Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 6, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:40

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #365

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	This is episode 365 on the 6th of April 2022.
	I am your host Harry, joined today by my good friend Thomas.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about James Lindsay trolling groomers, as usual.
	How the Washington Post is trying to paint grooming in schools as being another Red Scare, which is a byword for meaning yes it is happening, just like the Red Scare was a real legit thing.
	And also how Farage has announced Brexit 2.0.
	Before we get into any of the major news, I just want to make everybody aware that Thomas and I, after this, about 3.30, are going to be doing a premium live stream talking about what leftists are actually teaching kids in our schools.
	So check that out later if you're interested.
	And let's get into it, eh?
	Yes, so, useful idiots and shameless queer theory indoctrinaires in America are continuing to kick up a fuss about the so-called Don't Say Gay Bill recently passed in Florida by Ron DeSantis.
	Some people are calling this a Marxist purge, but if you want to learn more about actual Marxism, please do take a look at the talk that you had with Callum on the Cultural Revolution.
	Yes, Callum and I did an hour-long live stream yesterday evening talking about the Cultural Revolution by Frank Dicotta, talking about, as you would expect, the Cultural Revolution in China.
	So check that out on the website and sign up for premium.
	You can go for a bronze membership, £5 per month, and you'll be able to access all of our premium content that way.
	And on trans ideology more generally, Josh actually produced a very, very good essay on this called The Fallacy of Gender Identity.
	Which I really enjoyed reading.
	You at home will enjoy it too.
	I believe it's free, this one, isn't it?
	Yes, that is a free article.
	Yeah, so please do check that out.
	But for now, let's get back to the groomers.
	So Florida Governor DeSantis, of course, passed this bill, had this bill passed.
	But let's just get a few things straight about the bill.
	It's not an anti-gay bill, it's a parental rights bill.
	It's seven pages long.
	The word gay isn't even mentioned in it.
	What it does is prevent teachers from lecturing students about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade, which is up to nine years old.
	This is a subtle way of stopping intersectionalists and groomers from, well, indoctrinating children, basically.
	The bill's not that radical.
	Beyond the age of nine, it doesn't prevent the queer theory of sexuality from being taught in a strictly ideological manner, nor does it stop the teachers from going on expressive rants about their gender identity, etc.
	But it's a blimmin' good start.
	Well, a good thing to note here as well, to try and bring the partisan sides together, perhaps, would be, as you've pointed out, it doesn't mention gay, it doesn't mention any specific sexuality, it simply says sexuality.
	So if you've got a straight teacher, In a kindergarten setting, for instance, who decides that they want to tell the children about the wonders of being straight and having straight sex or masturbating to straight porn, for instance, they're not allowed to do that.
	The same as anybody else who identifies as any other sexuality cannot do that.
	There's nothing to do with specifically gay people.
	And also the fact that you said it only goes up to the age of nine because of the way that it segments the grades.
	Some people have said that because of that, it doesn't go far enough.
	No, it doesn't.
	Tulsi Gabbard was one who said that.
	Another Democrat, remarkably.
	There are good Democrats out there.
	Yes, Tulsi Gabbard in particular.
	Yes, absolutely.
	But predictably, Hollywood and the Liberal Cathedral more generally mobilised to illustrate just how disgusted they were about this move from Governor DeSantis to protect children from mentally ill teachers.
	The bill was mocked at the Oscars Sunday night with co-hosts Wandra Sykes, Amy Schumer and Regina Hall repeating the word gay as a crowd of clapping seals, of course, applauded them.
	DeSantis responded to this later on, the following day, I believe, saying, if the people who held up degenerates like Harvey Weinstein as exemplars and as heroes and as all that, if those are the types of people that are opposing us on parents' rights, I wear that like a badge of honour.
	Based.
	Yeah, that's pretty based.
	Ron is very good at just coming out with a straight talk.
	Disney issued a statement condemning, of course, DeSantis' signing of the bill, which can be seen below if we scroll just a little bit further down.
	As we can see now, Disney announced also that they have a not-so-secret gay agenda, which involves pushing to place more same-sex couples in the background of shows to increase LGBT plus minus ABCDEFG representation.
	Getting them all in there.
	I think you missed the pee, but okay.
	Yep.
	I'll draft some such biggers.
	But this is for material they plan to distribute directly to children.
	It's messed up beyond measure, really.
	But have no fear, because James Lindsay is here to save the day.
	For a couple of weeks now, he's been calling out anyone found defending the right of teachers to groom children, and here is one.
	So, this is Democrat Daniel Erfelder supporting Disney in response to this bill by saying, Disney has been around way before DeSantis and they will be around long after Ron DeSantis.
	Does that have anything to do with the actual arguments being made or the issues that he's trying to do to deal with one?
	None whatsoever.
	What a non-sequitur.
	I know.
	But James Lindsay responded by saying parents were around way, way before Disney and they will be around way, way after Disney.
	And I think there's a lot more plausibility to that statement than the former.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Of course, I'm sure John Rawls would have something to say about this if his original position is anything to go by.
	But the original position, in short, is...
	A thought experiment whereby you go to all measures possible to create the most fair meritocratic process and it involves basically the children never knowing who their parents actually are.
	Well, that just sounds inhuman to me.
	I know.
	I mean, Rawls doesn't actually advocate it.
	It's more of a what-if thought experiment.
	Some people are actually quite invested in that idea and some of them are obviously these teachers.
	I was going to say, it sounds like it takes a village to raise a child.
	It sounds very progressive.
	Yeah.
	Well, let's just make something clear.
	There are genuinely people who qualify as bad parents, and we'll dig up an example of this in a minute.
	But as a general rule, I think we'd agree that parents tend to know what's best for their children because of the unconditional love that comes with being a parent.
	But let's move on to another tweet where he actually calls out Reddit.
	So here he points out that the word grooming has mysteriously been banned from Reddit forums.
	He says, Apparently, Anna's predicted they are banning the word grooming on Reddit now so people can't point out the grooming of children.
	The ban means the word is too effective.
	Start using OK Groomer in real life and warn all your neighbours and friends about Groomer.
	Yeah, that makes sense to me.
	That is very suspicious with Reddit, but let's be honest.
	Just a bit.
	We know why.
	We've seen the moderators on those pages.
	We know exactly why they don't want people pointing out Groomers.
	Yeah, it's absolutely horrendous though, isn't it?
	Because it prevents the actual real victims of grooming from talking about the fads, or at least...
	I mean, could you imagine the mental state of someone who's actually become conscious of something like that going on, and wants to speak to people about it, and having that, you could say...
	Can you imagine the people that would want to be...
	Denied to them.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Could you imagine the people that want to find a sympathetic ear on Reddit finding that they can't, and then having to go to 4chan instead?
	Oh god, no.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	That's a nightmare.
	No, I honestly believe, given the types of people who lurk on Reddit, that 4chan would probably be a better place for them to go.
	Well, yes, for as long as you're not on the bad side of it.
	You know, where they end up saying, oh, why don't you just kill yourself then if it's so bad?
	Don't post personal problems in poll.
	No, absolutely not.
	But anyway, this is beyond cynical, if Reddit have indeed done this.
	But if we move on to the next, he calls out an actual mother, a mother called Casey Rose.
	This is what Casey said.
	According to this law, my second grader can't read a kid's book about Harvey Milk or learn about Stonewall.
	Good.
	Anyway.
	Why do they need to?
	Second grade is what?
	Like six, seven years old?
	Why do they need to know about gender equality?
	Teach them maths.
	Teach them English.
	Teach them how to write.
	Talk.
	Why do they need to know this?
	When it's a complete contrived notion of equity anyway.
	Anyway, it goes on.
	They have to keep silence during Pride Week.
	Why?
	Do we stop teaching them about the struggles of other marginalised groups in our society too?
	Yes.
	Especially when those theories are misguided, Katie.
	Yes.
	And also, if you're six to seven years old, I remember at six to seven years old, I was still struggling with a lot of incredibly basic stuff.
	A lot of these sorts of systems that they say perpetuate a lot of the negative bigotry within society sound very complicated.
	So why would you even expect No, but it's mostly substanceless.
	It's based on a concept of lived experience that's not grounded in material reality.
	It's easily falsifiable, but nonetheless, that you would think is the very reason why they're trying to include this at such a young age, so that this actually has, I don't know, a nurturing role on how they grow up to think.
	Brainwashing.
	Brainwashing, yeah, that's the word I was thinking of.
	You could also call it reification.
	But James responds by saying, what, because your second grader is seven?
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Why would you want to be teaching gender equality to seven-year-olds?
	Yeah, sounds fair to me.
	Yes, OK Groomer, again, fantastic.
	So, OK Groomer has since become a viral tagline, and good.
	These people are insane, as any sane person can see, and needs to be called out for what they are doing.
	It's disgusting.
	But if we move on, this is James calling out the Lincoln Project.
	Good.
	Of course, another project that has clearly set out to hijack any good that Abraham Lincoln ever did for the United States.
	Push progressive messaging.
	Lincoln would have supported this.
	Lincoln, good.
	Would he?
	No, no.
	Of course he bloody wouldn't.
	Yeah, of course.
	This is what they're trying to proclaim.
	Or at least they're doing it in his name, which is disgusting.
	But this is what the Lincoln Project said.
	What I understand is it's not only attacking LGBTQ plus communities and their families.
	He also thinks it's a good idea to attack Florida's biggest tourist attraction and the hard-working Floridians that work there.
	Florida, is this really the man you want in charge?
	Florida says yes, but anyway.
	James says, okay, groomer.
