All Episodes
Previous Next
May 11, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:36
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #390
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast The Lotus Eaters for the 11th of May 2022.
I am joined by John.
Hello Lotus Eaters.
And today we're going to be talking about the tale of two conflicts in Ukraine, the death of the regime, and also Disney funding LGBTQ plus activism for at least the last 20 years.
Yeah, great.
So I suppose we shall start off with the tale of two conflicts.
Yes, let's get straight into it.
So I think there are some problems with the Western narrative on Ukraine.
And I'm going to speak about that more than the Russian narrative, because let's face it, who of our viewers have really heard the Russian narrative?
It's kind of off the airwaves at this point, I think.
Who really cares either, to be honest?
Exactly.
Half the time at the moment on Russian TV, I see them threatening to nuke us, so it's just like, okay, well, that's normal.
Yeah, the Russian chat shows are just ridiculous, hyperbole in all directions, but I think they've always been that way.
Now, I'm not going to waste your time with the most extreme, inaccurate speculations about the war, because, quite frankly, there's already enough misinformation out there, but what I'm going to do is show a few accounts, some official and some well-trusted accounts, And rely mainly on relatively well-trusted OSINT or Open Source Intelligence accounts that are relaying the conflict to both sides.
As a result, these accounts and messages can be described as Western-leaning or Russian-leaning, but I think it would be a mistake to call them overtly pro-Western, pro-Russian or propaganda.
And I think that's a distinction that's worth making.
Particularly for Russian-leaning accounts, there is the tendency for them to get smited with the infamous Twitter ban hammer.
There is genuine information war happening right now, after all.
Now, before we get started, why is it important to talk about this?
Well, let me tell you a story.
Have you heard the apocryphal story of the Emperor of China?
Which one?
So, there are many.
I cannot remember for the life of me where I heard this from, but I think it's pertinent to this case here.
So the story goes that the emperor of China is at war, and first of all, his armies defeat the enemy far away, and then they keep defeating them, and they carry on defeating them right up until he looks out of the window.
The enemy army is already there burning down the palace.
And the story that you take away there, obviously, is that all of the advisors who just relay the stories that the emperor wants to hear end up feeding him a completely false picture of what's going on.
And then if things turn against him, he gets a real nasty shock.
So don't shoot the messenger, but I want to talk about some things which perhaps put a bit of a dampener on the overall very positive, very Ukraine is winning this war style messaging that we've been hearing for the last few weeks.
I'm sorry.
So let's lean into the Western narrative.
Russia's offensive has stalled in the East, and Ukraine is making gains around Kharkiv.
From Jomini of the West here, a well-followed and reasonably good Western-leaning open-source intelligence account.
So, Ukraine, day 73-76.
the past 100 hours has seen the Ukrainian military expand on the initial success of its limited counter-offensive around Kharkiv.
Russia's offensive along the Sivyrsky-Donetsk line, which is a river, has generally stalled with limited successes in Popasna.
So you read that, it's like, okay, great.
The Ukrainians have got the Russians number.
Fabulous.
Carry on with my day.
We're going to go into more of his assertions.
We're going to go through his whole story about what's happening.
And then later on, we're going to criticize that, critique that.
He continues.
In Kharkiv, Ukraine's limited counteroffensive of the Kharkiv area, if we scroll down to the next tweet in the thread, continues to make solid progress.
Russian forces have been pushed into a thin strip of territory averaging only 10 kilometers in depth.
This OD is in danger of collapsing, similar to the Kiev and Sumi fronts.
That's even better.
Like, fabulous.
He continues.
The Ukrainian general staff estimates Russia only has three battalion tactical groups of very poor quality remaining in this area.
However, Ukrainian intelligence reports that Russia has at least 19 battalion tactical groups in the Belgorod area that may be preparing to counterattack towards Kharkiv.
So this is all sounding quite good, right?
Russia is collapsing.
Yeah, they have some reinforcements in the vicinity, so there might be a counterattack.
But generally speaking, Ukraine's offensive is going great.
He continues to a new area of the conflict.
Severodonetsk Oddy.
Russian forces have managed to seize control of Papazna, Nizhny and Velika Kormushav...
I'm not even going to try.
However, offensive efforts in other sectors of the Donbass remain stalled and ineffectual.
How many Hs do you need, like?
