Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 11, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:48

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #368

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	This is episode 368 on the 11th of April 2022.
	I'm your host, Harry, joined today by Carl.
	Hello!
	And today we're going to be talking about a few things, including the right-wing backlash that has arrived against, as far as I can tell, pretty much everything the leftists have been doing over the past few decades, really, at this point.
	This week in Queer, and also how Elon Musk appears to be playing the Game of Thrones with the Twitter board of directors.
	So, we'll get into this now.
	Yeah, so, um, the right-wing backlash to the leftist perversion of society has arrived, and I, for one, am glad to see it, to be honest.
	I'm here for it.
	Yeah, I'm absolutely tired and sick to the back teeth of what leftists have been doing in society in general, which, and let's be clear, it's not that they've been just doing their own thing either, right?
	Because if they were just doing their own thing, it'd be very much like Scientologists.
	I'd be like, okay, I just don't care.
	You're nuts, but you're nuts in your little corner.
	Exactly.
	It's not affecting my life.
	But the problem is that they are not just staying in their own lane and getting on with their own lives.
	The problem is they are trying to actively indoctrinate not just you, but your children.
	And we have got a really great example of exactly what they've been teaching our children on Lotuses.com, which is a really, really good video that you did with Thomas, wasn't it, Harry?
	Yes, one of our listeners sent in a school curriculum that they found on the Seattle Public Schools website, which was talking about the LGBTQ plus blah-de-blah curriculum between kindergarten and fifth grade, which is five to ten-year-olds.
	And just we, Tom and I, went through and examined what exactly is their teaching and how it is leftist subversion of the most classic kind.
	And on a scale of one to ten, just how unrepentantly leftist is this?
	Oh, absolutely.
	It's an 11, at least.
	The guy is not only teaching your kids how they can be boy, girl, or something else altogether.
	He's wearing a phenomenally Latin X shirt to let you know that he's in deep with every single aspect of leftist ideology.
	And that's the real problem I have with all of this.
	It's the total lack of restraint.
	It's the total lack of consideration for other people's perspectives.
	This is the only legitimate way of looking at things, and if you don't do this, then you're some kind of bigot.
	It's like, okay, well, that can only go so far.
	And eventually, people are going to be like, you know what, I'm not a bigot, or if this is bigotry, I don't care.
	You're not going to be able to, I don't know, indoctrinate children in classrooms.
	Let's talk about the Don't Say Gay Bill.
	Now, we've covered this before, so I won't go into detail.
	Let's have a look at one of the reactions.
	Properly titled, we should call it the Anti-Groomer Bill.
	The Anti-Groomer Bill, that's right.
	Although they didn't have a title for it when they first put it out.
	Which was the mistake.
	Definitely a mistake.
	And so they've characterized as they don't say Gaylor, even though that's not what it's called at all.
	But notice how far they've resorted in their argumentation.
	So, oh, you're not allowed to be, you're going to not teach people about gays.
	It's like, no, we're not going to teach people about straights either.
	Like, no sex is going to be mentioned in a five-year-old's classroom, if that's okay with you.
	Which is a good thing.
	Which is a very good thing.
	And they were like, oh, this is bad for gay people.
	I was like, that didn't work.
	Oh, now this is gay for black people?
	Gay for black, bad for black people.
	Bad for gay black people.
	And it's like, really?
	How are you making all of these abstract connections?
	They all seem like non-sequiturs from one another.
	But it's just such an obvious code.
	It's like, oh, this is harmful to gay people.
	No, it's not.
	Well, this is harmful to black people.
	What?
	You know, are you just...
	Like, you can see them, like, seeding the ground, right?
	I love this.
	It will have a harmful impact on black LGBTQ youth, say critics.
	So it's sort of like, look, okay, so you won't let us groom the white kids, but could we still groom the black kids?
	And the answer is no!
	We don't want you grooming any of them!
	Exactly!
	Zero kids should be groomed by you people.
	Anyway, so, I love this.
	Florida's new controversial Don't Say Gay Bill that bans all discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity has been repeatedly slammed by equality advocates as harmful to LGBTQ youth and their families.
	You can't teach kindergartners about sex, you weird perverts.
	Also, how it will end up being harmful, yet to be demonstrated.
	Absolutely.
	Quote, this will be incredibly impactful to LGBTQ students of colour.
	As if, oh, the white students, well, sorry, we're going to sacrifice you to the right-wing machine, you know, we don't care about you.
	We're just here for the students of colour.
	In particular, black students, capital B, because of the compounding negative impact on their mental health and wellbeing.
	So, students of colour and black students are just uniquely...
	Weak when it comes to their mental health?
	They're obviously far more easily manipulated according to this logic.
	Well yeah, according to Preston Mitchum, the Director of Advocacy and Government Affairs at the LGBTQ non-profit The Trevor Project, why the hell would you give him an opinion?
	Why would I care about what the Trevor Project has to say on this?
	The West has declared war on Nazi Germany.
	We will not allow you to engage in the systemic destruction of the Jews.
	But here's Adolf Hitler's opinion.
	Like, why would you go to literally the people most invested in the thing that is being condemned?
	Anyway, depression and mental health challenges and anxiety sets in and can really be debilitating for many black and brown LGBTQ folks.
	At least it's not debilitating for the white ones, I guess, particularly when they're young.
	It's really important for us to have inclusive conversations in schools related to folks, race, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
	Yeah, it's really important to you.
	It's not important for the children.
	It's not important for the parents.
	It's not important for the schools or for their education or anything that's in their favor.
	It's important for your ideology.
	That's why you're doing this.
	Anyway, don't worry, it's not the same thing.
	But this gets worse, obviously.
	You've got Pete Booty Judge being like, oh, this is going to kill kids.
	No, it's not.
	No one's going to be killed by this, you hysterical alarmist.
	I hate that everybody does this on Twitter, especially, and on the internet, but I'm going to have to throw it out of source, please.
	Yeah, prove it.
	Prove that this is going to kill anyone, because it's obviously not going to kill anyone.
	Like, literally, if we don't teach children about sexuality, zero children will die from that as a causal effect.
	From what I've seen, the only argument they really have for that is the whole, you know, it's almost the meme, the 41% thing.
	But I've actually looked into where that comes from, and as far as I can tell, it seems to come from statistics that say, of these youth who deem themselves as trans, I think it was between 26% and 43% have attempted suicide.
	And oftentimes these are people who are much younger, obviously suffering from other kind of mental health illnesses, as well as just gender dysphoria or whatever they're identifying themselves as having.
	And there's a big difference between committing suicide, actually succeeding and going through with it, and attempting, and obviously they're fudging the numbers elsewhere as well.
	But moreover, I bet if we looked at the number of attempted child suicides, it wasn't significantly higher 30 years ago.
	No, probably not.
	I mean, how are the stats looking among goths and alternative kids 15 years ago?
	Anyway, Alabama is following suit.
	They have brought out two new bills.
	In fact, they've passed two new bills.
	One is the SB 184, which bans gender-affirming care for children.
	And the other one is HB 322, which also bans trans students for using locker rooms that align with their gender identity, as in...
	If you're a boy, you can't go in the girls' room.
	And it also limits LGBTQ content in classrooms due to an amendment.
	So they've basically done the same thing as what Based Florida Man has done, because children don't need to be talked to about sex, especially when you've got so many of these teachers being like, yeah, we're going to have these secret conversations.
	Don't tell mommy and daddy, says the groomer.
	I can't stand it.
	So the first one, SB 184, is the Vulnerable Child Protection Act.
	Great framing.
	Yes.
	Are you against protecting vulnerable children?
	And it states that anyone who provides gender-affirming care, which is puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or physical gender-affirming surgeries, anyone under 18 could be convicted of a felony and face up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine.
	Good.
	Good.
	You absolutely should not be doing any of these things to people who aren't even old enough to vote.
	I mean, they make lots of excuses for 18-year-olds being unable to make lots of rational decisions due to their mental health and mental age.
	Oh, they're still only kids, they can't do this.
	But you can make this massive, life-changing decision and go ahead with all of the surgery that comes along with it.
	Yeah, it's mad.
	I mean, and it literally ruins lives, but who knows?
	Who cares?
	What difference does it make?
	That's the question for the progressives, basically.
	They went to one associate professor at the University of Alabama, Marissa Ladinsky, who said when lawmakers attempt to practice medicine without a license, they realized quickly that there was a lot more they didn't understand than what they thought they did.
	Sorry, what?
	You're not allowed to chop off the body parts of children?
	Well, you're trying to legislate medicine without a license.
	Okay.
	Okay, is that what that meant?
	Like you said, the whole framing of that was really confusing to me, but okay.
	Well, it is!
	It's like, okay, well, I accept that not surgically altering a child is practicing medicine without a license, and it's a good thing to not surgically alter a child.
	I accept that.
	Ah, well, where's your qualification?
	How are you going to prove that?
	Where's your study right there?
	Well, since I'm not doing anything...
	I don't need one.
	The legislation also makes the claim that puberty blockers can cause infertility and other health risks.
	That's true.
	I was going to say, that's not a claim, that's just a fact.
	Yeah, that's a fact, right?
	But this is what Ladinsky says.
	She says, these potential side effects only present real risks after puberty and are not a risk to youth taking puberty blockers.
	Just think about that framing.
	Think about the way that she said that.
	Big brain thought here.
	This only happens later on in their lives, and so at the time that they're taking the puberty blockers, it's not a risk.
	It's like, yeah, but they become older people later in their lives.
	Your body just doesn't stop growing.
	Arrested development doesn't just set into your bones.
	They're not going to take puberty blockers forever, are they?
	Like, they're not going to be 55 years old and on puberty blockers, they still have the body of a 10 year old, are they?
	Like, at some point, they will grow up and the risks that have been incurred will be there for them.
	Looking to the future is necessary when talking about the health and education of children.
	Don't know why I would have to say that.
	Surely even when they're older, when they're like, say, 20, 21 years old, they all want to be an adult woman.
	Rather than just a childish girl or something?
	Yeah, especially, even if they're transitioning, they want to be an adult of the opposite sex, right?
	Yeah.
	But anyway, so this, of course, happened in the UK in the famous case of Keira Bell, who said that she was essentially groomed into having her breasts roved when she was 16, and And has taken legal action.