	I genuinely think this is a catchy enough phrase to be extremely effective.
	That's all you need to say.
	It says it all, really, doesn't it?
	Yeah, it really does.
	They are unashamedly, really, defending a philosophy that completely eradicates any moral basis for keeping the discussion of sexuality away from children.
	So that is inadvertently...
	Justifying grooming.
	Yes, we'll get into it in the next segment, so stick around for that.
	Yes, we will.
	But queer theory in itself tries to break down the barriers and distinctions between what is a child and what is an adult, which opens up a whole Pandora's box that we do not want to go down.
	Yes, it does.
	And it tries to collapse sexual orientation into just something that corresponds to gender expressions and not a real biological attribute of a person.
	That's the most dangerous part of it, because an age is basically thrown in the bin.
	But anyway...
	Worse still, I'm afraid to say, is James calling up Nickelodeon.
	And for this one, I thought it would be worth actually watching the video clip attached to Nickelodeon's post.
	So let's have a look at this now.
	In honour of International Transgender Data Visibility, meet Time and Nickelodeon's 2021 Kid of the Year finalist, Rebecca Brusehoff.
	Growing up in the LGBTQ plus community has given me a different perspective on how I see the world.
	Trans kids are so much more than their gender identity and it's so important for people to listen to kids.
	I wish for a world where everyone can be lifted up and celebrated.
	So today, and every day, we celebrate those who are helping others realize that everyone should be proud of what makes them who they are.
	Where do you bloody begin with that?
	I cannot wait for the day when 70-year-old Joe Rogan is speaking to her on his podcast about how she was groomed into a cult.
	Same as when he spoke to that Westboro Baptist Church person.
	Poor child.
	Yeah.
	Poor child.
	Jesus Christ.
	What her parents have done to indoctrinate her with this nonsense?
	If it's her parents, she could have guardians.
	I don't know anything about Rebecca.
	But it's just beyond disgusting.
	This is not just how she sees the world.
	This is the world that she has in effects, probably being forced to see, probably by considerable force.
	What this confirms really is that Nickelodeon, you know, a child television channel, are shamelessly part of this attempt to reify queer theory to children.
	To queer theory, as we know, well, I know we're going to discuss this later on, but they're either cowards who have capitulated to pressure from outside or are as cynical as Disney.
	As for all the reasons that we've already looked into.
	I'm not particularly surprised, but it is horrible to see Nickelodeon a channel that I really appreciated when I was younger for like Spongebob and Avatar and stuff like this.
	You leave children alone.
	They do not think about these issues.
	It's as simple as that.
	They want to play with dolls.
	They want to play tag.
	They do not...
	I just...
	I can't believe we've been having this discussion to be honest.
	It just goes to show how much work there is to be done from our side, of course.
	But for as long as multinational corporations such as Disney and whoever owns Nickelodeon continue to do this, unfortunately, Ron DeSantis' bill is going to be continually, or his attempts to resist this, is going to be undermined by children's television.
	And I suppose you could throw the entire culture industry in with that as well.
	Should the Republicans win the next election, they're going to have to double down on regulation standards to stop this.
	It's the only way.
	But I just want to say kudos to James Lindsay for doing this.
	Really, really good work.
	Someone needs to be making these strident efforts to call out grooming where it is.
	However...
	With you and James Lindsay, there's always a but, isn't there?
	There is always a but.
	Despite the fact that his, as I've said, his short-tempered responses to the shameless attempt to emancipate paedophilia through the back thought are justified.
	He's regressively transferred this shoot from the hip approach to those who wish to engage with him in good faith.
	You may recall a few weeks ago, he had a Twitter spat.
	I didn't see this.
	I heard this from secondhand knowledge, heard this from secondhand sources.
	He had a Twitter spat of academic agents and his followers, basically the Dark Enlightenment intellectual circle.
	Over the theoretical and political flaws of liberalism, which ended with James acting in a rather petulant fashion before he eventually blocked them all.
	For some reason, James has taken issue with my attempts to correct him on his claims about the links between queer theory and Marxism.
	I will be fair to James here, not to say that you have no merit in your arguments that you are putting forward.
	For some reason it's because you've been responding to a lot of his tweets very directly, and I think that's the right approach to take.
	But I can understand from his perspective how he...
	I don't know if he knows your position at Lotus Eaters or anything like that.
	I don't know if he knows who you are other than just potentially, from what he may see, a reply guy who, from his perspective, might just be saying, oh, that's not real Marxism.
	Yes, but did I ever lead with...
	Kind of like the tone, no you idiots, it's this.
	No, of course you did.
	No, I did not.
	I simply said no, James Adorno never said that.
	You might want to have a look at the jargon of authenticity to understand their position on existentialism, from which point you can actually see that they wouldn't have been, shall we say, on board with this woke agenda in the way that you're supposing.
	But anyway, I'll present the context.
	This is the tweet that I sent.
	Just call it what it is, James, an excuse to emancipate paedophilia through the back door.
	That's why it should be banned.
	Kudos to you for calling out to the groomers, but it has nothing to do with Marxism whatsoever, and it does not.
	They are merely using the Marxist newspeak because it's a very effective language.
	If Marxism amounts to just using the language, then, well, sorry, where is the political content?
	You could attach any political content to that.
	It's just a victim versus victor narrative that anyone can use.
	There are multiple political philosophies you could apply this to.
	Cole Schmidt's friend-enemy distinction is another one.
	So from your perspective, just to try and take some of the jargon away, because potentially it might confuse people, your contention with what James is doing is James is saying that this is Marxism, whereas what you're saying is that much in the way that the progressives wear our favourite media as a skin suit, these people are wearing the skin suit of Marxist language.
	Yes.
	And the more that he actually calls it Marxists, the more they can actually veil what they're really doing.
	If I genuinely believe, for example, that they were doing this to bring about communism, as in this attempt to indoctrinate children was all part of marching towards the proletarian dictatorship, then I would look at this in a completely different way.
	But from what I can see, these people are genuinely sick enough to want to restructure society on the grounds of stuff like race, paedophilia.
	But that's got nothing to do with communism whatsoever, and they're completely different metrics of equity.
	Possibly not communism in theory, but in practice, the whole idea of redistribution of wealth, if you're talking about BLM, destruction of traditional family structures...
	Yeah, but that's economic equity.
	That's what communism is all about.
	But that's not enough for Black Lives Matter.
	They want to completely...
	Reinterpret what economic equity actually means in terms of how they see it with appeals with lived experience that has no...
	that adheres to an abstract concept of black identity.
	That doesn't emerge from anything material and that would justify revolutionary consciousness to Marx.
	That's completely idealistic.
	No, I understand that the theoretical conception that's underpinning the baseline of this are working from different foundations.
	But, in practice, a lot of their solutions, whether applied to the proletariat or to people of a particular race, in my eyes, end up looking quite similar to one another.
	Not if you actually understand what inspired Marx to...
	To advocate for communism.
	Of course, of course.
	We'll carry on.
	Anyway, let's just get to James Lindsay's tweet.
	So this is actually not...
	Okay, so I was basically having a conversation with one of his supporters, who actually ended up being somewhat persuaded by what I was saying, or at least gave...
	said, okay, I'll think about that.
	He was approaching your discussion and arguments in good faith.
	In good faith, he was sceptical at first.
	But if we move on, we can see that James took issue with the fact...
	That one of his followers responded to me and actually was, I suppose, intrigued by my justification.
	And he said, you had to read exactly zero things except one tweet from a 20-something reactionary moron to reach this conclusion.
	Pat yourself on the back, philosopher.
	For a start, I don't know where he gets the idea that I'm a reactionary because I've been called a Marxist by liberals.
	I've been called a liberal capitalist by other Marxists.
	I must now have completed the holy trinity of deplorables because I've been called a reactionary by a classic liberal.
	I'm sure there are other forms of insults that can be thrown still, but this is a bad faith response.
	All I have done is try to contribute to actually what he's trying to achieve, and he frustrates me because he gets some things wrong about the Frankfurt School.
	To call me a reactionary moron and to appeal...
	To discredit me for my age, I'm actually closer to 30 than 20, anyway.
	Don't sound so sad.
	No, I'm not so sad.
	I feel more comfortable being closer to 30, to be honest.
	This isn't the sort of response that I expected or wanted.
	I'm really, really keen to have a constructive discussion with James to attend to these issues.
	Because I think he's been doing a lot of good and raising awareness in very, very positive ways.
	But he's tripping over his shoelaces by insisting that everything that's going wrong can be collapsed into a Marxist bloody plot.
	It isn't.
	It would be far less bad if that were true.
	As bad as Marxism is.
	Yes, there's two things I want to say regarding this, which is one, calling you a moron is just uncharitable and uncalled for, and it's quite a...
	I understand that James often deals with people who I would probably also describe as morons responding to his tweets, but that doesn't mean that necessarily everybody's going to be approaching on that same intellectual level.
	And the other thing is that he seems to become almost obsessed with just trying to label everything Marxism, Yes, just a bit.
	And I don't know how constructive that is at the base of it.
	That's what the wokists do with fascism.
	Yeah, I understand that from an American perspective, just calling something communism is kind of pretty typical over there to try and get people scared.
	Typical is one way of looking at it.
	It's downright retarded.
	Yeah.
	That's your perspective, yes, but I just think it's not constructive.
	Primarily because I think, as Callum says, you should probably just address these people on their own terms.
	If they're calling themselves intersectionalists...
	No, you should not, because they want you to address them on those terms.
	That's exactly what I'm saying.
	As James says, it's their discourse.