I know, I know.
I think.
But Russian forces may be preparing to shift priority of access.
So okay, the Russians have made some gains, but they're not very significant, not very important, and mainly they're stalled and ineffectual.
There has been little activity here over the past several days.
Russian forces are focusing artillery and airstrikes in support of limited assaults on Orihiv, Huilaipole, and Velika Novosilka.
No territory has changed hands recently, and that's true as far as I can ascertain.
Azov-style Mariupol still stands.
Russian attacks resumed on the 8th of May with artillery and airstrikes supporting ground assaults.
There are an estimated 1,000 Ukrainians defending it.
As far as I can ascertain, that's also true.
In Odessa and Kherson, there's been little activity in the Kherson-Odessa region.
Missile strikes increase against Odessa while tensions remain high along the Moldova border as Russia attempts to fix Ukrainian forces in this area from being redeployed.
Again, little activity?
Yep, that's true.
Aerospace assessment.
Russian Air Force sorties hold steady at 200 to 300 sorties in a 24-hour period.
It's a lot of planes.
A lot of bombs.
Russian forces are strengthening their air defence network in Kherson, as well as in Izium, Suversky, Donetsk line, to better protect critical targets like command posts and supply points.
So, their air force is active, but he's implying that that's actually more of a defensive move, so it's not actually doing that much damage.
Battle damage assessment.
Russian forces in the Kharkiv OD are combat ineffective and unable to halt the Ukrainian advances.
Now, that's quite a statement.
In the Zaporizhia and Donbass ODs, there is indications that Russian units are severely demoralized and not obeying orders.
Wow.
We go to the next one here, and let's have a look at the map on number 12 here.
So this is more of a broad map where you see some NATO deployments.
That one there, yeah.
So...
The Kremlin holds steady to its current narrative during Russia's 9th of May Victory Day celebrations.
False flag activity in Moldova and along the northwest Belarus border will likely not expand the war beyond Ukraine.
Western aid continues to accelerate.
But generally speaking, you can just see that you've got the refugee exodus marked there from Ukraine.
You can see the blue boxes of the NATO forces arrayed along the borders there, as well as some information in the combat zone.
And he carries on.
This sounds amazing, honestly.
If this were true, you would think, okay, this war is not going to last long.
The Ukrainians have amazingly managed to defeat the much larger Russian army, which must be so corrupt and so incompetent and blah, blah, blah.
But I think a lot of this is basically hyperbole, very biased, and misleading, sadly.
So, one of them is this.
So, if we go to the next one...
This is the evidence for him saying that the Russian troops are severely demoralized and combat ineffective in Kharkiv.
It comes from the Pentagon and the usual unnamed US defense official.
We all like US defense officials, don't we?
Especially the unnamed ones who come out 20 times a day to pump information into our soft, squishy brains.
It's probably the same guy.
I do wonder.
He must be permanently caffeinated, if so.
But they continue here.
Okay, even better, right?
They're just lunatics.
They're not obeying orders.
They've completely fallen apart.
This war should be over this week, right?
It sounds a bit too good to be true, I think.
Yeah, especially when even the source is saying it's just anecdotal evidence.
Yeah, the official added that the reports the department has received about Russian dissidents involved mid-grade officers, including some at the battalion level.
He said that the reports indicated that some of these officers either refused to obey orders they were given or had not followed through with the orders to the level at which they had likely been expected to respond.
The reports could not be independently confirmed.
And I just want to make the point here that a huge amount of the evidence that OSINT channels take as gospel actually traces back to this anonymous Pentagon official, or his many friends, citing unverifiable anecdotal evidence.
Some have speculated that this means trusted OSINT channels are not in fact independent, but instead supported by national intelligence agencies.
More likely to my mind is that they are predisposed to be sympathetic towards pro-Ukrainian messaging coming from the Pentagon, while dismissing the same type of information coming from the Kremlin as laughable propaganda.
Now, I do think that a lot of the stuff coming from the Kremlin is laughable propaganda, but I think the double standard here does point to a bias which is driving these, frankly, misleading and inaccurate reports on what's happening in Ukraine.
But probably also something that everyone takes into account.
Like, if you're a professional engaging in this sort of information war for a national government, this is something you probably have in mind and also play into.
You would like to think so.
You would like to think so, certainly.