	The High Court did rule that trans children under the age of 16 are unable to give informed consent to such medical care as hormone blockers and hormone replacement therapy and medical interventions.
	However, this has been reversed recently.
	So this is interesting.
	We go to the next one.
	A court of appeal has judged that under-16s, in fact, can give informed consent to puberty blocker use.
	Under-16s.
	They can't give informed consent to anything.
	They can't have sex, they can't take drugs or drink, they can't smoke, they can't drive, they can't vote, but they can give informed consent to having their breasts or penis chopped off.
	Ridiculous.
	It is absurd, and I would love to hear what the doctor's rationale plays.
	BBC doesn't present it.
	To me, this sort of behaviour opens up the floodgates for all of those things that you just listed, all of a sudden being within the realm of, oh, well, they can consent.
	Yeah.
	Why can't a 15-year-old give informed consent to all of the things that we say that they can't?
	But anyway, this of course reverses the previous ruling, so now the thing is up in the air.
	She is challenging this.
	I believe Kira Bell is challenging this.
	But the Court of Appeals judges said that, quote, they recognize the difficulties and complexities of the issue, but it's important for clinicians to exercise their judgment, knowing how important it is that consent is properly obtained according to the particular individual circumstances.
	It depends on the trans child.
	That's what they're saying.
	It depends on the trans child.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Alright.
	Just as well, the difficulties and complexities means that we don't want people saying nasty things on Twitter about us.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Absolutely.
	That's exactly it.
	But I thought we agreed that it doesn't depend on the trans child.
	So anyway, let's have a look at one response to this.
	Just, you know, people going on about it on Twitter.
	A dark day for trans people.
	Alabama has passed SB 184, which forcibly medically detransitions all trans teens.
	I don't even know if I think there is such a thing as a trans child.
	No, of course there isn't.
	In the same way there's not a vegan cat.
	I think the whole framing and being able to frame it in such a way of this hurts or damages trans kids, this is an affront against trans kids, is just a lie.
	That's what it is, because there is no such thing.
	I don't agree.
	What adults do when they're adults is fine.
	And as adults, they can give informed consent, but I don't think children can.
	I think they're far too easily manipulated by the adults around them who apparently have a political agenda that's not in their best interests at all.
	I mean, going back to other stuff that we've covered with Disney, they outright say that they have a political agenda and no one's trying to stop them, or at least no one in these big corporations.
	If anything, that would imply that they're in favour of it.
	But anyway, look at this, right?
	No, no, go back, go back.
	It will force trans teens through the wrong puberty in front of all their peers.
	There is no wrong puberty.
	Your puberty is what your body is going to do, whether you like it or not.
	This is the active fight against nature.
	Yes, this is the fight against reality.
	The wrong puberty.
	How did you establish the right puberty?
	Like, how could you establish, oh, it's someone else's puberty I should be going through?
	Your body has a teleology in it.
	You're going to go through a certain kind of puberty, which is your own, and it's not really special or unique, but it is yours, and that's it.
	There's no wrong puberty about it.
	It's just the way things are.
	But anyway, terrible.
	I cry for these kids.
	But notice that she doesn't cry for victims of those people who use this as a way to access vulnerable women and Well, Stephen Crowder got hit for it, didn't he exactly and because this is precisely what happened if you want to know what happened in madden county uh go and sign up because i'm not going to talk about it here anyway next up is texas banning abortion good
	I used to be very, like all liberals, I used to just be like, yeah, well, you know, it's not something I have to think about or worry about.
	I didn't have much of an opinion on it either way, because it just wasn't, like you said, it wasn't something that I really considered or had to worry about in the first place.
	But I'm at the point now where I'm like, you know what?
	I mean, it is a bad thing, right?
	It is innately negative to have an abortion.
	Yeah, well, that's where the whole, what was it, safe, rare and...
	Safe, legal and rare, which was Hillary Clinton's formulation.
	Safe, legal and rare came from is the recognition that there is something innately immoral going on here, which is that you are taking the life of this child before it even has the chance to be a life, but that there might be some circumstances where, for the safety of the mother, for instance, it's necessary.
	But that's been flipped on its head, and now you get pro-abortion actors.
	How...
	How are you pro-abortion?
	Well, no, you're exactly right.
	That's been completely flipped on its head.
	And what they'll do is they'll be like, yeah, but what if...
	And they'll construct some arcane situation that has either only happened once or never happened.
	And be like, yeah, so what in that situation?
	It's like, okay, in that situation, maybe.
	But this is being used by lots of women as, frankly, a form of contraception.
	And that's disgusting.
	Because as you said, the safe, legal, and rare formulation to which I could have consented and did consent...
	It implies that there is a certain judgment of virtue and vice that goes into this.
	You know, the rare part.
	It requires a certain level of virtue on the part of the women who are potentially going to be able to get abortions.
	And that, as you say, has been turned on its head.
	They're like, no, abortions are now good.
	Anyone should be able to get an abortion for any reason whatsoever and screw the life of the child.
	It's like, no, that's not fair.
	And it's gross that you think that murdering a baby in the womb is a moral good.
	Like, it's obviously bad.
	I don't know if we've got it in here, it doesn't look like we do, but there was that image that I saw going around on Twitter of the woman showing her stomach and said, this is what 15 abortions look like.
	Oh, God, how disgusting is that?
	Why are you proud of this?
	Why did you go through with them in the first place, but why are you proud of this?
	It's vile.
	And it's to say that the babies themselves have no consideration in our society.
	And I don't really want to be the kind of society that gives no consideration to babies.
	I think that's disgusting.
	I think we should really move away from that framework.
	And so the reason that I'm not against this really is because, you know what, screw it.
	You offered an inch and you took a mile.
	Texas, they brought this in a couple of months ago now.
	They brought in this law and the Guardian's framing of this.
	Oh, it's forced thousands of women to cross state lines to seek the procedure.
	Or maybe they could just not murder their babies.
	Maybe have the baby.
	If you don't want it, as harsh as that sounds, put it up for adoption.
	There are other options.
	Maybe if you're not willing or ready to have a child yet, maybe abstain from sex for a little bit.
	There is the Ben Shapiro point here of, well, I used all the protection, I did all of this, yes, but sex still leads to children.
	That is the biological function of sex in the first place.
	And at the end of the day, you took the decisions, you should have to live with the consequences.
	It's just, I just don't know why else I have to explain this.
	But anyway, let's have a look at the number of abortions in America, right?
	Because it's kind of gross.
	You look at it, you scroll down a bit.
	So this is from a Christian site, but I went and checked the statistics independently.
	They're from, where's the place?
	I don't know.
	Their official US... The Guttmacher Institute, which is one of the...
	It tallies all this.
	But 63,459,781 abortions since 1973.
	63 million.
	That's not a great figure.
	It's awful, isn't it?
	No, that's not good at all.
	63 million babies were killed because the mothers were like, yeah, no...
	Thanks, feminism.
	I mean, the thing is, the feminists, well, what about in circumstances of rape?
	It's like, these are not circumstances of rape.
	No, there's 63 million rape.
	Yeah, there's not the 63 million rape babies aborted here.
	Yeah, no.
	And this was on average since 1973 about a million a year.
	But this has gone down in recent years to about 620,000.
	So that's good, I suppose.
	But anyway, the reason I point this out is because Texas are like, yeah, so we've banned abortion.
	And now if you have an abortion in Texas, well, you've broken the law for murder.
	I mean, it's a pretty simple, easy-to-make logical argument.
	Yeah, and honestly, I don't even feel like condemning this at all.
	I mean, you wanted just abortion on demand, and that's a moral abomination.
	So now, if you're murdering a baby, you're a murderer.
	Okay, fine.
	So anyway, this, obviously, the abortion rights groups.
	Again, abortion rights.
	Murder rights.
	I just can't get my head around it.
	It's disgusting.
	But anyway, this Lizelle Herrera was in hospital.
	She claimed that she'd had a miscarriage in the hospital, but then divulged some information to the hospital staff, which caused them to report her to the police, because basically she'd admitted that she had self-induced the abortion...
	Killed the baby on purpose.
	And therefore...
	But of course, you get, you know, activists saying, this is a developing story.
	We don't know what happened yet.
	But this is taking away people's autonomy over their own bodies and leaves them with no safe option when they choose not to become a parent.
	You choose not to become a parent through not having sex.
	That's how you do it.
	I don't think baby murdering is actually the right way to choose not to become a parent.
	I'm not a Christian, but it is factual that the only 100% guaranteed method of not becoming pregnant is abstaining altogether.
	But again, if you're going to have sex, then you have to be ready to live with the consequences.
	That could be an STD, that could be having a baby.
	Yeah.
	Also, just something else that sprung to mind on the whole framing of the, oh, abortion is good because, oh, it's not even a baby, really.
	It's not even alive yet.
	Okay, then why is miscarriage bad?
	Yeah.
	My wife's had three miscarriages.
	I've seen every one of them.
	I can tell you it is a baby.
	Yes, they are.
	It is absolutely a baby.
	I also, without going into too much detail, have experienced what that goes like in the past.
	It's awful.
	It's horrible.
	And if it weren't for the fact that we intrinsically, on some way, recognize that this is a baby, that's life has been lost...
	We wouldn't care about it.
	Why would we?
	What reason would we have?
	Exactly.
	But it is alive, and it is horrible to terminate it before it can even have the chance at existence.
	But anyway, moving on.
	Finally, Texas schools are also physically removing LGBT activists.
	In the form of teachers, which is fantastic.
	And their propaganda, which is great.
	So this is in MacArthur High in Irving, Texas.
	It began with just scraping off rainbow stickers that had been posted on the campus.
	And also, this led to something like three teachers quitting or being fired.
	That was it.
	One faculty sponsor of the school's gay-straight alliance is having her contract terminated.
	Another is preparing to resign, and a third has been removed from the classroom.
	Good.
	Clear them out.
	Clear them out.
	I'm sick of this.
	They can go.
	They can absolutely go.
	And so it's just a typical leftist whining.
	Oh, no, they're preventing us from indoctrinating children.
	Yes, good.
	Get out.
	Yeah?
	Could go on, but I won't.
	Alright, that's fair.