	Why would you want to engage with them on the terms of their own discourse?
	If they're calling themselves Marxist, does he not think they might want themselves to be recognised as Marxist so that they can appeal to a much more holistic, proletarian cause?
	No, I'm not saying necessarily that you discuss on their own terms as in agree with all of their presuppositions.
	I'm just saying, if they're just saying they're intersectionals, I think just deconstruct their intersectional ideology and show why it's stupid without having to just go, see, this is why it's actually Marxism.
	I just think that's counterproductive.
	I know that I've got on for a while about this, but I'm going to end like this.
	Well done, James, for continuing to call out to non-apologian where it exists.
	but your behaviour on Twitter quite frankly suggests you care more about pandering to your militant audience than actually making steps towards understanding the enemy that we are currently trying to get rid of ultimately, which is up your evil.
	You know where to find me if you want to have a sensible discussion and get bored of acting like a petulant child, and I genuinely hope that you do reach out.
	With that, I would like to end.
	Thank you.
	Yes, honestly, I do hope James speaks to you because I think that would be a very very interesting discussion Moving on, though, we've got some nice synergy going between the segments today because it's time to talk about the completely legitimate grooming scare.
	And this is effectively the way that leftists and members of the establishment media are trying to paint the current groomer scare as just another example of a red scare like we had back in the 1950s, that being to discredit it.
	And once again, related to that, if you're watching this on YouTube, this live broadcast will have already aired.
	But if you want to become a premium member, you can go to the website, pay £5 a month, and you'll be able to check out the VOD of our premium podcast we're doing later, which is what exactly are leftists teaching our kids, where Thomas and I will be going through a curriculum from the Seattle Public Schools on their LGBT curriculums.
	So if you're interested, check that out on lotuseaters.com.
	Moving on, I think what the general reaction to a lot of the anti-groomer stuff, for the people who agree with the anti-groomer stuff, can be summed up with this picture here, which is when you tell a Democrat they can't teach sex to kindergartners, They're just furious about it.
	They can't contain their rage.
	They can't groom your children and then take them away from you because they're state property.
	This is what people are seething about.
	The left has decided to try and arrange themselves into a reaction to this, left being reactionary, to right-wing action, proactive action against groomers, which...
	You'd think that everybody would be able to get behind, but apparently not.
	So, we've got this Washington Post article saying, I don't know if they understand that anybody with a basic conception of...
	History, or at least American history, you would hope that Americans would know about this, would know that McCarthyism and the Red Scare was very much justified by the fact that a lot of those people that McCarthy spoke to ended up being communists.
	They all came out as being communists.
	When the Kremlin released a lot of documentation after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it turned out they had a lot of communist agents in a lot of places.
	For instance, in the New York Times, They were actively publishing articles written by a woman, Ella Winter, I believe her name was, who turned out to be a Kremlin spy.
	So, yes, there was a lot to actually be concerned about in the 1950s, let alone to say that America was at war It was a Cold War, yes, but a war nonetheless.
	So let's see how these smear merchants are going to characterize the anti-groomer agenda that the right has been so successful with so far.
	So, upon learning that three moderate Republican senators, Senators Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mitt Romney, make a note of those names if they're Nice one.
	Very impressive.
	Very based, Marjorie.
	Because, uh, absolutely, you could paint them that way.
	And this is all in regards to the fact that...
	Brown Jackson has been shown through her previous records as a court justice to be quite light on people going under child pornography charges.
	She's not been giving them the extended sentences that they should rightfully have earned, I would say.
	And a lot of the left and even some on the conservative establishment have been saying, actually, this isn't a bad thing.
	This is actually very normal.
	Because don't you understand?
	Every judge in America goes light on child pornography and pedophiles nowadays, which is not the own that you think it is, because guess what?
	Everybody else who's also going light on pedophiles, I think we should also be criticizing them, possibly taking them away from situations where children have been hurt.
	It carries on: "Nor is a vote in support of Jackson's pro-pedophile in any rational sense.
	Green's argument is rooted in accusations levelled against Jackson during her nomination hearings by Senator Josh Hawley and others alleging that she'd been unusually lax in sentencing those charged with crimes related to child pornography.
	As both fact-checkers and conservatives pointed out, those allegations were unfounded.
	Unfounded because apparently everyone goes light on child pornography and paedophile charges, which is terrible.
	I shouldn't have to say this, but apparently we've got to keep hammering this home.
	But for many on the right, soft on child porn became a central part of Jackson's purported philosophy.
	Well, I mean, she was very apologetic towards them in those court hearings.
	She was like, oh, but...
	Yes.
	Like they're molesting children.
	facilitating a market which thrives off of the molestation of children and abuse of children, which I think should be reasonably punished quite severely.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Before being elected to Congress, she was - this is Marjorie Taylor Greene - She was active in promoting the extremist QAnon ideology, a centerpiece of which is based on false claims that there's a cabal of powerful people who engaged in abusing children.
	How can people still try and make the claim that there was no powerful cabal of people abusing children when we have both Epstein, who definitely killed himself, and Ghislaine Maxwell, who was recently actually charged and put away in prison who was recently actually charged and put away in prison for organizing a child trafficking ring for...
	presumably of just one person, her and Jeff Epstein, because...
	Nobody else going down for it.
	Release the lists, please.
	Also, they're just going with the classic.
	She believed this wildly discredited thing, so she can never be right again.
	People can be wrong on some things and right on others, but if you...
	which you should know.
	At this point, though, insinuations about Democrats embracing pedophilia or downplaying sex crimes victimizing children are not simply the political fringe making its way into the Capitol.
	Instead, pedophile or groomer, a term used to describe people who try to prepare children for abuse, has of late replaced socialist as a preferred political pejorative, long-standing potency of elevating fears about the safety of children, has combined with specific political flights like the Jackson nomination has combined with specific political flights like the Jackson nomination and Florida's new legislation limiting instruction about non-heterosexual relationships to spur on a new rhetorical focus.
	That's not entirely untrue.
	Talk about run-on sentences.
	That was just one whole sentence.
	Anyway, once again, mischaracterization.
	Lying about it.
	It's not purely about non-heterosexual relationships.
	It is about sexuality in general.
	You cannot speak to small children who are not yours about sexuality and tell them about gender or anything like that.
	You are there to teach them maths.
	The red scare is now the kid scare.
	Ooh, do you feel that in the air?
	Ooh, we've got a Red Scare coming.
	And, once again, like the Red Scare, it's completely justified.
	McCarthyism being evil is a complete myth, and your teachers lied to you, like they're lying to these children.
	They go on to talk about the anti-groomer bill.
	When Disney spoke out against the law, the backlash was fierce.
	Clearly, some on the right seem to think that one of the state's largest employers wasn't acting out of concern for its workers, but was instead a virulently pro-pedophile organization.
	We'll get to that.
	We'll get to that.
	Again, this push is not a function of QAnon, but shares a similar route.
	QAnon thrived in part because it tapped into a deep-seated fear of abuse of children.
	Why should I not be concerned about that?
	And if Florida's legislation is about blocking efforts to molest little kids instead of simply pandering to conservative voters, then opposition to the legislation means that you're aligned with unqualified evil.
	We'll get to that.
	It is directly comparable to the Red Scare, then.
	America faced an existential threat from communists purportedly intermingling in government and culture.
	No, confirmed mingling in government and culture.
	Now it's pedophiles, exactly as QAnon warned.
	The political value is the same, even if the purported threat isn't.
	This is not a fake scare.
	Plenty of this has very well documented evidence.
	In fact, what I would argue is that we're seeing the logical culmination of a lot of things, that one of those main things being gender ideology, otherwise known as queer theory in its formal application.
	being pushed in schools.
	And you may ask yourself, where does this gender ideology come from?
	Well, it comes from a range of different sources, but one of the main ones, I've not got any sources for this because the page that I found had suspiciously been taken down regarding this, but there is one sexologist called Dr. John John Money, who has been said that if any individual can be said to be responsible for modern gender ideology, it's John Money.
	He coined the terms gender role, gender identity.
	He coined the term sexual orientation as a replacement for sexual preference.
	He also popularized the word paraphilia to replace the word perversions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
	Okay, so he came up with a few terms.
	What does that have to do with abuse, or child abuse in particular?
	Well, you may be aware of the case of Bruce Raymer, a child who, as a baby, suffered an accident during a circumcision.
	You can imagine what happened.
	It was a botched circumcision.
	And Dr.
	John Money decided to come in and valiantly say, don't worry, I can fix your child by transitioning him.
	He then transitioned the child, and for the rest of that child's life, Bruce Raymer, I forget what the name of his transition was, was observed by Dr.
	John Money, who made him take photographs with his brother in the nude, for research purposes.
	And then of course Bruce Raymer and his brother later on in life killed themselves.
	And Dr. John Money, when criticised for all of this when it came out, said that it was actually all right-wing propaganda.
	Which is a pretty typical response.
	And there are also actual queer theorists like Gail Rubin.
	Here is a quote from her 1991, I think.
	"Essay Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory: It is harder for most people to sympathise with actual boy lovers.
	Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boy lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.
	Consequently, the police have feasted on them.
	Local police, the FBI, and watchdog postal inspectors have joined to build a huge apparatus whose sole aim is to wipe out the community of men who love underage No, it's not that they're abusing them, it's that they love them, you see.
	In 20 years or so, when some of the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved witch hunt.
	A lot of people will be embarrassed by the collaboration with this persecution, but it will be too late to do much good for those men who have spent their lives in prison, end quote, and deservedly so.
	Yes, just a bit.
