
	I mean, it was the only thing that kept people going, really.
	Mentally and physically.
	But the family is also that thing that gives some children advantages over others, because naturally not all parents are equal.
	I'm sure that's true.
	And they have, of course, different levels of wealth to bring to the table as well, and resources and whatnot.
	But it's also an authority outside of the state.
	It's an authority outside of the party, and therefore outside of the ideology.
	Yeah, and that's why it's potentially...
	It has subversive potential if you give it too much freedom, yes.
	Omar Awad says...
	Because all they have to lose is an argument, but anyone fighting it can lose their job, reputation, and future.
	This means that they can fight every fight on every front with reckless abandon, but we have to pick and choose our battles, and every battle we don't or can't fight is ground-seeded.
	Yeah, I can see some of that.
	I mean, you see it with the diversity officers.
	If they ever get proved wrong in an argument, what happens?
	Oh, sorry.
	Yeah.
	Moves on.
	Carries on getting paid 50 grand, whatever it is.
	More than that, isn't it?
	Depends on the job.
	Yeah.
	And needless to say, their opposition ends up considerably worse on the social capital front.
	At least no commissar would get shot for not understanding the argument or something.
	George Hap, Hassan, Destiny, being wrong isn't news?
	No, but it's fun.
	It's their state of being.
	Maybe they are stupid, but in that discussion with Carl, they seem dishonest to deflect the fact that a giant corporation like Disney is on their side to spark the Marxist.
	Yeah, I do think market forces has more of a role than Carl says, but to say that this is entirely the result of market forces isn't entirely right.
	Those people clearly have a commitment to a moral worldview that they want to enact, and they're using that capital to try to deliver it.
	That's uncontroversial.
	I mean, Carl at the time brought up the director of Black Panther and the Star Wars movies, and just named the interviews in which they said certain statements.
	Yeah.
	Which you can be like, look, she's saying this, and therefore...
	She's saying she's bringing that will to the table.
	That's not profit motive.
	That's ideological motive.
	However, in Destiny and Hassan Paik's defence, this is the only defence I will ever make for Hassan Paik, it is still an expression of capitalism that they can afford to do that.
	As in that they are so...
	No, no.
	They are the benefactors of a system that has enabled them to actually reify these ideas to the rest of the world.
	Sure, if they were in a socialist system, they wouldn't have the means to do it.
	That wouldn't be socialism, would it?
	That would just be capitalism managed by a progressive managerial class that we don't want.
	That would be worse than the capitalism we have now, I must state.
	But I love how it's got even more explicit.
	Like, whilst Carl's interview...
	debate was taking place.
	There was like interviews from directors and that was the examples he brought up.
	But now we just have like the Zoom calls of the people who run the damn company in every single department and they all just openly say this crap and it's not even a struggle session where they'll just splout it because they're expected to and then they can move on with their lives.
	They genuinely believe it.
	And it's crippling.
	I mean, we have friends who send us messages endlessly.
	There's a certain friend of mine.
	I know he hates it.
	But he keeps going to all of these diversity lectures and courses and whatnot.
	Because he's forced to.
	And he's just like, mate, can we just sell products?
	Can we just make some damn money?
	And these people do genuinely believe it.
	It's not just a front.
	Student of History says, Trans2010, I just want to blend in, live my life, and left alone.
	Trans2022, you will notice me and acknowledge me as such, even if I don't shave.
	Student of History, I'm inclined to agree with Thomas.
	The intersectionals aren't Marxists.
	Communism, Leninism, Marxism, Fascism, and Nazism are all digital objects of socialism, so is intersectionalism.
	Okay?
	Again, that doesn't really bother me in the slightest.
	It's just like, okay, Marxism isn't real socialism.
	Fine.
	It is important that the distinction is made, because it's...
	But you know what everyone's talking about when they use these words?
	Yeah, but words do matter.
	As in, using the particular words to describe a cultural phenomenon does matter.
	I mean, this is why I usually use the term leftist, frankly.
	To be honest, it's dog whistling that I think the right needs to stop doing, because it's not hurting its own cause.
	Just throwing Marxists on literally anything that looks like cultural degeneracy actually glosses over what the cause of that subversive content could be.
	You primarily get this from Americans because of the history of how American right-wing politics works.
	But I know what they're saying, and everyone knows what they're saying.
	This is just leftist filth.
	My argument would be, if you care that much about the things that you're trying to conserve as a conservative, you'll care enough to know the difference between To know what actually is subversing the culture that you love, rather than just saying, ah, communism, Marxism, bad.
	Leftist filth.
	Yeah, well, leftist filth would be correct, yes, but that's a very broad concept, isn't it?
	Mario Matzi says, Yeah, I mean, I'm glad that we have, like, the video evidence now.
	Yeah, for a cause that is not communism, I must say, yes.
	Omar Awad says the real power of being a megacorp like Disney isn't having more money than God.
	It's that even if they had none, governments wouldn't allow them to fail.
	Once they finish burning all their money, they can always start burning yours.
	Well, it depends on who's in government, doesn't it?
	Sure, it depends how good you're lobbying as well.
	But this is a system, well, a part of the American system that I don't know where this has come from.
	I don't know if it was always the case.
	But especially after 2008, I just don't know what the hell has happened.
	Like, the way we think about huge companies is, we'll just bail them out.
	It's like, no.
	They failed.
	They should lose all their money.
	That's how this works.
	You can be absolutely certain, though, as good as certain, should Trump win in 2024, he would not bail Disney out.
	If they went under.
	Sorry, I've carried on a bit too long.
	Do you want to read some for Chelsea?
	Yes.
	Silly Midon says, I'm not a Chelsea fan, but I'd be against the Ricketts family taking over Chelsea because they're foreign.
	Thomas makes good points, thank you, about American owners.
	I'm a Man United fan.
	I know how bad they can be.
	Yeah, the Glazers are terrible.
	I'm so sorry you have them.
	But Chelsea got into this mess because of international sanctions.
	So it's better to not choose a foreign owner from anywhere just in case.
	Yeah, we're meant to be friendly of America, but with Joe, I'm Irish, Biden in charge, all bets are off.
	Yeah, we need a buyer because otherwise the club is going to go under.
	It's as simple as that.
	But preferably you would want someone who actually wants to invest in the club and its community, not a venture capitalist like, for example, the Glazers.
	Who are, in effect, stripping the capital of Manchester United to invest elsewhere.
	That's utterly terrible.
	And as much as I hate Manchester United, I've got to say, that makes me feel deeply sorry for them.
	This is a cancer in football that we have to root out.
	Kevin Fox says, Could Chelsea FC be the first club to go woke and go broke?
	Quite possibly.
	It wouldn't be the club itself.
	It would be the supporters' trust, regressively, which I didn't even anticipate.
	One can, but hope.
	Mind you, I'd be happy if all the clubs did the same and let Rugby take the lead.
	No!
	Even though Rugby's okay, I don't mind Rugby.
	Egg chasers.
	I promise Rugby is a good sport.
	Anyway, we are out of time, so if you'd like more from us, of course, go over to LowestLeaders.com.
	Please do subscribe to get access to all the premium content and also help fund the show.
	And to everyone who has, thank you very much.
	We wouldn't be here without you.
	Otherwise, we'll be back Monday.
	We'll be back Monday.
	One o'clock.

▲