	Well, my segment will be going on because it segues quite nicely because we're going to take a look at This Week in Queer.
	Following on from Carl's segment, there is a lot more queer stuff that has been going on across the world.
	One of the things that I like to bring up is that you see one of the...
	Most common reactions to people pointing out all of the queer stuff, especially in regards to trans events and stuff online, is people go, oh, it's only such a small amount of the population, why does anybody care?
	Well, because of all of the examples that I'm going to give, because these incredibly small percentage of people are trying to completely deconstruct the reality that we live in and change the framing that we see our entire society in.
	Which is a lot of power to be afforded to one very small group of people.
	And it's often the activists alongside them.
	Just as a quick segue as well, we've got Shil here for the premium content of Josh's Contemplations, the latest one, number 67, on postmodernism.
	Speaking of nonces, they are covering Michel Foucault.
	And there's obviously joking there.
	It is an interesting discussion where Josh and Thomas are talking about what's going on, what the foundations of postmodern philosophy, The beginning of it, where it's gone now, how it connects to a lot of the social movements going on nowadays, and also refuting some of what they consider to be misconceptions that James Lindsay and Jordan Peterson have.
	But the thing is, Thomas is doing his PhD in this subject.
	He knows in critical theory...
	He knows it back and forth, yeah.
	Yeah, he knows it inside out and back and forth.
	And he is absolutely correct, as they go into this, about the categorical deconstruction of postmodernism.
	And how that, as you say, for a tiny fraction of people, will literally destroy the requirements we have for categorization for everyone.
	And we see this in the definition of woman and man.
	This is it in effect.
	What does it even mean?
	Exactly.
	Anyone can be a woman.
	No, they can't.
	And so this is a really great way to understand that.
	And obviously a lot of what we're talking about also goes into queer theory, which is directly influenced by postmodernism.
	Like Gail Rubin, Judith Butler, they're always quoting Foucault on everything.
	I've read Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, and she explicitly draws on Foucault.
	And the whole thing is a postmodern theory of gender, and so you can't get away from it.
	Anyway, let's carry on.
	So, the first article, because this is mainly just a compilation of things that have been going on over the past few weeks, Just so that if anybody does throw that, oh, it's only a small amount of the population, what does it matter?
	Just so you've got examples to throw at them, really, because there's countless examples.
	For instance, trans police officers who are born male but identify as female can now search women in the UK. Good news, ladies.
	I don't see any problems arising because of that.
	Do they not remember Sarah Everard?
	Stripped searched as well.
	Yeah, the amount of power they're giving to police officers, this doesn't look great alongside the strip search of a teenager that happened in Hackney a few years ago.
	I think Child Q was what they were designated because they didn't want to give the name out, understandably, where Metropolitan Police in London strip searched a 15-year-old because somebody in her school thought she smelt like marijuana.
	So, bring the cops in, give her a strip search, spread your legs, darling.
	Vile.
	And then, of course, there was the case of Sarah Everard last year, which was an explicit abuse of police power.
	So let's just give the police officers more unaccountable power to wield.
	This speaks directly to the destruction of the categories that we were just talking about, though.
	Women can be strip-searched by transgender police officers who were born men and could be accused of causing a hate incident if they refuse.
	Yep.
	Because categories don't mean anything.
	Sorry, I don't want a biological man searching me.
	Big hairy hands on you.
	No, well, that's because you're a transphobe.
	Now you've been reported for a hate incident.
	So these guidelines were given by the National Police Chiefs Council, which says that chief officers are advised to recognize the status of transgender colleagues from the moment they transition, considered to be the point at which they present in the gender with which they identify.
	So if Barry shows up in a skirt, no recourse against it, nobody can just go, that's a bit funny there, Barry.
	No, you just gotta go along with it.
	I'm strip searching the girls today.
	I bet you are.
	Getting in the changing room with the ladies.
	Thus, once a transgender colleague has transitioned, they will search the persons of the same gender as their own lived gender.
	So, yep, five minutes ago, Barry decided that he's a woman.
	Now he's got to get the joy of strip-searching all of the women.
	After stating a transgender police officer could be taken out of search of a person objected, the advice says, if the refusal is based on discriminatory views, consideration should be given for the incident to be recorded as a non-crime hate incident.
	Well, that's great, but recorded hate crime and non-crime hate incident are different things that get recorded differently, as we have gone over a number of times.
	The police can keep a track of things that you've done that aren't illegal.
	Why would they need that?
	kind of social system coming, social credit system in the pipeline.
	Also, discriminatory views is, unless they're explicitly shouting transphobic things at you as you're trying to search them, which, to be fair, I could understand why they...
	I would forgive.
	Yeah, I would forgive.
	It's very, very subjective.
	So this whole thing basically comes down to submit or be arrested.
	Yeah.
	And the guidance was revealed when a retired officer, Kathy Larkman, had the guidance...
	Sorry, a vision of the future where it's just male police officers dressed as female police officers with wigs.
	Just oppressing women.
	This is the future the feminists wanted for you.
	What's happening?
	This is almost the future they were warning us about, while at the same time facilitating it.
	With their own actions.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	This was all coming down the pipeline.
	You just thought it would stop at you.
	Yeah.
	But, so this woman, Kathy Larkman, retired officer, had the guidance released to her by the NPCC, and she just described herself as gobsmacked.
	Understandably so, Kathy.
	Women are not even an afterthought in the guidance.
	They are completely non-existent.
	Everything is geared towards the sensitivities of the officer doing the searching.
	They claim they are trying to be inclusive, but this isn't inclusive of women, and it doesn't respect their sex.
	Very true.
	Next thing I've got here was something very awful.
	John sent me this clip, and I'm very glad that he did, because the clip is wonderful.
	But let's just take a look at what's going on in jolly old Australia at the moment.
	A note from a constituent who says, Hi Bernie, this is a worksheet that my 10-year-old daughter brought home from school, and it includes a photo of the worksheet.
	Part of her homework was to discuss with her father his erections and ejaculation.
	I find this very disturbing and sickening, as indeed do I, I have to say.
	I have complained to the school and was told it was just part of the curriculum.
	Can you advise who else I should make a complaint to?
	Well, I could go on for days who she could complain to.
	My daughter still plays with dolls and writes letters to the tooth fairy.
	There is no way any little girl should be told to ask these questions.
	Well, so say all of us.
	What the hell is going on in this state when 10-year-old girls are told to go home and talk to your father about his erections and about his ejaculations?
	What the hell is going on here?
	An appropriate reaction right there.
	So that seemed to be an Australian member of parliament or someone like that talking to all of the other members of the Australian political circles and just getting very angry at them.
	Understandably so.
	Yeah, but this is full-on Brave New World stuff.
	They just think there is no innocence of a child and that it would be appropriate.
	I mean, the groomer's fully in charge of the curriculum there.
	Well, that is interesting as well, because I think that sort of behavior and sort of tasking your children, the children that you're supposed to be looking after as a teacher, to go home and ask these sorts of questions to your father is going to result in probably your father being quite combative to these requests, because he's going to go, no, I'm not going to tell you anything about that.
	That's disgusting.
	Who asked you to do that?
	Yeah, yeah.
	But then the teacher will then, as a result, as a part of the Parliament of Victoria, thank you, John, the teacher will then have more ammunition when they go back to see your parents.
	They don't care about you.
	They don't want to tell you about these things, whereas I want to teach you about these things.
	You can trust me.
	So it's like more ammunition to isolate the children from their families.
	That's how I see it.
	I see it as just another way to try and facilitate family breakdown, or at least traditional breakdowns.
	I mean, the fact that they would put this in the curriculum makes me think that they think they're not going to get in trouble for doing this.
	That's what they hope so, at the very least.
	Yeah, and now as well in America, New Jersey is requiring second graders to learn about their gender identity.
	That's in the headline, but it actually does go all the way back to first grade, and let's be perfectly honest, kindergarten as well.
	That's where these things always come out.
	So New Jersey public school second graders will be getting lessons related to gender identity this fall under state sex education guidelines that will take effect in September.
	So this is part of the state guidelines that it is appropriate for a seven-year-old to learn about gender and gender identities.
	These concepts which are completely disconnected from reality, they're all basically, when you actually break it down with people who believe in all of this stuff, it basically comes down to what's in your head.
	Yeah, well they believe it's all a social construct.
	Yes.
	So what they're doing is going out of their way to deliberately confuse seven-year-olds about how they are either boys or girls.
	Yep.
	And the standards listed performance expectations for second graders which include discussing the range of ways people express their gender and how gender role stereotypes may limit behaviour.
	Good.
	Limiting behaviour is precisely the point of gender role stereotypes.
	For example, right, you've got men who don't know, especially when they're teenagers, exactly how to act around girls, young women.
	Young men don't know what they should or shouldn't be doing.
	The prompts are not always clear to a young man who's raging with hormones.
	And so limiting that young man's behaviour is precisely the point.
	God damn it.
	Sorry, this is making me angry!
	Understandably, I think it's righteous anger, you're feeling.
	The point is limiting behaviour, that's good.
	Yeah, I think people seem to have forgotten...
	Like, not all behaviour is equal!
	People seem to have forgotten that children are supposed to have what are referred to as healthy boundaries.
	Yes, boundaries.
	And children thrive with boundaries as well.
	When they know what they should and shouldn't be doing, then they are happy.
	Yes, I don't know if you know the Thomas Sowell quote, but he has one which is, every next generation of children is essentially an invasion of barbarians that we must civilise before it's too late, which is nail right on the head.
	Absolutely true.
	100%.
	And I say this as a father...
	Yes.
	And one school district in the state distributed sample lesson plans, including indicating first graders could be taught...
	So there's first graders, this has already gone beyond second graders, so this is six-year-olds we're talking about now, could be taught that they can have boy parts, but...
	Feel like a girl, which, what is a six-year-old supposed to take from that?
	How are you supposed to feel like a boy or a girl at six?
	You're only just learning about numbers.
	One lesson plan, pink, purple, and blue instructs teachers to talk to their first graders about gender identity, and its first objective is to have the students be able to define gender, gender identity, and gender role stereotypes.
	How is this useful for their education in any way, shape, or form?
	How will this help them to understand that 2 plus 2 equals 4?
	Not that they're likely being prepped to learn that it's 4 in the first place.