	Sadly, it does seem that her prophecy here seems to be actually playing out a little bit given that we are actively trying to stop groomers and then there seems to be a wide contingency of political activists trying to stop us from stopping children being groomed.
	Sadly, Gail Rubin turns out to have been somewhat of a soothsayer in her predictions there.
	These are things that progressives now have as part of their ideology, whether they realise it or not.
	And the Washington Post is already starting to toe this whole witch hunt line that she was putting.
	Let's look at some other connections and evidence.
	You may remember that they were coming for your children.
	That's right, it's the San Francisco Gay Men's Choir who were telling us they were going to convert our children and make them ever so much more tolerant to...
	Does everybody remember how a few of those guys turned out to be groomers?
	Convicted paedophiles?
	Surprise, surprise.
	I know, surprise, surprise.
	The Wayback Machine obtains the apparently scrubbed list of chorus members and cross-referenced those names with a database of registered sex offenders in California.
	While the matches could be coincidental, some offenders may just happen to have the same name as members of the choir and be about the right age.
	What these people own on earth was at least four credible matches.
	David Wallace, Lawrence Earl Friedberg, Louis Quadra, and Keith Pepper.
	David Eugene Wallace was convicted of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in 1985.
	There is a David Sean Wallace listed on the chorus roster.
	One Twitter user also pointed out that one of the singers in the viral video looked similar to Wallace's mugshot.
	Let's take a look at that image.
	Have we got the note?
	We don't seem to have...
	We'll just move on because it's the same guy.
	That's basically why I'm saying that.
	Okay, I think John's getting it up.
	Yeah, if you take a look at the bottom left picture, John...
	Yeah, so here you can see David Eugene Wallace, his mugshot.
	Looks an awful lot like that guy there.
	I don't know how well you can see it on the screen.
	Yeah, there's a resemblance, isn't there?
	Almost certainly the same guy, allegedly.
	We've also got weirdos in the New York Times comments, bringing it back to James Lindsay.
	He posted this on Twitter, where somebody was saying, Disney is sexualising children.
	What?
	Let's be clear.
	Children are sexual beings.
	And this is just some rando.
	In Virginia as well, in the comments of the New York Times, presumably she voted Democrat.
	From the start, children are sexual.
	What children deserve is help understanding their sexual thoughts and feelings.
	Maybe we should be more horrified that something as unnatural as religion is taught to children.
	Given the spread of wokeism, I would say religion actually comes perfectly natural to people.
	I would take almost any religion other than the one we're currently staring at at the moment.
	I know, right?
	And this also does sound just like a thinly veiled excuse, let's be perfectly honest.
	Because libs of TikTok, who we've covered a number of times, does the Lord's work...
	And recently has come out with this, something interesting.
	This is how gender ideology is affecting the way that schools operate, even not necessarily on a teacher-to-student basis, but on a student-to-student relationship basis.
	So this is Salem School just issued new procedures for trans students.
	Because that's something we need to worry about now.
	Which states...
	This is grooming!
	101!
	Yeah.
	Every single grooming, anti-grooming discussion that you might have with somebody who knows how to see the telltale signs will tell you this is the first thing you do.
	You isolate them from any caregiver or anybody who might care.
	Clear these people out for the love of God.
	I know, clear them out.
	AA is starting to make a lot of sense with the clear them out, I will say.
	We move along because there's more to this.
	So, here there's more students can use any bathroom and locker room that corresponds to their gender identity, according to these new policies.
	I see nothing going wrong here.
	Oh no, none at all.
	No, Loudoun County, check out premium podcast of the Lotus Eaters content if you want to learn more about that on the website, lotuseaters.com.
	Move along again.
	They can also choose which rooms to sleep in when they go on overnight field trips.
	Once again, what could go wrong?
	Honestly.
	And bringing it back to Disney as well, Libs of TikTok pointed out that Disney employees have recently been going around the California headquarters, staging a walkout protest, chanting, say gay, to protest Florida's anti-grooming bill, which is...
	Obviously very stunning and brave, but Disney coming out against an anti-groomer bill doesn't look fantastic when you consider that they've got a bit of a child predator problem within staff.
	This has been reported on numerous times.
	Let's move along.
	Yeah, so Disney has a long-standing problem with child predators gaining employment within the company and exploiting minors.
	You'd think, given that they're a company that appeals mainly to children, they would have a very tight process for this, but apparently they just let...
	Come on in, guys.
	Don't worry.
	In 2014, reporters at CNN published a bombshell six-month investigation that discovered at least 35 Disney employees had been arrested for sex crimes against children attempting to meet minors for sex and possessing child pornography over the previous eight years.
	In one case, police set up a sting operation that nabbed three Disney employees who believed that they were soliciting sex from minors.
	Robert Kingsolver, who oversaw ride repairs at Disney World, enticed someone he thought was a 14-year-old girl for sex in a private residence, Joel Torres, another Disney employee, allegedly bought condoms with him to have sex with a 14-year-old child, and Alan Treister, a concierge at the Park's Animal Kingdom Lodge, went to meet a 14-year-old boy to fulfil a fantasy of being a big teddy bear for younger chaser.
	No, no, no.
	How the hell is this not a national scandal?
	Well, it was a big news report at the time, but Disney always seemed to be able to get away with these things.
	Because there is also recent allegations, well not allegations, four more Disney employees in Florida specifically were arrested in a big child trafficking sting that Florida police did.
	So there's another one.
	So while it may not be a great look for Disney to be going against the anti-groomer bill, I will say it is definitely on brand.
	We also have just other random people online talking about this sort of stuff.
	Children as young as preschool age not only comprehend but can openly discuss subjects as varied as gender diversity, gender nonconformity, and gender-based oppression, making it the ideal time to begin creating a foundation for lifelong sexual health.
	Children as young as preschool age have only just barely got the comprehension to be able to go to the toilet properly.
	So how on earth can you expect them to understand concepts like gender nonconformity?
	And why do they need to know this unless you are trying to brainwash them?
	Many people have said that this brainwashing process is for the next step in what I would like to refer to as a soft cultural revolution that the left is trying to pull from underneath.
	Hence why they're targeting the youngest possible age groups.
	Yes, they're trying to basically brainwash our children before anybody can know what's going on and then the next generation will be able to, right underneath our noses, change everything about the societies that we live in and not for the better.
	It is a long march towards something truly awful.
	Chris Rufo has been very good at pointing a lot of this stuff out.
	He seems to have changed his tactics recently from focusing primarily on critical race theory to a lot of the groomer stuff, just like James Lindsay has.
	And even he pointed out, as was pointed out in that Disney Child Predator article that I was just reading, that, yeah, even CNN back in the day covered this stuff with Disney.
	Everybody knows that Disney has had this problem.
	Nowadays, CNN, I don't know if they would be supporting this or not.
	But, you know, back in the day, they did some good work, I suppose, turns out.
	And the other thing that something I covered recently on the podcast the other week was that Chris Rufo brought to everybody's attention that there was a sexy summer camp for kids where they could learn all about all of your favorite intersectional talking points.
	And one of the interesting things about this, because it was very gender ideology driven, they were talking about how you could be a sex worker and stuff like that to young teenagers, young impressionable teenagers.
	This was one thing.
	The leader of the sexy summer camp recommended that children begin to masturbate as toddlers.
	Masturbation is really healthy, and I recommend it to people of all ages.
	All ages!
	As soon as my nephews could talk, they were doing that.
	There's only one just result to this.
	Death penalty.
	I'm sorry.
	It's not bad.
	I will be happy to hear the argument for that.
	But, so, Washington Post and anyone on the left who's trying to say that this is a Red Scare hoax, is this enough evidence?
	I think it is.
	And you can't keep denying this.
	We need to get the groomers out of schools.
	We need to stop infesting everything with gender ideology.
	Stop it now.
	There you go.
	Boy, that was triggering.
	Hopefully, this next segment might be a bit more positive.
	Yeah, yes.
	It is.
	Anyway, Farage announces Brexit 2.0.
	But before we go into that, I would like to advertise an article that is, of course, all in the spirit of self-determination.
	Excellent.
	If we can get the link up.
	There we go.
	Yes, this is written by Hannah Gao.
	So yes, and of course, it's all about...
	The fact that happiness is inseparable from one being free and self-determining.
	I took a skim through this earlier.
	It's based on a lot of Jordan Peterson's stuff.
	It talks about his most recent book, Beyond Order, 12 More Rules for Life.
	As you can see, for any silver-tier members that we've got in the audience, you'll be able to listen to that through the audio track, which is narrated by the wonderful Jonathan Crowe.
	Excellent.
	Okay, so, well, today is your lucky day if you're, of course, fed up with all of the black pills that we have been dropping, or at least this segment is a bit brighter.
	Brexit is back because Nigel Farage has today launched Brexit 2.0, sort of.
	The begging question, of course, is why has he done this?
	Well, the real answer is that we never really got what was promised us Brexiteers, that is.
	And this is for several reasons.
	First, there is the practicality of the Northern Irish border due to the reintroduction of two sets of customs regulations.
	There's the pro-EU lobbyists who wanted to retain closer economic ties at all costs.
	There was the fact that we played our hand very, very badly from the start, given that Theresa May agreed to pay, what was it, a £39 million divorce bill before we even discussed the terms of departure.
	There was a genuine legitimacy crisis about what Brexit amounted to, which was more among the politicians than among the Brexit voting public.
	But the biggest letdown of all is that we renewed our commitment to the European Convention of Human Rights and the political declaration that came alongside the withdrawal agreement.
	And this is what is ultimately causing the currently irresolvable problem with the migrants coming in from Calais.