But if we look at some tweets from the Ministry of Defence here, I don't really know where to start on this, so I'll just read out what they have here.
So...
Sounds amazing.
Basically, Ukraine is kicking the Russians left, right and sideways.
But as far as I can ascertain, the fighting at Zmini Island is basically a few airstrikes, a few drones.
I saw some footage.
I mean, the reason I'm not saying much is because I just don't know much about this situation.
But I did see some footage of them trying to land a helicopter with some more Russian reinforcements on the island.
And it was just immediately blown up.
Right.
Yeah.
but as far as i'm aware there's no actual boots on the ground from ukraine's side no it just seems to be blowing up anything that arrives exactly at least that's the footage i've seen yeah no i've seen footage of that as well it does but there are conflicting narratives over what's actually happening at snake island however i think it's worth pointing out that snake island is fairly unimportant in terms of the number of people and assets deployed there compared to the entire front in the east of ukraine it's just got meme value
Yeah, so the fact that the Ministry of Defence saw fit to give an entire daily report just about this one speck of rock, what are they not telling you, is more important than what they are.
If we go to the next one I've found of theirs, so this is from yesterday.
Russia's underestimation of Ukrainian resistance and its best-case scenario planning have led to demonstrable operational failings.
So he wasn't able to announce success in the Victory Day Parade.
And I think they're right, saying that Russia's invasion plan is highly likely to have been based on the mistaken assumption it would encounter limited resistance and be able to encircle bypass population centres rapidly.
I think that's true, but that's not exactly news.
We knew that back in February, March.
It's already May.
And they're coming out with this.
It's like, yes, we know this.
This is not new.
Why are you reporting on this?
Again, it's what they're not telling you that's more important than what they are.
And if we go to the next one...
At the onset of its invasion of Ukraine, Russia publicly promoted its ability to construct surgical strikes and limit collateral damage.
And there are two narratives that are being pushed here in this briefing.
One of them is that Russia is indiscriminately targeting civilians, which is first of all a contradiction in terms because if you're indiscriminate then you're not targeting anybody apart from that small pedantic point.
If you're indiscriminately targeting someone, right, then that means you're probably hitting something else.
There's that kind of vibe on it.
Anyway, but then they're also saying that Russia's running out of precision-guided munitions because it's using dumb bombs, which are normal munitions and that sort of thing.
And this is something, again, that's being pushed on the Western-leaning side of the information sphere, but I think a little bit suspect at this point.
It might be true.
If it is true, fantastic.
Ukraine's got this in the bag, but...
I don't know.
have the targeted weapons just don't work because they all relied on the american gps service and that got turned off the moment they started the war right so they're having to install little gps's on their planes to even know where they're going so never mind their actual weapons which must be buggered so it might even be that just well okay these are useless let's go get the other That would be quite surprising.
I'll have to read up on that.
But yeah, no, there are lots of these small technological things that you probably wouldn't know at the high command level, but actually have a big impact on your war.
But whether these things are true or whether they're not just narratives that are being injected into the public dialogue, I don't know.
And finally, we have one from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office here.
Putin saluted his forces in Red Square while Ukrainians sifted through the rubble of a school in Luhansk where 60 are feared dead.
Contrary to Kremlin lies, Russian forces are indiscriminately targeting civilian infrastructure with this strike in Bilohorivka, the latest atrocity.
I've got a few things to say here.
So the first thing is, in Syria, the first place that the jihadis would take over when they came to a village was the school.
For the very practical reason that it was usually the only concrete building there.
Everything else would be much more primitive architecture.
So if you're looking to hide in something that's defensible, you end up going to the schools.
And so I would not be surprised if a similar thing is happening here, though, of course, I'm not saying that it is.
The other thing is that Bilo Horivka is on the front lines virtually in the East Donbass campaign.
So the idea that there's shelling there is not surprising to me.
These 60 fear dead.
I obviously hope that they're not civilians.
They may be.
That's terrible.
But yeah, these things do happen in war as hell.
That's why at the Nuremberg trial it was decided that conducting an invasion, an invasive war, an aggressive war, was the ultimate war crime in a sense.
Because war is just so bad, no matter how well you try to make it not so bad.
Anyway.
And one of the reasons I'm so sceptical about all this information is this, because last month the US basically admitted that it was straight up lying about the war in Ukraine.