	Lesson's second objective is to have students name at least two things they've been taught about gender role stereotypes and how those things may limit people of all genders.
	Why should they care?
	Good.
	Things should be limited.
	Yes.
	And a spokesman for this district told Fox News that the teaching materials were not the school district's plans.
	The school superintendent told them that the materials presented to parents at the February Board of Education meeting were a sample list of resources aligned with state policy.
	So it's just a sample list, but it does align exactly with what the state wants us to be teaching in the first place.
	And it's not going to be the full extent of what they're going to be teaching either.
	Yes, so if anything, you only just got a taster right there.
	Then we've got some more ridiculous stuff happening on our side of the pond as well, which is a trans-Scots killer now identifying as an infant, depending nappies and baby food in jail.
	This is how far we have fallen as a civilization.
	When people use the term identifier, I'm really struggling with not just equating that with I pretend to be.
	Yes, or just look at me.
	Yeah, I mean, I pretend to be someone who is...
	I pretend to be a baby in nappies.
	Okay, I don't care.
	Why the hell do I have to go along with your make-believe?
	Well, let's find out if they are or not.
	So Sophie Eastwood was formerly known as Daniel and was jailed for life in 2004 for strangling a cellmate with shoelaces.
	So let's capitulate to the wants and desires of this murderer.
	Killer has now told the prison governor at Palmont Jail that she wants to identify as a baby, wear nappies and have meals blended like baby food.
	No!
	Murderer, shut up!
	Yeah, it's understood that prison bosses...
	Sorry, I know I'm interrupting, but...
	No, no, no, of course.
	The other day, I went to London.
	I went on a tour of Victorian prisons.
	And man, I am well in favour of them if this is where we're going.
	Yeah, I don't think they would have been particularly kind to this kind of behaviour.
	Rightfully so.
	It's almost like prison's a punishment, not just daycare centre.
	Which is literally what they're trying to turn this into.
	Yes, it's understood that prison bosses are treating the demand seriously and considering which protocols might be established in dealing with the prisoner.
	Eastwood has already been supplied with a dummy.
	Jesus Christ!
	The source added, Eastwood is a complex person and intelligent, but she is pretty demanding on the resources of the prison and enjoys being the centre of attention.
	It's difficult to know if she really does feel a natural inclination to be treated like a baby, or if it's just some kind of attention-seeking.
	Oh, I wonder.
	I wonder whichever one it could be.
	It's not difficult for me to see.
	Stop giving in to the demands of this narcissistic idiot.
	But why are you giving a convicted murderer leverage over the institution itself?
	Because now, if the Institute says, no, we're not going to do that, they're going to claim, oh, you're violating my human rights.
	You're oppressing me.
	Exactly.
	I'm being oppressed by the prison guards, by the warden, by the jail itself.
	It's like, yeah, you're being oppressed on purpose, shut up and get back to labour.
	Breaking rocks is when you bring it back.
	I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing is just him seeing how far he can push it.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Which it absolutely is.
	But it must be startling to him that, oh my god, they're actually going ahead with this.
	I'm shocked that anyone would be listening to this person.
	Yeah, why should we?
	And then, obviously in the UK, there's been a lot of controversy recently about the idea of conversion therapy, banning that, and the government recently said they were going to ban it, then pulled that back, and then said they were going to ban it again, except this time exclude trans-conversion therapy, because of course trans conversion therapy is such a broad title that it can be applied to basically anything.
	And the trans activists have been attending protests, thousands attending protests, calling for the conversion therapy ban to include transgender people.
	Isn't transition surgery conversion therapy?
	I mean, in the most literal sense of the term.
	Like what?
	Yes, it is.
	You're converting from man to woman, so to speak.
	So maybe the government should ban that.
	I mean, like, for children at least.
	Yes, absolutely, for children.
	but the whole thing just confuses me well it doesn't confuse me I know exactly what it is so they were gathered at protests near Downing Street in London and elsewhere calling on the government to include transgender people in a proposed ban on conversion therapy I don't think we should ban any of this to be honest because in the UK as we've already looked into it's purely opt-in and the people who do opt-in are doing so of their own through their own agency And it's a really tiny number of those people?
	It's a voluntary transaction between two people, therefore I don't think the government should be sticking their nose in it, whether or not it's successful.
	And also, once again, trans-conversion therapy can be as simple as sitting down with a child or teenager and just asking them, are you sure about this?
	Conversion therapy, yeah.
	But you can see what they're doing.
	They're trying to make it so the only legal option for people is affirmative care.
	You can only affirm these people on whatever mental illnesses or delusions they're going through.
	This is the aspect of the groomer.
	We only want the pipeline to go one way.
	Absolutely.
	And then we've got 650 people, including Olympic athletes, signing a letter against trans people being included in being allowed to participate in women's sports.
	Callum and I have spoke about this before.
	Good, because if the actual sports athlete stars themselves don't step up to this, the women's category will be completely destroyed for all future generations if we just let them get away with this.
	So fair play.
	Good on you guys.
	Then we've got Scott Morrison in Australia backing a push to ban trans women from playing female sports.
	Scott Morrison set to back a ban on transgender athletes competing in women's sports, calling a bill proposed by a Liberal Party senator, Brave.
	Prime Minister was asked on Monday whether he intends to push through legislation that would outlaw trans athletes if he's re-elected on May 21st.
	He remained tight-lipped, but he said he fully endorses two Liberal Party women that have been vocal about the hot-button issue, Catherine Deaves and Claire Chandler.
	So it looks like it's going a similar way in Australia as well, potentially.
	You don't say tight lips on something and then say, oh, but I do actually support these two people without obviously supporting what it's doing themselves.
	So good.
	Like you said with the right-wing backlash, we seem to be forming a unified front to combat this, which is reasonable.
	I think it's perfectly fine.
	Desirable.
	It's what we've come so far that we're actually forming a unified front with radical feminists of all people.
	The right and left coming together.
	To combat this, shockingly enough.
	Notice how this never goes the other way.
	It's not, oh, we need to ban female-to-male transgenders from competing in male sports.
	That's how that never goes the other way.
	There might be a few biological reasons for that.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	The fact that it's not being done on an equal playing field shows that men have an inherent physical superiority when it comes to physical competitions over women, and this is why we have sex-segregated sports in the first place.
	And even more so than that, when you're going to the realm of the psychological, women generally, biological women, are much more agreeable and much less prone to confrontation than men, whereas biological men are much more likely to try and insert themselves in something forcefully.
	That sounds a bit...
	Well, yeah.
	Yeah, but that is true as well.
	But anyway, moving on, going back to people being completely delusional, I've found this article from Metro, I'm a trans man and should be included in discussions about abortion.
	I mean, if you've still got a functioning womb and uterus, I suppose so.
	But whenever abortion is discussed, it always seems to be presented as a woman's issue.
	It is a woman's issue.
	But it isn't!
	It's an issue for everybody with a fertile uterus and ovaries, which includes trans men, non-binary or genderqueer people assigned female at birth.
	Yes, I do agree.
	It also includes all of those women.
	Yes.
	Correct.
	I was going to say, it literally destroys the term trans man and compresses it down into adult human females.
	Yes, but also on the subject that you brought up in the last segment, we're in the queer lobby.
	We don't discriminate against baby killers.
	We're equal opportunity baby killers over here.
	Then we've got the Fed saying gay.
	If you want to play this clip, this is Jen Psaki at a press briefing recently.
	And so just the last one.
	So if you guys oppose this law that bans classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in K-3, does the White House support that kind of classroom instruction before kindergarten?
	Do you have examples of schools in Florida that are teaching kindergarteners about sex education?
	I think that's a relevant question because I think this is a politically charged, harsh law that is putting parents and LGBTQ plus kids in a very difficult, heartbreaking circumstance.
	And so I actually think that's a pretty relevant question.
	Go ahead.
	Dodges the question entirely.
	Insults the interviewer for asking it in the first place.
	Completely ridiculous.
	Also, the very fact that she says LGBTQ plus kids.
	We know what side you're on, Jen.
	And also, we could give you examples if you want.
	Yeah, we could.
	Yeah, we absolutely could.
	But the fact that she's like, well, have you got any examples?
	Doesn't matter.
	We're talking in theory.
	And in principle.
	Yeah, in principle.
	Do you support this thing?
	And she doesn't give an answer, which means yes.
	Because she knows that it looks terrible if she says that she does.
	Yep, and so the Fed supports saying gay.
	They do not support based Florida man, as if that's shocking in the slightest.
	And the last thing I've got here just for this week is that one of the heirs of the Disney empire has come out as trans and given a stinging rebuke to Florida's hateful don't-say-gay law.
	So Disney, we're kind of ignoring this for a little bit.
	If we can't pervert your children, you're just a hateful bigot.
	Yeah, Disney were staying quiet on this until they got the backlash from their absolute insane staff members saying, we need to do something about it.
	We, a private company, need to interfere in state legislator.
	Disney, the company that has recently been revealed to be actively pushing a gay agenda, where there have been multiple child sex trafficking stings and convictions...
	In the past couple of months.
	Like, if we can't pervert your children, this is an abomination.
	Am I surprised?
	No.
	Not particularly.
	So this is Charlie Disney, the child of Roy P. Disney.
	Once again, we pointed out a bit of an unfortunate name.
	The great-nephew of Walt Disney and his wife, Sherry.
	They took to the stage to announce that their family...
	They're saying they because Charlie identifies as non-binary.
	I'm sure Walt Disney would be on board with all of this.
	Oh yeah, their family would be matching up to $500,000 in donation to the Human Rights Committee.
	Roy told the Washington Times, My wife Sherry and I have been members of the HRC for over 20 years.
	Equality matters deeply to us, especially when we can show it off in the public.
	Sorry, especially because our child Charlie is transgender and a proud member of the LGBTQ plus community.
	We were heartbroken when Ron DeSantis signed the Don't Say Gay or Trans Law in Florida, so he's extended it.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	yeah okay yeah the fight isn't over and we are determined to do everything we can to stop this from happening in other places speaking to the LA Chimes Charlie a 30 year old school high school biology and environmental science teacher uses they/them pronouns, are you going to trust someone who's using they/them non-binary to teach your kids biology and environmental science, which will of course all end up being the how dare you realm of green propaganda,
	said they had come out to family and friends four years ago but decided to publicly said they had come out to family and friends four years ago but decided to publicly come out in the face The only thing stopping me from publicly coming out was Ron DeSantis not pushing this law, and now is the time.