	And this is because under the European Convention of Human Rights, we can't send the migrants back to France where they came from.
	So we've had to come up with an alternative way to stop something which you could call an invasion.
	And provide a legal deterrence to prevent them from making the trip across the Channel in the first place.
	And we're currently under the European Court of Human Rights because of the political declaration, so we've had to go about this in a slightly alternative way.
	But if we actually get the article up here that actually shows why we're still tied into the European Court of Human Rights.
	I will say that I don't know if they're going to address this specifically.
	In the recent Tory announcement that they're going to try and replace the Human Rights Act that we've got from 1998, the Blair government, currently they're trying to replace it with a British Bill of Rights.
	As part of that, they will include the ability to deport...
	Foreign prisoners who have been imprisoned here for a year.
	I don't know if they're going to address anything to do with the actual migrant crossings, though, or anything like that.
	And let's be honest, given the Tories track record, I don't know if it's going to be all but no buy.
	Yeah, well, we discussed this on a podcast a while back, didn't we?
	And we identified that it's very much dependent on a third country to actually being willing to hold the asylum seekers in transit whilst their applications are being processed.
	And we just couldn't work out why this would be appealing to anyone unless we just paid them a hell of a load of taxpayers' money in effect.
	Just to illustrate the extent of the problem that we're facing, if you actually go down to the numbers you can see how much worse this problem has got in the last couple of years.
	So here it is, yeah.
	Yeah, there we are.
	So in 2018, we had 297 who came across.
	In 2019, it was 1,823.
	Fast forward to last year, 28,431.
	And this year so far, 4,559.
	So that's considerably lower than the rate we were experiencing last year, so it seems...
	But it's still pretty high.
	I'm honestly surprised that the numbers listed in 2018 and 2019 are so low.
	I would question the accuracy of those.
	I would consider the accuracy as well, but of course you can't rely on the fact-checkers for that.
	But Priti Patel introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill as a means of dealing with this issue, which would of course speed up the removal of failed asylum seekers, introduce maximum life sentences for people smugglers, stop illegal migrants from gaining immediate entry if they've travelled through a safe country to reach the UK, and it establishes some power to process asylum claims offshore for those who arrive via illegal routes.
	And as I said, this is dependent on a third party being willing to take in the failed asylum seekers.
	And as we've discussed before, we just couldn't see why this would be appealing.
	But reports have now emerged from the Times that Rwanda is this chosen country.
	And so Sky News reads on this very subject.
	The Prime Minister is edging closer to unveiling proposals to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing and settlement, according to a report in the Times.
	The Home Office did not deny the reports of a spokesperson telling Sky News, as set out in our new plan for immigration, we are committed to working closely with a range of international partners as we continue to fix our broken asylum system.
	But later on Tuesday, Minister for Refugees Lord Harrington told LBC there was no possibility of migrants being sent for processing in Rwanda.
	The newspaper said the plans, which were intended to be announced last week during a surge in migrants' attempt to cross the Channel, could cost the UK millions.
	The original report contained a government source stating that the plans are close, but not yet ready.
	It is suggested that ministers are said to be waiting for Home Secretary Priti Patel's Nationality and Borders bill to pass through the Lords.
	And if we move on to the next, you can see the bill hasn't passed because the House of Lords, I don't personally think they're making any claims or deducing them as a different class of people.
	I just think they're trying to act in the national interest.
	Of course, people are very, very concerned about this issue, and rightly so.
	But Nigel Farage has since weighed in on this, on this selection of Rwanda, or apparent selection of Rwanda, and this is in an interview with Dan Wooten, and he says he doesn't think it's a good solution either.
	So let's hear what he says.
	Boris Johnson is set to announce plans to send illegal channel migrants to Rwanda to be processed.
	The Home Office is neither confirming nor denying the reports.
	And you're not convinced of this as a plan.
	Well, look, I mean, they have to do something, and they have ahead of May the 5th in the local elections to be seen to do something.
	I mean, you know, just think about it.
	28,500 people came across the channel last year.
	At the moment, at the same time in the year, we're running at triple that figure.
	And they know the Conservative Party from their polling.
	But especially in the red wall seats, this is infuriating voters who thought by voting for Brexit and then voting Johnson in 2019, we'd get back control of our borders rather than be made an international laughingstock.
	As we currently are.
	Because we're part of the European Convention on Human Rights, returning people to France is not possible.
	Actually, Dan, even removing failed asylum seekers is very difficult, all the while we're signed up to ECHR. They had to do something, so offshore processing was the obvious thing.
	What he's saying, of course, is that something has got to be done.
	It's got to a ridiculous stage.
	Of course, the government probably have the elections in May in mind when, you could say, leaking or unofficially announcing this policy.
	Because we're part of the European courts of human rights, we can't send people back to France.
	And so moving failed asylum seekers on if they can't be pushed back to France is extremely difficult given that they could end up back in their home country where some of which still permits torture.
	And in Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights is the The law that you can't send someone back to their parent's country if that country could torture them on their return.
	So yes, this I suppose is the grounds for wanting to get rid of the European Court of Human Rights, because it would get away with that problem.
	The other thing we always bring out, just kicking them out of England doesn't mean there's nowhere else safe that they can go to.
	No, of course it doesn't.
	I think that these restrictions that were put on us as a sovereign nation are completely ridiculous to be able to bring back some of the old classic Brexiteer language to be able to determine our own destiny.
	Well, yes.
	That is, after all, what we voted to do.
	And if any one issue was, I suppose, above or had greater importance than any of the others, it was this, immigration.
	This was the primary thing that everybody cited as to why they voted to leave.
	Absolutely.
	And we're still being let down on that.
	That promise is still not being fulfilled.
	Well, judging by those numbers that you were giving, whether I can see that they're accurate or not, it looks like the situation is just continuously getting worse and will continue to get worse until we get ourselves in a position where we can actually take the training wheels off and do something about it.
	Yeah, and every opportunity they have to not cover it, they seem to take very, very, you know, of open arms.
	But let's continue the video because he goes on to talk about the problem with the potential Rwanda agreement arrangement.
	What are the upsides?
	Well, the upside is, would you pay a trafficker €5,000 if you thought within 48 hours of coming into Dover, you might land in Rwanda?
	That's the possible upside.
	The downside is, the cost per person will be simply vast.
	And it's only a matter of weeks or months before we start getting reports that people are being treated badly in camps in Rwanda, people are being abused, exploited.
	So I don't think long term this is the solution.
	And actually what I think is we need Brexit 2.0.
	So there you have it, the apparently racist and xenophobic Nigel Farage having compassion for refugees, almost as if he's actually not a bad person at all.
	To be fair, it is a good point.
	Just because we don't want to be accepting these illegal migrants into our country and want to be able to protect our borders doesn't necessarily mean that we want to send them off somewhere where they'll be tortured or abused.
	No, and it doesn't have a good human rights record, apparently.
	He does, of course, say that that works in the agreement's favour to a point because, of course, it might make either the genuine refugees or the economic migrants posing as refugees think twice, perhaps, about attempting to make the journey if they think that's going to be the outcome.
	But then again, how are they necessarily going to know that?
	It could act as deterrent, but then, as you say, if the actual migrants themselves or refugees don't know that, but maybe the criminal smugglers do, criminal smugglers get paid either way.
	They don't care.
	Yes, that's true.
	But if there is an imperative for people to not part with their money, then that would be a step in the right direction.
	But of course, we don't know how effective that would actually be.
	If they continue making the journey anyway and somehow get persuaded that this isn't the case and that Rwanda's actually a lovely place to be held up, then...
	There's nowhere else I'd rather be held.
	Well, there are a few other places maybe that come to mind, but...
	It might not work practically and it could be dreadfully cruel in shorts.
	And I think Nigel has a point here.
	But anyway, let's go on to what he has to say about Brexit 2.0.
	And Brexit 2.0 not only redefines the 1951 definition of what a refugee is, because it's hopelessly outdated in the modern world, but we have to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.
	We have to leave the auspices of that European Court in Strasbourg.
	That is the only way to, and I quote you, Boris Johnson, take back control of our borders.
	And until they do that, nothing effective, really effective, is going to happen.
	So, Brexit 2.0.
	From Nigel's description, we can gather that it involves ceasing to adhere to the 1951 Refugee Convention and to have a broader discussion about what a refugee ultimately is.
	I would readily agree with that because we're being taken as fools as a country on this, to be quite frank.
	It also involves being free of the European Convention of Human Rights completely.
	I'm not sure what you would think of that, given the potential implications for those genuine refugees who could be sent back and treated quite badly.
	Well, I imagine if we were to implement our own Bill of Rights, which isn't based on the European Convention's idea of human rights, but the sovereign British human rights, if it actually makes any tangible change, we can address that.
	I think we can.
	We can work for that.
	I don't see what the point of not being in the EU is anymore if we're still beholden to all of their courts and all of the bureaucracy that comes with them.
	I fully agree.
	It's just that there's the transitory phase from, of course, when we stop adhering to that legal structure and actually start adhering to another and the complications involved and You could say the bureaucratic structure.
	But I personally think that addressing this for a new British Bill of Rights is the best way to do it.
	If they can get it right.
	If they can get it correctly, yes.
	Which hopefully they will and don't really hold out much hope for Tory competence though.
	We need, as Nigel says, to completely leave the auspices of the European Court in Strasbourg.
	Only then we can take back control and be a truly self-determining nation, which is what every nation should, of course, be.
	So there we have it.
	The project to deliver Brexit properly is very much on, you could say.
	It's not, of course, as seismic as the original referendum that we had.