Okay, why?
Well, why indeed?
So in a break with the past, the US is using intel to fight an info war with Russia, even when the intel isn't rock solid.
It doesn't have to be solid intelligence, one US official said.
It's more important to get out ahead of them, the Russians, Putin specifically, before they do something.
And I just found this amazing.
It was an attention-grabbing assertion, they continue, that made headlines around the world.
US officials said they had indications suggesting Russia might be preparing to use chemical agents in Ukraine.
I remember this, you remember this.
You at home remember this, I'm sure.
President Joe Biden later said it publicly.
But three US officials told NBC News this week, there is no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine.
They said the US released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions.
Okay.
I mean, you can see the motive, but then you're just openly lying.
Exactly.
I mean, you're the US government, so we should expect this as well.
Right.
This is just yet another reason not to trust these people, I'm sorry, if you're trying to work out what's actually happening.
And when you're trusting intelligence sources that present everything really nicely and neatly with good graphics and maps and things, but then it turns out that they're just relying on unnamed Pentagon officials...
Anyway, it's one of a string of examples, they continue, of the Biden administration's breaking with recent precedent by deploying declassified intelligence as part of an information war against Russia.
The administration has done so even when the intelligence wasn't rock solid to keep Russian President Vladimir Putin off balance.
And I just think that fundamentally, if your job is to provide information, then you're playing with fire when you're just deliberately lying to everyone, even if you're fighting this information war.
Well, it's not how the American government sees itself, of course.
And perhaps it shouldn't either.
You know, it's meant to be fighting information more, not just telling the truth in regards to global conflicts.
Although one where it's not officially involved.
Yeah, yeah.
No, that's true.
Gets more money.
But let's go back to talk about Western OSINT, open source intelligence.
So to give them some credit, when nothing is happening, they usually get it right.
So they said nothing is happening in Kherson, Odessa, nothing is happening in Zaporizhia, apart from shelling and things.
But the fronts aren't moving.
And yeah, they're right.
However, the big difference in fact selection, prioritisation and narrative comes when we talk about highly active conflict zones, where territory is indeed changing hands.
For our purposes today, that's Kharkiv and East Donbass.
And it's been this distinction between the two sides for the last week and probably a few weeks more.
So, the Ukrainians have gained territory near Kharkiv, and they've lost territory in East Donbass.
So the West-leaning reports prioritise the Kharkiv events, right?
They put them front and centre, they build the whole story of the war around them, as Germany did, and they make sure you know Kharkiv is really important.
They don't focus so much on East Donbass, saying things like, Russian gains in East Donbass don't really affect Ukrainian strategic thinking.
So this from May 5th, another OSINT channel...
Anyway, those reports characterise the second phase of Russia's invasion as a failed blitzkrieg.
The same operational strategy, it appears, as the first five weeks of the war up to the withdrawal from Kiev.
The most common word describing Russia's East Donbass campaign is stalled, but I think this is actually a complete misreading of Russia's Phase 2 campaign.
I've dug out this briefing from Russi here to demonstrate the following point.
Before the invasion, every analyst and his dog was looking at the artillery-heavy composition and doctrine of the Russian army, and therefore expecting a war strategy based on long-range fire.
So we'll quote from here quickly.
The role of artillery in a war between Russia and Ukraine.
Artillery is likely to play a prominent role in any conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Russia's predominance in self-propelled howitzers and Istar will prove decisive and may have strategic outcomes.
A conflict between Russia and Ukraine would inevitably involve extensive use of tactical artillery on both sides.
This was the case in 2015 when fighting was at its most intense and, despite the improvement in ground attack capabilities of the Russian Air Force, it is evident that much of Russia's lethality is retained by its artillery within the ground forces.
The Russian army has been characterised as an artillery army with a lot of tanks.
That seems like a fairly accurate assessment to me.
So the phase one part of Russia's offensive, which was an ineffective and costly bum rush across the north of Ukraine, if you're to be uncharitable, that came as a surprise, I suppose, to this strategy.
And it didn't work out for the Russians.
It seems to me that the Russians have reverted to their normal and expected strategy in East Donbass, relying on their large superiority in artillery, air power and missile strikes to conduct a slow and grinding advance.
And we also have some, if you go to the next one, so Rory has recently written an article about the Taiwan question and likely scenarios for a Chinese invasion over on loadseats.com if you want more information on that.