	But literally, groom a teacher says, hang on a second, I won't be allowed to groom my kids in the classroom.
	I won't be able to teach them that there's no such thing as biology while I'm teaching them this high school biology lesson.
	But not only that, like, anyway, I'll let it go.
	So if you ever need an example, honestly, to combat these people, if you're arguing with them online or elsewhere, honestly, just look around, just give a quick Google, they're pretty much everywhere, and I think I'll end that one there.
	Anyway, let's talk about something a bit more fun, shall we?
	So, Elon Musk is playing the Game of Thrones with Twitter, and I'm really interested in how this is going to play out.
	Now, by the time you watch this on YouTube or Facebook or wherever else, things may have changed.
	This is going to be a rapidly updating situation because a lot of it is done through Elon Musk's Twitter feed.
	But it's worth talking about.
	But before we start, if you want to support us, I'd like to give you a good reason to do so.
	Recently I released the premium video on Lotuses.com, What Did We Learn From Matrix Resurrections?
	And I think we learned an awful lot.
	Now, I hate to...
	Toot my own horn, but my media analysis is the best media analysis, and you're not going to get this sort of level quality anywhere else.
	And I've not seen this take from anyone else, so definitely go check that out if you want to support us.
	But anyway, right, so starting on April the 4th, Elon Musk revealed that he'd bought loads and loads of Twitter stocks.
	Yeah.
	holder of the company which came as something as of a surprise to everyone it seemed like he like he built up by like oh do you think twitter is acting as a free speech platform and everyone's like well no duh yeah yeah he was he was asking these questions kind of seeding things but i wasn't expecting him to just outright buy a part of twitter I was expecting him to come out with his own social media platform or something.
	Or just something.
	He's like, no, he's just going to buy his way in.
	And this clearly came as something as a surprise to Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, who was then like, oh, I'm excited to share that we're appointing Elon Musk to the board.
	Because, of course, he doesn't have to be on the board.
	I can only imagine this.
	The smiley face mask with the crying soy jack behind it.
	Well, if you want to get the next one, this is exactly what people were...
	I'm so excited, guys!
	I can't wait, because Parag Agrawal is not a free speech absolutist like Elon Musk is.
	But anyway, going back to his statement, through conversations with Elon in recent weeks, it's become clear that he would bring great value to our board.
	He is both a passionate believer and intense critic of the service, which is exactly what we need on Twitter and in the boardroom to make us stronger in the long term.
	Welcome, Elon.
	Yeah, you can feel the tears as he's typing that out.
	Elon Musk thanked Parag.
	He said, looking forward to working with Parag on the Twitter board to make significant improvements to Twitter in the coming months.
	All very Game of Thrones-esque.
	This is very much, oh, we're so delighted to have you.
	Oh, I'm delighted to be here.
	While they're both holding knives secretly under her.
	Yeah, Cersei there.
	I'm so happy that Tyrion's here to foil my plans.
	Exactly, and Tyrion's...
	And Elon Musk is playing the Tyrion in this role.
	He absolutely is, yeah.
	Smugly, like, you know, I'm so glad you're happy, sister.
	And so Elon then starts tweeting about this.
	And it's funny.
	Really funny.
	And it's very, very interesting.
	It's great that we've got such a visible public figure who's so rich and influential, who's just got a sense of humour.
	So few of them do nowadays.
	And who generally seems to be on the right side of things when it comes to the regular person.
	He seems to actually have considerations to the regular person.
	He's obviously a very, very intelligent man, but unlike other people who would be considered public intellectuals, for instance, he's actually had to work to attain his position of influence.
	He's not just been handed it by academia or something.
	And I think academia does kind of distort people's view on reality, whereas Elon knows what he's talking about.
	But the fact that he is prepared to make cultural interventions makes him the kind of Donald Trump of Twitter now that Donald Trump is gone.
	He's prepared to say the unpopular thing in elite circles that is very popular outside of elite circles.
	And he owns part of it now, so they can't even kick him off like they did with Trump.
	They can't do anything about it.
	And so, I mean, this next one is one of those interventions, because people have been asking for an edit button for ages, but of course there should be caveats to that, but...
	What I like about Elon is that he's well prepared to telegraph his commitment to the meme-y side of the internet.
	If you can go to the next one, it just tweets out 69.420% of statistics false.
	Now, old joke, but this isn't just a joke, right?
	This is him telegraphing that he is in touch with meme culture.
	For anyone who's not, nice, blaze it, is what he's saying, right?
	69, 420.
	It's just a small thing, but it's showing that, look, this is where his allegiances lie.
	This is what he's interested in.
	This is what entertains him.
	This is what he feels is worth protecting.
	In the past, he's shown up on PewDiePie videos and stuff, purposefully just guesting, because why not?
	Because he likes this kind of culture, and he posts memes all the time, so it's fine.
	But anyway, the interesting part, though, is that he tweeted out the other day, is Twitter dying?
	Because most of the top accounts rarely post and post very little content.
	And he lists Obama, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, Rihanna, and a bunch of other people I don't really understand or know.
	And he follows this up with, look, Taylor Swift hasn't posted anything in three months.
	And Justin Bieber has only posted once this entire year.
	And so the question is, is Twitter dying?
	Now, I think there's quite a prosaic answer to this, which is just, it's dangerous to tweet.
	Yes.
	Like, it's actually dangerous.
	If anything, for the sorts of people in, say, Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber's position, I would actively say that they've taken the right tactic by avoiding tweeting.
	Because they've probably seen the atmosphere, which is, if I just get even the slightest toe out of line, I'm cancelled.
	Yeah.
	And also, isn't that a bad thing, that blue checkmarks are tweeting less?
	I think that's a good thing.
	Yeah, I'm glad they're kind of living under their own reign of terror, frankly.
	You know, you get what you deserve in this regard.
	The thing is, well, right, I was thinking about Twitter the other day, because Jack Dorsey was like, I kind of regret making Twitter, and this was a mistake, and I think I've contributed to it.
	It's like, yeah, but what did you think you were doing when you made Twitter?
	Like, you've created a system where people, everyone can see everything anyone is posting, and then they can reply to it, quote tweet it, and drive their followers to engage with that thing they've disagreed with.
	How is this not going to become just a public bullying platform?
	Yeah, I mean, I don't know if you're aware, there's some Twitter drama going on recently with a trans Twitter personality who streams on Twitch called Keffles, who's been going to all of the conservative pundits and just putting ratio, and she has like an army of ratio followers who will just spam all of these accounts.
	So then it's a game.
	Yes.
	Then it's a social media game to go and try and bully other people.
	It's like, yeah, but that's what Twitter, I think, was inevitably going to become.
	I do also like the idea of Jack being Anakin Skywalker right after he's murdered Mace Windu.
	Just going, what have I done?
	Well, you did it.
	Fair enough for at least recognising this is bad.
	But that's the point.
	It's dangerous to tweet.
	If you tweet the wrong thing, then you can get in serious trouble.
	You can get cancelled.
	Lots of people have been cancelled over individual tweets.
	So when you've got millions of followers and you're a person with a lot of attention paid to you...
	I'm not surprised they use it really infrequently.
	And again, it's the Elon Musk credit that he just flippantly tweets anything.
	Good on him.
	Yeah, I like that.
	But anyway, so going back to Elon Musk joining the Twitter board, this was interesting.
	So the term, the conditions for him joining the Twitter board, because again, it's not a guarantee that you join, but it is in their interest to have their shareholders very close.
	But Musk's term was set to expire in 2024, and for the entire board term, or 90 days after, he could not be the beneficial owner of more than 14.9% of the company's common stock outstanding.
	That's fascinating to me.
	It's like, right, you can join the board and bring you in, but you could not own more than 14.9%.
	So is this a stipulation if he wants to join the board, they're going to place that restriction on him?
	And while he's on the board, he can't buy more than 14.9%, which means he can't engage in a hostile takeover of Twitter and buy 51% of the company and then simply dictate to them what they're going to do.
	So what's his decision been here?
	Well, that's the thing, because a lot of people look at this going, right, that's containment.
	That is a way of bringing Elon Musk into the folder, making sure he can't do any damage, making sure he can't get any of the results he wants.
	Because at the end of the day, the Twitter board at the moment is 11 people.
	He comes on, it's 12 people, and...
	It's 11v1.
	Exactly.
	He's going to get outvoted on every single issue, and he won't be able to do anything, and he won't be able to buy more stock anyway.
	So what would be the point of him buying any stock?
	Essentially, all he's going to have done is...
	So this would completely negate him buying it in the first place.
	Exactly.
	And just to be clear, this is a matter of scale.
	So Twitter, its total market cap, which is the value of all of its stocks, and we can get to the next one, John, is 29.05 billion.
	Right?
	Now, that's a lot to a regular person, and their total net worth is $13.36 billion, which is based on the revenues and profits for the last three years.
	So that's a lot to a regular person, but Elon Musk is not a regular person.
	Elon Musk is the most wealthy man to have ever lived.
	He is personally worth $290 billion.
	So he could buy all of Twitter stocks 10 times over with the money that is at his disposal, the resources at his disposal.
	So not unsurprisingly, them say, okay, you can join the board, but you can only buy 14.9%, which means that he can't leverage his phenomenal worth to simply buy the controlling stake of Twitter, engage in a hostile takeover and turn the company into what he wants it to be.
	That's what they're trying to do, shackle him with those things.
	And so he has refused to join the board.
	As you can see from our dispatches account, go follow that, by the way, on Twitter if you use it, and on Getter and everywhere else.
	Twitter has said that Elon Musk has rejected its offer to join the social media's board.
	So it's not even that they rejected him, it's that he rejected them.
	Very interesting.
	Making them sweat.
	Exactly.
	Parag Agrawal, he put out a statement, which we'll go through a few points of.
	You can go to the next one, John.
	So basically, he talks about how they made all the necessary preparations, and they're excited about him joining.
	And they say Elon, like all board members, has to act in the best interest of the company and all our shareholders.
	And so they say, well, he would be appointed contingent on a background check.