	But I'm going to have to conclude on a slight black pill on this issue because I honestly can't see how this can happen in our present system.
	For a start, no conservative politician who believes in such a plan, I don't think, would win a leadership election.
	No party outside of the Conservatives has a chance of running the country, to be quite frank.
	Well, if Labour got in, it's over, almost literally, on every front possible at this point.
	I will say, possibly, given that it's what Boris ran on with our Get Brexit Done, it could be a potential chance for him to be able to re-establish some confidence in him after the past two years.
	I just don't see him doing it.
	It'd be far too risky a move for him.
	Would he get enough support from the House, though, do you think?
	I don't know.
	I honestly don't know either.
	But there is one way you could go about this, and that is you can have another referendum.
	But given where that went and how long it took to deliver Brexit, that very idea fills me with dread.
	I don't know about you.
	Sadly, we don't have another party on the level that UKIP was back in 2015-2016 applying that pressure to the current establishment.
	Yes.
	So in short, I'm going to keep a close eye on this because I very much hope this comes to fruition, but I'm sceptical, sadly.
	And with that...
	With that, let's go into the video comments.
	Harry, Harry, you rock!
	Hey, guess what?
	It's your favorite patriarch of dadism in Oklahoma.
	Hey, I want to let you know, I love having you on the show.
	Thanks so much for joining up.
	Your excessive happiness is a wonder to behold and endlessly entertaining.
	I love how you never miss a beat, and it contrasts nicely with some of your more contrarian compadres, such as when you tried to de-radicalize Callum.
	It was wonderful.
	Anyways, hope you'll stick around and hey, let me know what are a couple of your favorite songs from the 80s?
	Favorite rock songs?
	Oh, that's hard.
	Well, first of all, thank you very much, Chad Dad, for such kind words.
	I tend to try and keep a bit more of a chipper attitude than everybody else, although I think that comes a bit more naturally to me than most others, primarily because I'm Northern and they're Southern, and Southerners tend to be a bunch of miserable gits, as far as I'm concerned.
	No offence or anything, but you are.
	I'm certainly today.
	Yes, that is true.
	Ooh, good.
	Favourite songs from the 1980s.
	That is a really tough one.
	I would probably have to throw...
	Master of Puppets by Metallica.
	Damage Incorporated.
	I've got a bunch of Metallica songs I've thrown in there.
	A bunch of Megadeth songs.
	A few Anthrax songs.
	I've not really been listening to much from the 80s recently.
	I've been more going into the 90s and some...
	I've been re-listening to Opeth and bands like that again recently.
	But yeah, just most of the stuff off of Peace Cells by Megadeth, any of the stuff off of Among the Living by Anthrax, anything off of Metallica's four albums from the 1980s is great by me.
	What albums did Sabbath release in the 80s?
	Oh, actually, yeah, Black Sabbath released Heaven and Hell and Mob Rules, which were the two that they did with Ronnie James Theo, which are both fantastic albums.
	Heaven and Hell, I would definitely add in there as well.
	Neon Knights as well is a classic.
	Speaking of Ronnie James Theo, there's one.
	Holy Diver.
	Holy Diver is a classic, along with...
	Everything off of that whole album, to be honest.
	Yeah, there's way too much to go on about.
	Oh, Guns N' Roses have some great songs as well.
	You've got me started now.
	You've absolutely got me started now.
	Yeah, I like a lot of stuff from the 1980s.
	It was a fantastic decade for music, as long as you're listening to the right stuff.
	Oh, actually, not even necessarily having to stick to rock, you could go Michael Jackson had loads of classics.
	Thriller.
	Billy Jean beat it.
	Bad.
	There's loads of stuff.
	The 80s were fantastic for it.
	Kate Bush as well.
	Running Up That Hill was a really good tune.
	In general, not a fan of Kate Bush, but that's a good tune.
	She's alright.
	She seems alright.
	I know that she's a rare conservative in the music industry, and she was also held up by David Gilmour when she first started her career.
	So props to her.
	I've just not listened to enough of her to say.
	Hope that's answered your question, Chad, and once again, thank you for the kind words.
	Oh yeah, and a word of warning to all those out there who enjoy a Snickers now and again, your front teeth don't seem that big until they're missing.
	Bloody Snickers bar broke me tooth off the other day.
	Oh no.
	Human.
	Bloody hell, sorry to hear that, but that's a little bit funny, I'm not gonna lie, but also that kind of sucks because, you know, you're trying to enjoy your food and it fights back.
	I guess you bit the chocolate and it bit you back.
	Snickers has some nuts after all.
	The newest contemplations almost triggered me because it seemed to imply that mathematics can't and shouldn't be used to understand or derive beauty.
	Well, there's a number 1.618.
	1.618.
	Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
	Spiral out, keep going.
	I was...
	Spiral out, keep going.
	Guitar riff to play out the song.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I was waiting.
	The second I saw Fibonacci, I thought, here comes Lateralist from Tool.
	Absolutely fantastic song, to be fair, and genuinely actually a good example to refute Josh's point of how you can use mathematics to create fantastic music.
	Yeah, but in defense of Josh and myself, and I think we were kind of agreed on this...
	We're not denying that there isn't an objective dimension to beauty that can be identified and explained by mathematics.
	What we're claiming is that mathematics doesn't have ownership of what the beauty of it ultimately is.
	You'll never get to the point where mathematics can define What beauty ultimately amounts to, and it's vulgar and suggests that it should.
	Well, yeah, I mean, the rule of thumb I find for writing music, as someone who does write music, is even if it's not based within music theory, if it breaks all of the rules, if it sounds good, that's what you go for.
	Yeah, but music is a form of art that's more dependent on mathematics.
	Well, I mean, yeah, given the ratios between frequencies and everything, creating certain sounds and evoking emotions.
	Yeah, so how you define beautiful in musical terms is much more abstract.
	Plus, you can get very mathematical, especially in certain realms of heavy metal, like a band, Meshaga, recently released a new album, and they're very notorious for writing music that's in 4-4 time signature, but uses very unique syncopation using mathematics and often...
	Creating polyrhythms between certain rhythms to create a very unique feeling.
	Bands like Dream Theater love to change meter throughout songs like Time Signatures.
	In order to explain how the Locrian mode, for example, is so unappealing and there's such an awful modal scale to write music in, you have to appeal to something beyond just the musical formula that mathematics makes sense of.
	It just is unappealing.
	Why is it that dissonance to us Inaugurate a negative reaction rather than a positive reaction.
	That's got to appeal to something beyond which can be...
	Depends on what feeling that you're going for because negative doesn't necessarily always happen when I listen to distant music.
	It doesn't make you happy, that's my point.
	It depends on the aesthetic experience you have in mind.
	If you want to...
	To make someone tremor or be terrified of something, then it kind of lists it a very...
	Sorry, go on.
	Oh, no, no worries.
	Have you ever heard of a band called Dillinger Escape Plan?
	I've heard of them, yeah.
	Never listened to them.
	If you want to hear dissonance done in very interesting ways, check them out.
	I don't know if they'll necessarily appeal to you because they're incredibly abrasive, but they're going for a very, like I said, abrasive sound and they use dissonance throughout all of their music in a way that I actually do find quite appealing.
	I love a bit of dissonance, but that only works in contrast with something else that gives it a place.
	Dissonance on its own just seems universally unappealing, but mathematics can't.
	I think you get the point.
	No, I get what you mean.
	You can explain it mathematically, but to truly understand it, you need to hear it.
	I couldn't read all of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report because it was just so self-contradictory.
	One example had a native woman thank her female partner for saving her from suicide by lying down in front of the door to their apartment so she couldn't leave to go and kill herself.
	Sounds wholesome until you read the next paragraph where we learn that the woman wanted to kill herself because her partner was so abusive.
	Invariably, at the end of reports are recommendations, which the media says the government does nothing about.
	Try reading those recommendations to see just why.
	Very interesting.
	I was sent through the links for that, so thank you to Skeptical Waves who emailed those in, and also thank you to Alex Ocal once again for making us aware of this.
	There is like a thousand pages, at least, of this report, so I will try and possibly work my way through some of it as I get time, because it does sound very interesting, especially that example that you gave there, because that does sound very contradictory, especially if you're going to be specific about why it is that the natives have such a negative plight against them.
	Well, I as a front-hole person will say there are absolutely no biological differences between men and women.
	Those with long johnsons goes through the exact same thing as the bleeders, also called menstruating people.
	Join me in using this very humanizing language to recognize that there are no observable differences between those with morning shadows and those who came with inbuilt milk bags and incubators.
	We will never capitulate.
	Sophia, thank you very much for sending out comments and it sounds like Disney has a position open for you.
	The province of British Columbia generates 74 terawatt hours of electricity annually.
	If you were to convert the 3.7 million cars in British Columbia all to electric, they would require approximately 12 terawatt hours of electricity annually, which is about 16% of our annual output added on to the loads that the province already has.
	We simply don't have the capacity on our grid to take such an extra load.
	Yeah, these are the kinds of logistical questions that ideologues on the left really like to ignore.
	They don't like to acknowledge that reality is a thing that you've kind of got to abide by.
	Talking about maths and other such things, there are rules that we all just kind of have to stick by.
	I can't just decide I can fly and then hop up off the air and just fly off into outer space.
	No, there are rules that govern these things, especially with green energy and whatnot.
	It's universally desirable to apply indexicals to know the outside world so that you can make use of it and understand your place within it in a social sense as well.
	Yeah, these people just do not want to acknowledge that their plans are utopian.
	And always have been.