But going back to Ukraine and Russia, the Russian-leaning narratives invert the Western approach by de-emphasizing Kharkiv and emphasizing East Donbass.
They argue that the skirmishes around Kharkiv are a sideshow, and that the Ukrainian gains here are insignificant and not hotly contested by the defending Russian forces.
Whereas East Donbass, the region whose eight-year proxy conflict built up to this war, is the real prize, and that's where Russia is making gains.
So this from a privated Russian-leaning Twitter account...
This whole Ukrainian Kharkov operation has massive Snake Island vibes, a militarily pointless but heavily committed attack against secondary targets that achieve surprise only because of how boneheaded it is, and which ends in disaster when the Russians actually respond.
In other news, the Ukrainians are claiming they're mopping up the company or so of Russian troops that crossed the Donetsk near Belorivka without providing any evidence.
So that's where the arrow is there, the crossing.
Meaning the Russians are probably pouring troops across right now, getting Hostomel vibes.
Now let's not forget that Russia has just captured a major fortified town, Popasna, which you can see there, the little bulge on the east hand side, that had been subject to heavy fighting for weeks.
That's a significant achievement.
There's a lot of fortifications behind the lines that aren't in cities as well, but there we go.
Let's have a look at this map.
So between these two narratives, it seems like the war on the ground will be decided by the actual losses and the fighting state of the units there, something which is heavily shrouded in the fog of war.
West-leaning accounts are predicting a Russian collapse around Kharkiv, while Russian-leaning accounts are predicting encirclements of Ukrainian units in this cauldron of East Donbass.
I think a collapse on either side will come as a surprise, quite frankly, and we can look forward to a bloody, grinding, drawn-out war over the next few months.
I have no idea what to say, of course, because I don't keep up with it, but if that's going to be the future, I guess so.
This is the overall picture, as far as we can ascertain, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Ukraine today.
So as you can see, Russia still maintains all of the territory that it took in the south in that first phase of the campaign, and most of the intense fighting is happening up there in the upper corner of East Donbass.
The only question on my mind, have you seen any footage or claims of partisan activity within the Russian occupied zones?
I've seen claims of sabotage and some footage of arson attacks, molotov cocktails and things like that.
But it is there, but it's not huge?
I find it hard personally to gauge the scale of that contribution, and I find it hard to determine whether this is emblematic of a genuine widespread Russian resistance movement, which is certainly what we'd like to believe in the West, or whether it's just the result of a few basically infiltrated terrorist cells, probably well supported by Russia's enemies.
So I find it very hard to tell, but there is certainly something going on there.
Fair enough.
Should we end up there?
Yeah.
Move on to the death of the regime.
I thought this would be enjoyable.
Which regime this time?
The American regime.
So, we'll start off with talking about a shill first, in regards to the death of the regime.
The regime, of course, being Joe Biden, the intersectionalists, and their control over the entire Western world.
And we'll start off with a premium podcast here, being The Chill, The Origin of Intersectionality, which I did with Carl, in which we just went through Kimberley Crenshaw's original essays about this.
And the regime's religion, that being intersectionality, is having one of its limbs chopped off, and I'm really loving it.
So I thought we'd enjoy.
So of course, this goes back to Elon Musk, because who else?
So we're good to do this one.
This is the big news, which is that Elon was asked at a Financial Times interview.
Side note, worst interviewer since Kathy Newman.
And this dude pointlessly tries to ask him questions, but then gets to an interesting point, which is, well, is Donald Trump coming back or not?
What everyone's been wondering.
And Elon does answer it directly.
And if we go to the next one here, he also responded to this clip saying, important to listen to my full explanation.
So I won't say anything.
We'll give the listen to the full explanation he gives.
It's a bit long, but I think it's worthwhile to give him his due.
Let's play.
Are you planning to let Donald Trump back on?
Well, I think there's a general question of should Twitter have permanent bans?
And, you know, I've talked with Jack Dorsey about this and he and I are of the same mind, which is that permanent bans should be extremely rare and really reserved for people where they're trying to, for accounts that are Bots or spam scam accounts where there's just no legitimacy to the account at all.
I do think that it was not correct to ban Donald Trump.
I think that was a mistake because it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.