	So you know who Elon Musk is.
	Contingent on the background?
	What are you talking about?
	He's very open with his past.
	It's not like you could hide it when you're the richest man in history.
	Yeah, everybody knows.
	To be fair, there is that terrible rumour that I kept seeing go around, and to be fair, I hadn't ever looked into it before the weekend, where people were saying, oh...
	Elon Musk got all of his money off his family who were trading blood emeralds in apartheid South Africa.
	They made it on PayPal.
	Yeah, it's just not true.
	It's not true.
	He didn't even make it all off PayPal.
	He made it off a different company he made with his brother before PayPal that he managed to sell for like $304 million.
	I think the rumour comes from his dad...
	He bought some stocks in an emerald mine while they were still in South Africa that didn't make him any money.
	He went bankrupt.
	Then Elon and his brother moved to Canada with no money, got into $100,000 worth of student loan debt, and then managed to build their company up and then sell it off.
	And now their parents are actually financially dependent on them.
	If you've heard that whole thing about Elon Musk being the beneficiary of blood emeralds in South Africa during apartheid, it's absolute BS. Don't listen to it.
	I didn't know that, because I had heard that story as well.
	I'd only briefly looked into it, and he was a founder of PayPal, that's how he made loads of money.
	But that's very interesting.
	Anyway, so they carry on saying, well look, Elon shared he will no longer be joining the board.
	Hmm.
	The crying Wojak is back.
	I believe this is for the best.
	Is it?
	Is it?
	Is that for the best?
	Because it seems that Elon is now free to, if he wished to, engage in that hostile takeover with only a fraction of his wealth.
	He could own Twitter for 10% of his net wealth.
	Probably.
	Well, I mean, if you wanted a dominating share, you'd probably need 5%.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Yeah, you're right.
	Or probably less than that now that he already controls 9% of it anyway.
	So anyway, they say, we have and always will value input from our shareholders, whether they're on our board or not.
	Elon is our biggest shareholder and we will remain open to his input.
	Yeah, with the sort of smiling Cersei Lannister face.
	I can see Parag with his wine right now.
	Exactly.
	I hope Elon Musk is just like, you know what?
	I'm sick of this.
	I'll purchase all of it.
	There will be distractions ahead, but our goals and priorities remain unchanged.
	The decisions we make and how we execute is in our hands and no one else's.
	Let's tune out the noise and stay focused on the work and what we're building.
	What are you doing?
	What are you building with Twitter?
	What's the work?
	I mean, since Parag joined as the CEO, well, started as the CEO, they've been building even more of an echo chamber for leftists.
	Absolutely.
	Like, as soon as Parag began, the suspensions began in earnest.
	And it was like, wow, I can't believe Jack Dorsey was a limiting factor on who got suspended from Twitter.
	I really didn't see it coming, but what do I know?
	But anyway, so just to summarise, it looks like Elon refused to join because of the clause that he couldn't buy more than 14.9% of Twitter.
	He can easily purchase the majority controlling stake in the company if he wishes, and it looks like Elon has successfully dodged their attempt to contain him.
	We'll see what happens with that.
	Good work, Elon.
	Let's move on to the video comments.
	The more I watch your content, the more I see things you've said coming true.
	For me, there's a truism when dealing with the political left.
	When you don't have proof, simply wait for them to provide it themselves in good time.
	It's hard to prove things that aren't obvious and immaterial, such as moral virtue, but the degradation of self-worth and notions of privacy is apparent to most people at this point.
	If some don't believe in moral virtue but just material pleasure, then maybe those people being driven to despair by their own short-sighted desires will paint the picture they desperately need to see, as sad as that may be.
	At some point, we're going to have to go through a podcast talking about trans regret stories.
	We absolutely should.
	There's, like, Reddit pages dedicated to it.
	I also found a few Reddit pages that were dedicated to basically just another form of indoctrination for the trans kids.
	But I do find that interesting, that you just kind of need to wait for it to turn out to be right when you're doing this thing.
	Because we've pointed out a number of times, it turns out all those Christian conservatives saying, oh, the gays are going to come for your kids.
	And then they literally put out a song, we're coming for your children.
	I know, like, back in the 90s everyone was laughing at them and it's like, well, I guess time just proved every one of them right.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	So, basically a bunch of pedophytes and degenerates are calling us right-wing extremists for having some sense of decency and common sense.
	Okay.
	Why the f*** should we care?
	What I mean?
	That's the right response.
	That's exactly where I'm at at this point.
	If decency and protecting the innocence of children is right-wing extremism, then it shows just how lost the left is at this point, does it not?
	Yes.
	The reason MSNBC is suddenly talking about Hunter Biden isn't because they know they can get away with admitting the truth, but because they have new marching orders.
	The left is closing ranks against Biden.
	Where Biden was once an opportunity as the establishment candidate, he's now an opportunity as a scapegoat.
	It's obvious to the American public, even Democrats, that Biden is inept, corrupt, and mentally unsuitable for office, and the Dems are attempting to present all failings in the Democratic Party as being down to Biden so that they can once again present themselves as the reasonable alternative to the Republicans because they sure aren't winning with their current track record.
	We need to recognise this for what it is and counter it fast.
	That's a really good point.
	That is true.
	My only question, because I'm genuinely curious, because I do honestly think that that is all true, what's going on there, is who do you think is going to be the successor to Biden?
	Well, that's the best part, is that they don't have one.
	Everyone they've got is terrible.
	I'm just thinking, who could they suggest, who could they put forward who's like, I don't know, a rational Democrat?
	The only one that they could put forward that is remotely rational, maybe Tulsi Gabbard?
	But they're not going to put her in there anyways.
	Well, she's no longer a senator either, or congresswoman.
	So she's not even got an elected role.
	Yeah, and typical Democrats are already starting to call her right wing.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm surprised she hasn't joined the Republicans, frankly.
	There are a lot of variables that will affect the cost of installing an electric vehicle charger on your home, such as how far the panel is from the location where the vehicle charger goes.
	And if you've got a 100 amp service, it'll probably need to be upgraded to something bigger like a 200 amp service.
	So best case scenario, it's probably going to cost you only around 10 grand.
	If things start going wrong and not lining up for you, it's going to cost you more.
	I really have no idea what you're saying, because I was just looking at the kitten going, oh, he thinks he's a little tiger.
	Yeah, it's really cute.
	It was very distracting.
	I don't know if I heard this right the other day on the podcast, right?
	I'll address the video comment in a moment.
	Did you say something about you and your family owning, like, five cats or something?
	That's amazing.
	No, it's not.
	Are you sure?
	Well, I mean, don't get me wrong, I like my cats, but my wife just keeps bringing them home and things.
	What am I supposed to do when he's a tiny kitten?
	I'm not going to, like, throw it out.
	Well, of course you're not.
	I know, so I'm just stuck with five cats now.
	And they're all nice cats, don't get me wrong, they are all nice.
	But I don't want any pets particularly, I don't want kids.
	I don't want extra things on top of that, but it's fine.
	Well, happy wife, happy life.
	Yeah, that's exactly it.
	That's the rule.
	And also, judging by that, thank you very much for sending that video comment because that was addressing something that Callum and I spoke about the other day where we were talking about the actual costs of electric cars.
	With a £10,000 start-up cost just to be able to fuel it from home...
	Are you excited to be buying your Tesla anytime soon, Carl?
	Not with a 10 grand cost attached, no.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's if you want to charge it from home.
	So thank you very much for that info.
	I had a quick question about upcoming book club books.
	On Audible, I recently got Irreversible Damage by Abigail Schreier, the book that the left wants to get banned because it talks about transgender youths and all that stuff.
	So I'm just wondering if you guys are going to be doing a book club on that in the near future.
	If you do, I'll wait and I'll listen to it on that month, but if not, then I'm just going to listen to it now.
	And also, most of the audiobooks I've listened to on Audible are 40k audiobooks.
	Some of them have been pretty good, so I can do a 30-second review of some of those that I think people might enjoy.
	Yeah, with your own book clubs, go for it.
	Alex Ogles has some interesting ones, so yeah, more the merrier.
	With Irreversible Damage, I actually already own a copy of that at home that I need to get around to reading, so actually doing a book club on that...
	Well, you can do it, man.
	Yeah, I will do a book club on that as soon as possible in that case, because to be fair, with everything else that we've been covering recently, it'd be very, very relevant, so I will get on that.
	The next one I'm going to do is The Social Contract by Rousseau.
	Following up on Discourses of Inequalities, which is already on the website.
	You should check that out.
	Premium content.
	Fantastic.
	Is Callum in this week?
	Yeah, he's just not on today.
	So I'll record that with Callum this week.
	Yeah, that'll be interesting.
	I liked the first one that you did on Discourses of Inequality.
	It shows you exactly what the left is aiming for.
	Because Rousseau is basically giving the logical conclusion to all of this in advance.
	And we're living in it.
	Yeah, the interesting thing that I found from that was that I didn't realise that his whole Discourses from Inequality was based on the presupposition of responding to other people's fantasy scenario.
	They put, okay, if man was in this situation, how would they behave?
	And Rousseau was just responding to that.
	And it was a good response to the fantasy situation.
	Yeah, but it shows from the very outset this leftist thought is based on a fantasy.
	Yes, and it's based on something that isn't desirable, which is why we leave the state of nature and form society anyway.
	Being in the state of nature is not a desirable thing to live in.
	No, of course not.
	Even if it was true, it wouldn't be desirable.
	So, like, Rousseau trying to, with a social contract, what he's trying to do is return us to the state of nature in society.
	But that wasn't desirable.
	We don't want the state of nature.
	That's nuts.
	So, without spoiling anything, does the social contract get even nuttier?
	Oh, it's...
	It's deeply, deeply revealing.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah, I won't spoil any of it, because just some of the statements Rousseau makes explain the tyrannies of the 20th century.
	Very interesting.
	Stay tuned for that later on this week, then.
	Hi, lads.
	Can't make it for the podcast today, once I have an excuse...
	We have lots of beer to drink.
	That's an excellent excuse.
	Yes.
	We'll let you off.
	I forgive you.
	Hey, guys.
	My cousin, one of my cousins, is actually training to be a medical doctor.
	So I'm going to tell you something that I actually now can confirm that you may find interesting.