	Yeah, because the second they do is precisely when you'll see what their actual intentions are.
	Anyway.
	So the other day I found out that there's another reason that people are pissed at Disney.
	This one is mostly the leftists who are pissed off at Disney.
	Basically there were two schools that were having field trips to Disney and they got into a cheer competition against each other.
	And one of the schools happened to use a cheer that they didn't say exactly what they said.
	They just described it as a very homophobic chant.
	And apparently because Disney didn't do anything to stop this, this has people outraged.
	I just hadn't heard about this at all from any right-wing news sources, but apparently it's another reason people are pissed.
	I'd not heard of that, and I'm going to imagine homophobic or transphobic in this context means, I don't know, boys going, I like girls or something, and the teachers going, girls aren't real!
	It's got to be, isn't it?
	Something like that.
	Thank you for making us aware of that, because that just...
	Demonstrates once again how childish and petty this whole thing is at its core.
	It actually reminds me of a conversation I had with a long friend of mine whose brother actually works at the University of Liverpool teaching drums.
	Apparently he's getting grief from his students because the set list that he's picked for them to learn is not trans-inclusive enough.
	Because the lyrics involved in the songs, despite the fact that no one's actually singing them because they're learning to play the drums...
	It involves references to biological sex.
	Oh no.
	Musicians writing about women they fancy.
	Never heard of it.
	Jesus Christ.
	Unbelievable, isn't it?
	Hello, Lulis Eaters.
	Based Archaeology Man here.
	With the elections in North Maryland happening roughly a month from today, I shall endeavour to keep you all up to date as to what's happening.
	Whether Sinn Féin will take storm, the DUP will be ravaged, and whether or not we end up in a...
	Well, a no-surrender of Chucky, our last situation.
	Goodbye.
	Thank you very much.
	I'd be interested to hear about that.
	Yeah, definitely.
	Hello, and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 3rd of April, 2000.
	If you would like to see more from us, please go to the...
	If you would like to see more from us, please go to the...
	You gotta do it without laughing, man.
	Come on!
	Oh, yeah, but...
	What a weirdo!
	I think we need to do that back again, wait.
	You ready?
	Thank you very much.
	Help!
	Bravo.
	I just want to say it was an absolute pleasure to meet John.
	He's such a lovely bloke.
	He does fantastic voiceovers on all of our works.
	Oh yeah, he's fantastic.
	He's a really lovely guy.
	And same with Bass Tape.
	You're a really nice guy as well.
	It was a wonderful meeting you all.
	I wish I'd been there in the studio watching that, but I hope you know how it feels now to be sat in front of this camera trying to perform.
	There's an artistry to it.
	There is.
	I've got myself a proper cable so I can power my welder.
	Now I just gotta get used to the constant sparks.
	Because, you know, working on giant robots and stuff, usually big sparks are a bad thing.
	But, you know, practice makes perfect, so hopefully we'll be getting some metal power armor parts and paneling.
	Remember, you can see my mech shenanigans on YouTube at NyeMechWorks.
	I only wish I were half as competent as you on the DIY front.
	Yeah, that stuff looks so cool.
	I really need to start getting into metal work or something.
	That just looks so fun.
	I'm trying to get into woodwork.
	I'm just so bloody hopeless.
	I can't even order the right wood.
	Ah, well, they always say 10,000 hours is how long it takes to become proficient at something.
	So you've got to start somewhere.
	You've got to start with that first hour, don't you?
	You do.
	But you know, I mentioned that I did sim racing.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, well, what happened was my clamps, the clamps broke.
	So I'm trying to build a base underneath the wheel and to attach some C-clamps that I can, of course, attach to the table.
	For some reason, I can't get my head around the practicalities of fixing this wood that I've cut out to the base wheel because of the screw alignment.
	People like that make it look easy.
	To me, that's harder than engaging in analytic metaphysics.
	That's fair, but they only make it look easy because they've gotten past the point where it was hard for them.
	You've always got to remember, so keep on hanging on in there, man.
	I will try.
	Good morning, Dan Littlejohn with another Legend of the Pines, the Sketch Club Players Theater in Woodbury, New Jersey.
	The theater was originally built as a school in 1889, turned into a theater in 1951.
	It has been the site of many strange and unusual occurrences.
	There is a room on the second floor.
	You'll sometimes hear a party going on, but when you rush to the door and open it, the sound stops and there is no party.
	Aw.
	Joan of Arc is quiet today.
	Well, she's not always talkative, is she?
	That was a really interesting one.
	Thank you for that.
	I would be very creeped out.
	I was just hearing people partying in my house.
	Actually, no, I just feel left out.
	You almost have ditched.
	But you asked to join in, even if you knew there were ghosts.
	If they know how to party, they know how to party, man!
	A party is a party.
	Yeah.
	Forgive my voice, I've gotten a bit of a cold right now, so sorry if I sound a bit nasally.
	So, Australian elections are coming up, and we're going to vote for our new Prime Minister.
	Our system of elections is very similar to that of the UK, in which that a third party could get in as Prime Minister, given enough votes, of course.
	We have an election every three years, and since everybody votes for the major parties, it's very likely that Albanese of the Labour Party will get in.
	I wonder if that's going to be better or worse than their current government.
	They have a Conservative government at the moment, don't they?
	Well, I think the government in charge at the moment is the Liberal government, which over in Australia is the centre-right party.
	Right, so that's their equivalent of our Conservative party, if you like.
	Yes, probably leftists at heart.
	Although I don't know enough about Australia, please correct me if I'm wrong.
	To my lasting shame, I didn't stand up for a woman in a supermarket as she was whispered about by two trans standing behind me in the queue.
	They whispered about her hair and ears, and I turned to see that they were barely shaven men with long hair and boobs grafted on.
	But my concern with the trans debate is that, for a very small number, sex reassignment is actually the therapy they need.
	Two of my personal heroes are trans.
	Wendy Carlos, a synthesizer music fame, and Sophie Wilson, who had a hand inventing the arm process that powers your phone.
	Here's Sophie, formerly Roger Wilson, has a cameo in BBC drama Microman about the rivalry between Clive Sinclair's Spectrum computers and Chris Curry's Acorn Micro.
	Very interesting stuff, Alex.
	Thank you very much.
	I wasn't expecting two comments in from you today, but it's always welcome to see.
	And I agree.
	I think, yeah, for some people suffering from legitimate gender dysphoria, perhaps that is the appropriate measure to take, is transition.
	But it's the fact that it seems to be the first port of call for everybody.
	If you even remotely are considering it, oh, we best get you started straight on the horror therapy.
	It doesn't have to...
	You know, present a serious threat to society for as long as, well, you know, the reference to biological sex remains.
	Because that way you can at least kind of ground it in some objectivities.
	You can say, okay, yes, I'm biologically male, but I live as a woman, hence why I dress as a woman.
	I think people would be a lot more accepting of that.
	But the trans movement is, of course, going down a very different direction.
	Yeah, well, that's the thing, is even if it turns out that we could potentially have a better option for people suffering from this mental illness, is that even researching that and looking into it is so stigmatized at the moment.
	If you're a scientific researcher and it gets out that you're looking into potentially other solutions for fixing gender dysphoria, you are going to be mobbed.
	Yeah.
	That's got to be stopped.
	I want this.
	Thanks.
	Need my own forge.
	Wow.
	Oh, are you gonna shoot the bullet there or something?
	Oh, okay, no.
	Oh, that's nice.
	That looks awesome.
	Doesn't it just?
	Yackley Smithing.
	Check them out on Rumble, YouTube, and Etsy.
	If only I could import just a nice knife like that on Etsy or something.
	That would be so cool.
	God, you know, I love being English.
	I love living in England.
	But goddamn, I wish we had some of the laws or lack thereof or rights protected by the US Constitution such as give me my goddamn guns!
	I second that.
	Yeah.
	All these Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Dolezal cases kind of leave me thinking about that historical epic from the 90s, Knight's Tale, where the main character, the Joker, has to pretend to be a noble because peasants weren't allowed to participate in jousting competitions.
	Because I've never really seen an occurrence where an oppressed group is hell-bent on preventing other people from having the status of being oppressed.
	And also recall that being an aristocrat isn't necessarily about having lots of money and wealth.
	It's about the fact that you are given privileges by the state that commoners don't have, even if the commoner might be wealthier than the actual aristocrat.
	That's because the aristocracy is the state, in effect.
	Yeah, interesting points to bring up there as well.
	Also, I've not seen A Knight's Tale.
	Should I? John says there are no restrictions on knives.
	I can't.
	Yes, I might order a nice knife from you in that case.
	Yep.
	Come on.
	One, three, two, one.
	Come on.
	Yup.
	Yup.
	Come on.
	Come on.
	Up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up.
	What do you reckon they're doing, 150 kilo dams?
	Looking at those plates, maybe.
	Nice lift there, man.
	That's really impressive.
	Yeah, I would not even be able to just hold that above my chest in all likelihood.
	But we've got some real good video comments in that are appealing to me today.
	We've had 80s music, knives and guns, weightlifting.
	This is all fantastic.
	Our subscribers are being on form today.
	Yeah, a lot of it comes from America as well.
	I swear to God that Thomas Sowell has made the argument a lot of certain aspects of American culture originate from up north in England, and I can really see it because a lot of the stuff I see from America, I look and go, yeah!
	Yeah, that's what I want.
	Anyway, let's move on to the written comments on the website.
	Do you want to start with, because we've got two ones critiquing you.
	Yes, which I'm of course welcome, but I'll begin with Reesim.