He is now going to be on Truth Social As will a large part of the right in the United States.
And so I think this could end up being frankly worse than having a single forum where everyone can debate.
So I guess the answer is that I would reverse the Perma ban.
I don't own Twitter yet so this is not like a thing that will definitely happen because what if I don't own Twitter?
But my opinion, and Jack Dorsey, I want to be clear, shares his opinion, is that we should not have perma bans.
Now, that doesn't mean that somebody gets to say whatever they want to say.
If they say something that is illegal or otherwise just destructive to the world, then there should be perhaps a timeout, a temporary suspension, or that particular tweet should be...
Made invisible or have very limited traction.
But I think promo bans just fundamentally undermine trust in Twitter as a town square where everyone can voice their opinion.
I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme.
Even after he egged on the crowd who went to the US Capitol, some of them carrying nooses, you still think it was a mistake to remove him?
I think if there are tweets that are wrong, they should, and bad, those should be either deleted or made invisible.
And a suspension, a temporary suspension is appropriate, but not a permanent ban.
So if the deal completes, he might potentially come back on, but with the understanding that if he does something similar again, he'll be back in the simbin.
He has publicly stated that he will not be coming back to Twitter and that he will only be on Truth Social.
And this is the point that I'm trying to make, which is perhaps not getting across, is that banning Trump from Twitter didn't end Trump's voice.
It will amplify it among the right.
And this is why it is morally wrong and flat-out stupid.
I love how he's just like, listen here, idiot!
It's brilliant.
And one thing which I really noticed you mentioned about the interviewer, but he has this classic mainstream media sort of disapproving parent look saying, oh, but you wouldn't bring Trump back on now, would you?
Now there's a good Elon.
That would be evil and wrong.
Why?
Because it would harm the regime.
That's why.
It's got nothing to do with what's right.
It's got nothing to do with what's practical.
It's got nothing to do with, well, their interests rather than everyone else's.
And the fact that he was completely deaf to Elon's point, which was basically...
Elon, in that interview, I don't think he really cared about Trump.
That wasn't what he was saying.
He was trying to make the more general point that these perma-bans are not just a blunt instrument or a double-edged sword.
They're actively backfiring.
And that's the real story, of course, which is that he made the point that permanent bans of real individuals is just inhuman.
Like, this isn't the right thing to do.
If you're doing this to bots or to spam accounts trying to make money, they're not real.
They don't have a legitimacy to them.
Okay, bye-bye.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
That's also a very interesting point that he raised.
So what does this mean, boys?
Well, if we can get this up, this is what it means.
Which is that all the meme war people are going to be back.
100%.
Because it's not just Donald Trump, of course, it's everyone who got a permanent ban from Twitter is going to be coming back.
And I'd love Milo to tweet this image or just something else hilarious on his way back and then immediately do what he does best, which is getting banned again.
But God knows what, what.
So, of course, the hoes are mad about all of this, and we shall enjoy some of that.
So let's go forward to see some of them.
We have this individual who got lots of traction, saying, Dear Elon Musk, no one wants Trump back on Twitter.
Sincerely, all Americans.
Wow, I'm amazed that this guy was, like, delegated to speak for all Americans.
He must be one hell of a guy.
They voted him into office.
Yeah, yeah.
The same way they did the last guy, I'm sure.
And if we go to the next one, we're going to see an attempt to try and call Elon Musk some kind of bad man.
Oh, come on, but this is a literal Democrat paid shill, right?
This is a paid schmuck who decided to come out and say that, well, he thinks it's morally wrong, well, clearly you're not.
And just to substantiate that, you guys did a segment ages ago demonstrating this guy literally is paid by the Democratic Party to be on Twitter pushing their propaganda.
That's why we call him a paid shill.
For people who don't know, literal page muck.
Literally part of the regime being like, no, you can't do this.
Yeah, but you don't own Twitter, so bye.
And if we go to the next one, we also have someone else who tried this attempt.
This one here saying, Dear Elon Musk, Twitter doesn't need a guy who spreads COVID misinformation, tweets sexist crap, gives his critics stupid nicknames and spread alt-right BS. This tactic doesn't work anymore.
Hang on.
I don't get the point of being like, hey, did you know he's sexist?
This may have worked once upon a time in which the owners were all progressive morons who were sensitive to such kind of things.