	In NHS training, because of the lockdown and coronavirus...
	If someone at the NHS working as a general practitioner does not want to get the coronavirus and does not want to see a patient in person, they can just say...
	Nah, don't want to.
	I'll diagnose you over the phone or on a video call instead.
	Yeah, I can confirm this.
	My wife's been trying to contact the NHS doctor for something or other.
	Nothing important.
	And they're literally like, we're refusing to.
	Yeah, no, that explains...
	Over the phone diagnoses.
	Yeah, there was a statistics released late last year that I covered where it was talking about how I think it'd gone from 80% of GP meetings being face-to-face to only 50%, and this is actively, they found this had led to people being misdiagnosed and unnecessary deaths occurring.
	It's absolutely terrible, but...
	Honestly, the NHS, when you've got a publicly subsidised health system like we do over here, it does lead for these gross inefficiencies in the service that were being provided.
	This would never happen in a private system.
	No, it really wouldn't.
	This would never happen.
	No, because if it did, I'd just go somewhere else and pay them.
	But it's the NHS. I can't go anywhere else.
	Exactly.
	A market force would dictate that you would get a good service.
	And it's been deeply evident since the coronavirus pandemic that the NHS can just be leveraged against us, and we've still got to pay for it.
	Yeah, we're being held hostage by it.
	All right, for your quick 30-second nostalgia trip, who remembers Carl running for office?
	I'm not apologizing for anything.
	You dirty, dirty small merchants!
	Get back!
	Who remembers the great milkshaking?
	Who remembers Sargon of Akkad from before the Lotus Eaters days?
	In fact, how long have each of you guys been a Sargonite?
	In fact, say, who has the Sargon Senpai pillow?
	I would like to show it off.
	Who remembers the great keto wars?
	Callum lost.
	Oh, is that why everyone was eating bread on the podcast?
	Yes.
	So I started doing keto, and it worked.
	Yeah, no.
	To answer how long I was a Saga Knight for, I suppose about a year now, to be perfectly honest.
	Not even that long.
	Yeah, not that long.
	I'd started to dip my toes into these sorts of anti-leftist ideas and then just snowballed from there, which is the best thing that ever happened to me, to be honest.
	He's paid to say that.
	No, genuinely, I mean just my reversal of my perspective and things.
	Oh, I'm glad you're feeling good about it, man.
	"Diamond, flitterous, you saw that sketch?
	What did you think of the two central performances?" "I'd have welcomed them." "Your clever and original use of words have been gathered in a book form, I understand." "That's right." "Well received?" "Well, you know what critics are, I mean, what do they know about the work we do?" "Oh, quite so.
	Quietly so, quietly so, ain't it?" All plot points converge in Australia, and the characters come together to battle not only the enemies established in the earlier books, but also the cultural differences the protagonists bring.
	The story gathers the lessons from the series and wraps them up neatly.
	Hm, very interesting.
	And thank you for the clips of, uh, Hugh and, uh, Hugh and Stephen...
	Hugh and Laurie.
	Yeah, Hugh and Laurie right there, because they're always entertaining together.
	The reason he is chimping out there is because they're not allowed to talk to one another.
	So they're trying to communicate through chimp noises?
	Yes.
	I suppose you've got to try and maintain some kind of sanity during the whole thing, even if the closest thing you've got to sanity is imitating apes.
	It wasn't directed at you at Baystate, but if you took it that way...
	Okay.
	But no, we've got to remain sane.
	What are we going to do?
	We're going to make chimp noises.
	Is that sane?
	It's China.
	That's the best they can really do over there.
	That's just how far it's gone.
	And this is what statists want for us.
	So Josh K says, If leftists kill all the children, who will they have sex with?
	Which is definitely what the Vaush demographic is concerned about.
	So this gives them a reason to save children.
	Aaron von Walk says...
	Saving children for all the wrong reasons.
	Yeah.
	Ever notice how they don't ask you to be a friend, but an ally?
	This is because they view what's going on as a war and everyone else only is an enemy or temporary ally until the fight is over.
	Yeah, I've made this point myself a bunch of times.
	Yeah, normal people want to be friends with you because friends implies mutual consideration for one another's concerns and interests.
	And in that is implicit that you will not be just a yes man for the other person, because having the best interests of someone in mind does not mean agreeing with them constantly.
	I have often been rebuked by many friends for being far too honest with them, and they go, oh, is this the wrong thing to do?
	Am I going down the wrong path?
	I'm just like, yes!
	Yes, and this is what you're not getting from everybody else who's telling you, oh, it's fine, don't worry about it.
	But I always used to think that that whole, oh, it's a war, everybody else is only a temporary ally, I used to think that seemed too dogmatic, until I just see what's going on in the schools, and it's like they're trying to brainwash our children.
	It's honestly...
	Making it very scary for me to think when I'm going to have kids because I'm just going to think I'm going to have to homeschool them or something because I don't want them to be introduced to all that nonsense at the age of five.
	It's making me think, well, yeah, they do view me as the enemy.
	And as dogmatic as it seems, there's certain elements of AA's friend-enemy distinction he got from Carl Schmitt, which is starting to make a lot of sense to me.
	Well, you only need allies if you're fighting a war.
	Yeah.
	When else do you have allies?
	You don't.
	You have friends, you know, because you're just living as a normal person.
	But when you're actually engaged in a battle, you need allies.
	Anyway, Baron of a Hawk again.
	What?
	You won't let me dress up in bondage gear and groom your kids by talking about dildos in maths class?
	You must want a gay genocide.
	The groomer cries out in pain as he attacks your child.
	Yeah.
	Charlie says, I think that what right-wing should foster in an LGBT group is that it focuses on individuality, a group that will stand up to the left and demand that they be left alone to live their lives and denounce a grooming of kids.
	At least then, when the left react with the typical, you're not real gaze, your voices shouldn't be listened to, it'll hopefully wake the more moderates to realise how toxic the left-wing LGBT are.
	I don't know if I'd focus on individuality.
	I think I would focus on the...
	The drawbacks and benefits of it.
	Because the problem that I think the left has is they abolish people's right to dissent.
	I'll probably write a video script on this, actually.
	Because, like, it's not just a universal, unvarnished good to be gay.
	There are actual negatives to it.
	Oh yeah, there's pros and cons to everything.
	And transitioning is more intensive.
	I think transitioning...
	There are loads of drawbacks.
	I think even the pros for transitioning are yet to be convincingly...
	I've instantly stated, primarily because there's such an atmosphere of fear around the whole aspect of even studying this whole thing, if you were to go down other routes of care for people suffering from legitimate gender dysphoria, you'd get shut down.
	The trans activists would be outside your medical establishment throwing bricks through your window.
	And the only reason that, like, the activists want it to be 100% good and the alternative to be 100% bad is to enact a radical change.
	This is from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
	He says, well, look, you have to demonize the enemy, so all good is on your side and all bad is on their side.
	But a reasonable person who isn't trying to go for radical change, like a reasonable gay or trans person who's not trying to go for radical change, will be like, well, there's...
	Like advantages and drawbacks for me, but they're for me.
	I don't want to impose that on everyone else, right?
	But that's because they're not looking for a radical systemic change.
	And so I see what you mean by the focus on individuality, but I think that should be reframed as a focus on accepting both the good and the bad.
	The more nuanced take on something is always good, I find, generally.
	Yeah, and just to admit that there are good and bad, because if you can admit there's bad to it, then it's not something that you would just headlong rush into, even if it's something you do.
	You might take slow incremental steps rather than just accept the end proposition from the beginning.
	And that's what I think.
	That's what I actually think is the toxic element of the left at this point.
	They're not brokering any kind of admittance that there's a drawback to any of this.
	There's loads.
	Anyway, George says, regarding abortion, Carl, like you, I'm able to make allowances for abortion in the case of rape or incest.
	However, it raised the question of how many false rapes, as in day after regret cases especially, Good question.
	Good question.
	The thing is, I think the morning-after pill is a perfectly morally acceptable solution.
	If you have sex and you have unprotected sex, then just go to your local pharmacy and get a morning-after pill.
	Yeah.
	What's wrong with that?
	Nothing's begun really gestating at that point.
	No, absolutely not.
	Nothing's begun developing.
	They're like, oh, it's just a clump of cells.
	But at that point, it literally is just a clump of cells.
	Yes.
	I don't think that's morally abominable.
	Anything after that is where the moral grey area starts to set in, and it becomes a point where it's like, well, anybody could set the point where it's a true life anywhere, so why don't we just go with the most logical one, which is when it starts to develop.
	Free Will says, That's basically true.
	The problem as well is that the left spent a lot of times engineering their arguments to be very sophisticated within the framework for economics and just any other thing, rights, that the conservatives were using.
	And so I'm not too disappointed with the conservatives for having failed on this front because they couldn't really have seen it coming.
	That's true.
	But, interestingly enough, I do kind of get what he's saying here, because a lot of the complacency of the Conservatives has kind of been built off of the foundation that they've been building off for the past few generations, which has been based on the...
	I think it was Margaret Thatcher held up Hayek's Constitution of Liberty and said, this is what we're basing our political ideology off, which, in terms of economics and free markets and stuff, is stuff that I can get behind.
	However...
	I've recently started reading Hans Hermann Hopper, who is very much, as strange as this may sound, the socially conservative man's libertarian.
	Because he is very, very much focused on cultural issues and cultural breakdown.
	and he has a massive criticism of Hayek in terms of his governance policies, basically saying that when you actually break it down, you can't separate his political ideology, not his economics, but his political ideology from that of a typical social democrat.
	He allows the government to make all of these big sweeping changes and the left obviously in government democracies democratic governments, the pull always seems to be leftwards.
	Yes.
	So the expansion of government and that ever pull leftwards has allowed the leftists to be able to gain all of this ground.
	Well, that's the problem with the Conservatives.
	They didn't recognise the Gramscian attack on society itself could be powerful.
	You know, is it, oh, we don't want them to centralise the means of production.
	Okay, great.
	But now they're perverting your children and making it so that people don't get married or have children.
	Like, you think that's not going to bring about the sort of collapse of society that they're looking for?
	Like, they recognise that the society itself didn't want...
	To have a revolution.
	And so they've inculcated themselves into it, and now we're at the point where we can't even resist.