	He says, I think the reason James reacted like that to your comments was due to you mentioning the critical race theory isn't Marxism at the end.
	He's probably assumed you're a grade A Marxist trying to defend Marxism by saying it's actually just paedophile groomers doing this.
	No need to look at Marxism or critical race theory.
	I did also see a few replies assuming you were trying to defend paedophilia.
	I don't know what replies you were referring to, but I didn't do that in the slightest.
	You were calling them out for promoting paedophilia.
	I was calling them out for promoting it, exactly.
	I don't know where that has come from.
	Cognitive dissonance from some people, I swear.
	Yeah.
	It's disturbing.
	For some reason, not entirely sure why, though, I never got that impression.
	I'm glad you didn't, because what I'm ultimately trying to do is to help James, in his effort, to point out what the source of this ultimately is.
	And I certainly think you can do that by looking into Marxism and critical Race theory, though, of course, I mean, critical race theory is somewhat different from queer theory, but it basically uses the Marxist newspeak, you could say, to make a case for gender equality in the way that it's like...
	The fact that they can all...
	The fact that they can all kind of wrap into each other as intersectionality shows how closely connected a lot of it is.
	Just to kind of, the queer theorists and the critical race theorists, despite the fact that they might be in alliance at the moment, are fundamentally working from the lived experiences of different groups of people.
	So they're going to come into contradiction Yeah, but in short, you can trace this back to, I suppose, the epistemic claims of the Frankfurt School and use that in a way that could justify why someone who likes children is somehow oppressed, yes, but the Frankfurt School never advocated for that directly.
	That's just the way that the method can be used to promote something that's utterly disgusting.
	You can say that it's Marxist insofar as it uses Marxist newspeak, but it doesn't appeal to the original science of Marxism, which is fundamentally materialistic.
	That is what my point has been on this all along.
	Where the advocacy of paedophilia comes into it, I've no bloody idea.
	But pointed out to me, in regards to the comments that you're confused about.
	Okay, the critique.
	Edward of Numenor.
	I'm afraid that while I agree the idea, this is a method of enabling paedophilia.
	However, I would also argue that this is an attempt at communist subversion.
	They are targeting children, as this is how the far left works.
	They target those who have the least experience of the world, as it is they...
	As they are the least likely to have investment in the status quo, as well as the least common sense gained from experience.
	You both have points, to be fair.
	I will agree, however, Lindsay's turning on you looks like a case of friendly fire, which sadly occurs on Twitter, partially because it's a text-based medium, and as such, people feel fine being positively vile to each other.
	Thomas responded well by keeping a civil tone.
	Well, thank you.
	I did my best to keep a civil tone.
	And I know for a fact that they are using this new speak to enable paedophilia.
	But to say that this is part of a genuine attempt to subvert capitalism and deliver communism is conspiratorial at this point.
	I genuinely think that the emancipation of paedophiles is the end goal here, not communism.
	Because communism does not entail that.
	It could be both.
	What about the communist paedophiles, though?
	Yes, that's very true.
	I suppose communism doesn't actually have a position on paedophilia.
	And a lot of people also are probably being taken in because they do legitimately feel a sense of, well, we need to be more open to ideas, we need to be compassionate to people.
	I'm going to be as clear as I can.
	I'm not saying that that is not the case.
	What I've been trying to say from the beginning is that when you trace this back to the Long March, Gramsci's master plan was not to deliver the sorts of things that you're seeing on university campuses at the moment.
	That was the direction that Mark Hughes had taken a reified form now.
	Gramsci was actually trying to deliver communism In the orthodox sense, by attributing more importance to the ideologies inherent in the cultural hegemony and basically thought that if you could subvert or challenge the emotional investment that people have towards the nuclear family and things like that and traditional world values, perhaps a revolutionary consciousness could be facilitated.
	It is plausible that they are doing that for that reason.
	I just don't think they are.
	But let's just see.
	Student of History says, why must a nine or younger child learn about an assassinated politician and activist?
	Can we start with basic language and math?
	Maybe some basic history.
	Maybe weather and animals.
	Why the gays and their mistreatment?
	Well, yes.
	And we were actually giving all of these things fair consideration before, of course, lunatics started taking over classrooms.
	Student Officially also says, so much more than their gender identity.
	Most trans activists seem to be all gender identity and a hollow shell of a human being, all ideology and no existence of life.
	Exactly.
	Why someone would describe so much or attribute so much importance to an abstract concept of identity?
	I have no idea.
	Benjamin Granberg says, thank you and bravo, Thomas, your efforts to bring the current discourse in this cultural towards nuanced and sober discussion instead of the rapidly degrading commies versus fascist shouting gallery film.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that you appreciate it.
	Because we're starting to run along.
	We're starting to run out of time.
	Do you want to just address the other one that is...
	Yes, okay.
	So this is small old libertarian.
	Look, Thomas, I get it, but the normal person doesn't have or need a theoretical degree in socialist theories.
	Most people don't understand between narcissism and socialism, Marxism, etc.
	As long as they get the idea of, okay, collectivist redistributive thieves don't support, I don't really care what we call it, you should care what we call it, because words ultimately matter, meaning matters.
	And if you want to destroy the very thing, That's trying to make a moral claim as to how we should reconstruct our societies.
	You need to do everything possible to understand what they're appealing to.
	It is as simple as that.
	And I'm sorry, there are far too many people emotionally invested in the idea that James Lindsay is right and that communism is somehow behind all of this.
	Communism may well be behind all of this.
	We're yet to see.
	But you have to accept that you might be wrong.
	That's all I'm asking.
	I might be wrong as well.
	And I'm ready to be proved wrong.
	Go on.
	Very interesting.
	I'll move on to the written comments on my segment.
	The grooming scare.
	Paul Neubauer.
	I think I've pronounced that right.
	Neubauer?
	Neubauer.
	Yes, that's probably it.
	Thank you.
	McCarthy was right.
	Yes, he was.
	Razor Fist has an excellent video on it.
	And if you're interested in content on the website, Beau wrote an excellent article, I think, called McCarthy...
	Did nothing wrong, so you can check that out on the website.
	I think it's a free article as well, so you don't need to subscribe.
	Although, do subscribe, because then you'll have access to lots of fantastic premium content.
	I agree completely.
	If these people are supposed to be representing justice in any sense, they're doing a very...
	Very poor job of it.
	Paul Neubauer again says, Yeah, probably, sadly.
	There's Nickelodeon.
	I wanted to watch Spongebob not be a target of gringy, gringy, gringy propaganda.
	Disliked and unsubscribed, literally.
	Jackson, a pedophile?
	Wait, am I thinking of the right one?
	Tell me how this world isn't an S show.
	Interestingly enough, on the Jackson thing, I assume you're referring to Michael Jackson MJ.
	If you're interested in hearing a different argument regarding that, in fact an argument saying that Michael Jackson was framed and was actually kind of a stooge for the establishment to take down, to distract from all of the other pedophilia that was going on in Hollywood, check out RazorFist's series of three videos on that and all of the interviews he did, check out RazorFist's series of three videos on that and all of the interviews he did, because I do think he makes a very Drew Doomhand also says, it's hard for me to think of a person's civil liberties when they willfully violate the innocence of children.
	While I still think pedos have a right to a fair trial, I don't really think their punishment should be lenient when they are found guilty beyond Hard agree there.
	Rick Archer...
	Disney has been scum since forever.
	I still remember the news breaking on their executives and the internally named peon instructions.
	Where it came out, the higher-ups took out insurance on their employees and named themselves as the beneficiary.
	I've not heard of this!
	Jesus Christ!
	I'm not surprised to hear the tree is completely rotten to the core.
	I mean, I didn't know about that.
	I already knew that Disney was scummy, but Jesus Christ!
	It's a whole new level, isn't it?
	Catastrophic Regression Threshold also says, in other news, woodchipper sales have skyrocketed.
	And let's go to Brexit 2.0.
	Yes, so Free Will 2112 says, nothing concrete will come from these proposals because our leaders have already sold themselves to Klaus Schwab and...
	The globalist cabal.
	Sadly, that's probably true.
	They only said they would fix illegal immigration so they could trick people into voting for them, and yeah, I suspect that is what they're doing now.
	Zen Chan says, I can't ever trust Farage.
	The moment he wasn't connected to UGIP, he stabbed the remaining members in the back.
	That includes Carl.
	Yeah, he did.
	By labelling them as far right.
	He's a rat who jumped shit for wherever.
	I think there's truth to that, but at the same time, I also think he did this with a commitment to the end goal.
	Again, I don't disagree with how he treated Kyle on this, but I think he did it in fear that it would actually have a negative effect on which way the vote would swing.
	In the referendum.
	I will also say, despite all of those criticisms, Farage is still very, very useful.
	And he's a great mouthpiece and he does get stuff done.
	On the whole, a pretty base bloke still.
	Yes.
	But Charlie the Beagle says, regarding Brexit 2.0, I was always under the impression that Britain was an island fortress for a thousand years.
	They repelled every serious attempt at invasion.
	Sadly, someone forgot to tell Blair and Johnson that you have to bar the gates closed to keep out the invaders.
	Yes, but they seem to have forgotten about that.
	You do, but I think that's about all we've got time for.
	Thank you so much for checking out this podcast for the Lotus Eaters.
	We'll be here again at 1 o'clock British summertime, so check us out tomorrow.
	And if you're interested, tune in later at 3.30, where Thomas and I will be discussing what leftists are actually teaching your children about LGBT, where we've got a curriculum that we're going to go through and analyse, because it's not...
	Really not good.
	Anyway, thank you again very much for tuning in.

▲