	The Conservatives have dropped the ball there, but again, in their defence, very smart people have been working on this for a very long time.
	Yeah, and now they've got to the point where the Conservatives have enclaves of leftism built into the foundations of their own political system with diversity quotas, the diversity trusts of the NHS and such.
	There's LGBT Conservatives in the Conservative Party.
	That's just communist conservatives.
	I've no problem with a gay conservative, but an LGBT conservative is something completely different.
	No, no, it totally is.
	LGBT is...
	You may as well replace that acronym with communism.
	Communist conservative.
	That's what I mean.
	Gay conservative is fine.
	Communist conservative.
	Get out.
	You know, anyway.
	Student of History says, I would like to give my opinion on the backlash and inevitable panic begging and reeing after attempting to pervert your children.
	The social ostracization attempts, the censorship and silencing...
	Just a few months ago, threatening to or actually putting you in a camp for catching a non-hyper deadly disease or not getting the jab and every other form of cancerous wokery.
	As far as I'm concerned, they, the left, have already gotten their vision of the Melian dialogue.
	And how did that go again?
	The strong do what they can and the weak do what they must.
	Pull no punches.
	That's brutal, but I endorse.
	Like, sorry, don't care.
	You know, don't care.
	You would do anything you could to us.
	You know, you did try to do anything you could to us.
	And now it's like, oh, you're not going to get your abortions?
	Too bad.
	I mean, honestly, it's terrifying.
	I'm thinking about writing an article about, I think, maybe calling it like the threat of the cities or something, the city to other types, because reading the Cultural Revolution, you can try and separate out, oh, it's China, it's a different culture, blah, blah, blah.
	No, but they're all demented communist leftists over there.
	And the second they get a chance, they literally, in some cases, devour their enemies.
	So if this is what we're going up against, it's not too hard to see how that can translate over here just with the right push from a particular political class.
	If we had a Mao in charge, things would just be the same as it was over in China.
	Angel Brain says, regarding the informed consent vis-a-vis the medical transition, I'll say it again.
	In the UK, you cannot legally be tattooed below the age of 18.
	I did not know that.
	That's a good point.
	That's very true.
	Yep.
	Permanent body modification?
	And the answer is no.
	Chopping off a piece of your body?
	The answer is, yeah, of course, you're a transgender child.
	And the reason I always use that example is because a tattoo is for life.
	We understand that you may not want to be a 14-year-old to permanently change their body unless they want to chop bits off, in which case go right ahead.
	I had a friend in high school, like 14, got a tattoo of their boyfriend's name on them.
	Boyfriend broke up.
	Of course they did.
	No, no, it was the boyfriend got his girlfriend's name tattooed on him.
	She saw it, was grossed out, broke up with him.
	And that's just a tattoo at 14 that he desperately wanted gone.
	Yeah.
	As if chopping your nuts off.
	Yeah.
	Oh, man.
	We are going to do the Transrogate podcast.
	Yes.
	I've seen so many of them.
	It's just heartbreaking.
	So many of these posts where people are like, look, if I'd known.
	So, yeah, if you'd known.
	But who are you listening to?
	Anyway, Daniel says, We keep saying the anti-grooming bill should have been named at launch, as it were, but by not naming it, it helped demonstrate the absolute lunacy by people who can't read.
	You know, there is something...
	That's a great point, actually.
	That is.
	Yeah.
	It's like, yeah, look, this is a bill that's not going to allow teachers to groom kids with sexuality.
	Like, yeah, you're a homophobe.
	And also it's seven pages long.
	Yeah, you can just read it.
	It's really easy.
	Kevin says, We're good to
	go.
	Whenever one of these people directly argue for lowering the age of consent, they don't try to argue for a more reasonable position of medically best for the child.
	They go right for the kids can consent.
	Disgusting.
	George says, while the backlash from conservatives is nice, they should go on the offensive against the alphabet mob.
	mob well that's what the legislation is about actually tolerating the destruction of societal norms for years led us to the current lunacy i guess what i'm saying is that usually conservatives are too lazy and incompetent to conserve they rely on the system so much that when it's taken over by leftists they continue to go with the flow the rainbow police are a perfect example of this yeah i can't stand it anyway Anyway, moving on to the next one.
	in context, there have been about 1.3 million US war deaths since 1775.
	Wow.
	So, abortions killed more Americans than war.
	About...
	About 50 or 60 times more, yeah.
	Isn't that awful?
	That is.
	It's staggering.
	That really is, because like you said, you just know that the vast, vast, vast majority of those will not have been necessary through any reason of rape or incest or any threat to the mother's health.
	It will just have been done because, I don't want a kid.
	Maybe you should have thought of that before you had sex.
	Yep.
	Long Talks on the Niche again says, remember when Trump's press secretary had organized color-coded binders for responses with facts, not nebulous answers?
	Do you mean Kayleigh McEnany?
	Yes, she was direct.
	And honestly, the difference between her and Jen Psaki is so night and day, because Kayleigh McEnany would just literally address the issue directly.
	It was really great to watch.
	Angel Brain again says, I think that Aussie parent showed the patience of Lord himself by only writing a letter to his local MP. Most people have been straight up to the school to deliver a well-known kicking with Alan.
	Yeah, rightfully so.
	Kevin says, This is true.
	And honestly, as a parent of young children, you know just how susceptible to what the adults around them say.
	They are sponges.
	They take in anything.
	And they're desperate for your approval.
	Children are desperate for the approval of the adults around them.
	They hate it when you don't approve of what they're doing.
	This is how you modify their behavior to not take food from the fridge.
	And it also is how you're going to modify their behavior to say that they're girls.
	When they're not.
	Will says, there was a time when a trans adult baby would have been sent to Broadmoor.
	Yes, they would.
	Justin says, if that's the way Scotland's treating their prisoners, can we build a new Hadrian's Wall yet?
	Yeah, that's the way the SNP are treating things.
	Maybe we should just let them go along with it.
	Okay, you want to give your prisoners dummies and nappies so they can crap in your...
	It's disgusting!
	So they can crap themselves in your cells, you know?
	Go ahead, just do it by yourself.
	But just why are you giving the prisoner the option to make moral demands of the prison?
	It's ridiculous.
	Robert says, I advocate for post-birth abortions for pedos and murderers like Eastwood.
	I bring back the death penalty, honestly.
	Radical centrist God says, it's incredible watching what's happening from the US from afar.
	It's like watching musical chairs play out through policy stateside.
	Alternatively, it is a game of red and blue checkers with all the troll faces drawn on them.
	While Elon Musk is ascending to the title of God Emperor in the Shadows, he's fighting the Dark Gods in their own realm.
	Just imagine him assembling a Twitter army saying, Suffer not the heretic to live, purge the unclean, etc.
	Sorry, the comments haven't refreshed.
	That sounds awesome.
	That's such an awesome mental image.
	That's a great metaphor, isn't it?
	Like, he's fighting the Dark Gods in their own realm.
	And the first trap they put in his way, he has successfully avoided, which is excellent.
	You've got a new task.
	You need to make that for us.
	For some reason, my thing's not refreshing.
	I'll go through some of the other comments.
	These are all part of the Elon Musk segment, so you can give some answers to that.
	Callum Dayton says, please let Elon not suffer the fate of Ned Stark, a man of honor, or Tyrion Lannister, a little man who drinks and knows things.
	Both good men, one of honor, one of tragedy.
	Yes.
	I suspect Elon is smart enough to be able to sidestep a lot of the traps He's obviously a clever guy.
	Yeah, he's obviously clever.
	He's already sidestepped the first trap that they could have put in his way, which was the whole board of restricting how many shares with the board membership.
	So I'm sure he's got plenty more clever plays ahead.
	Mr.
	Tucker says, Welcome, Elon.
	We're glad to have you.
	Please accept this gift of a golden set of handcuffs.
	Yeah, that's what they were going for.
	Exactly.
	Good on Elon.
	Yeah, he managed to slip out.
	They've come up for me now.
	There you go.
	So yeah, Rick says, Hunter Biden overdosed, getting ahead of the curb here.
	Okay.
	Maybe.
	What was it?
	Yeah, Lord Nerva was like, since Elon isn't going to be on the board anymore, he isn't subject to the 14.9% max share.
	Time to buy the whole thing then.
	I really hope he does.
	If they act insubordinate towards him, if they refuse to do the things he asks, he can just buy another 5% at a time.
	Just like, okay, you're going to do it now?
	No, you're going to do it now?
	I'm getting to 25%.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Why not?
	I mean, to be honest with you, there would be a part of me that would be like, you know, I'll just buy the 51%.
	Just screw you.
	Well, but then you don't get to play the games first.
	That's true.
	Yeah, it's the psychological torture.
	It's like the cat playing with the mouse.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Trent says, Hillary 2024.
	When talking about who could replace Joe Biden.
	But that's a great point, though, because if you look at the Democrats, all of their candidates are really unpopular, generally.
	Utterly incompetent party apparatchiks.
	They're even unpopular among Democrat voters.
	They are.
	And so, like, they don't have everyone else.
	And so it would have to be Clinton versus Trump again.
	Like, round two?
	Well, we all know how that went.
	Yeah.
	But...
	Right, so, last one.
	Chris Wolfe, platinum tier.
	$50 to purchase cats for the podcast.
	Please don't.
	As much as I love cats, I'm horribly allergic to them.
	If we had an office cat, I would be dying constantly.
	I don't want you to think that I don't like the cats we've got.
	I do like the cats we've got.
	It's just that when you've got...
	Here's the fourth kitten your wife's brought home after you said no.
	Oh, here's the fifth one!
	And it's like...
	I mean, they're all lovely animals.
	I spend a lot of time playing with them and stuff, but man, I'm just over it.
	Although it was cute.
	He says until the sixth one shows up.
	It's hard to be angry at a kitten.
	It really is.
	They're so cute.
	They are.
	They're fun to play with.
	Hopefully my wife isn't watching.
	Cats are keto, apparently.
	They are, but that's not the reason I'm happy with them.
	That's alright, though.
	Well, I think that's all we've got time for.
	Thank you very, very much for tuning in to this podcast, Lotus Seaters.
	Join us again tomorrow at 1 o'clock British Summertime for the next episode.

▲