But to have a private individual who is just like, Lamal, and then turns off his phone, there's such responses.
I haven't heard the word sexist actually for a while because it's been replaced in popular parlance with the much more extreme misogynist.
They've tried that, but also just none of this is going to work on Elon at all.
That entire movement of we'll just call you names on twitter.com until you are deleted from life, that won't work in regards to, well, Elon Musk, because he didn't care.
Moving forward, of course, we also have more of this, so there's an individual here who decided to say that he's, well, he's South African, that he then moved to Canada, and the US is just a place for him to make money until he returns home.
Isn't that a bit racist?
Yeah, but it's also...
What's wrong with Africans, eh, Dean Obey Dalla?
I love it.
He's a dirty foreigner with no ties to our land.
I'm amazed that with a couple of tweets, Elon Musk managed to make these people American nationalists.
Yeah, but there's also the point that, well, does he have any ties to his homeland anymore?
Well, his homeland's gone.
I mean, let's be frank about it.
I'm not talking about apartheid South Africa.
I'm talking about South Africa as the dream of Nelson Mandela.
Like, it's become an international joke what has happened to that place, and it's all a shame for it.
But the fact that that's gone, well, then he has nowhere else to go, so we go to America, and...
Oh.
Imagine if that happened to anyone else.
We'll move forward because the next one is also someone whining here is just saying everyone who invests in Elon is investing in Donald Trump having his voice back and there will be consequences for that and they'll have to own it.
I wish I had a piggy bank as a prop.
But just, you know, points in there for Elon there.
And if we move forward, we also have the response from Jack Dorsey himself, which I thought was incredible.
Incredibly revealing.
Because Jack coming out and agreeing that, yeah, the perma ban was stupid, you instantly think, well, why'd you do it then, dummy?
And he gives us the reason.
He says it was a business decision.
It shouldn't have been.
Right.
That's what it was about.
Because banning someone with that many followers is not a business decision on the basis of, we want more people on the platform.
No, you deleted him and all his followers, so that wasn't about that.
You were clearly, presumably, then being threatened by keeping him on the platform and, well, who from...
Well, the entire establishment of Dems, the new regime as it was coming into official office inside of its other powers.
But the fact that they were all sat there with Donald Trump not doing anything wrong, but some stuff happening and they were very upset about that, and therefore they insisted, presumably, either the people around Jack or the people putting pressure on their company to get rid of him, have him removed.
Even if you buy into much of the mainstream narrative that he was doing things wrong in regards to January the 6th, the real question is, was he doing things wrong on Twitter?
And I think that even for those people, that's a categorical no.
It's a big no.
But for somebody who may be joining us who didn't know, you can go back and look at his individual tweets.
And he has never called for violence during that day.
Didn't happen.
The only tweets he made about it were, stop the violence.
So it's a complete BS narrative.
Moving forward, we can also see the fact that he says that he agrees to the idea that content moderation policy ruling the entire political speech of the West isn't a good idea.
I don't know why it took you this long to have that epiphany, Jack, but frankly, yes, of course.
Having this group of nobodies behind closed doors decide what the West should be allowed to discuss isn't a system worth defending.
And also if we move forward, we can also see the fact that we have the response, or at least the other version of events, of how the world should be run from the regime itself as one of its limbs gets chopped off.
And this is the most revealing aspect of how they expected, presumably, this is how they expected the world to continue, except Elon Musk is then coming with all his money and put a big wrench in this system.
And this is the new...
I don't know what you call them...
Ministry of Truth czar.
Disinformation czar, as Biden wants it to be called.
And she addresses the reason as to why.
Remember, some people were verified, and it was still that person, but became unverified.
And a lot of BS excuses were given, like, oh, did you know they changed their bio to say they were a BuzzFeed reporter for a laugh?
So yeah, we unverified Milo, for example, and it happened to someone else and they didn't change their bio and was ignored and never explained.
Thankfully, the misinformation czar herself comes out and tells us as to why this happened.
Let's play this clip.
And I am eligible for it because I'm verified.
But there are a lot of people who shouldn't be verified, who aren't, you know, legit, in my opinion.
I mean, they are real people, but they're not trustworthy.
Anyway, so verified people can...
Essentially start to edit Twitter the same sort of way that Wikipedia is so they can add context to certain tweets.
So just as a easy example, not from any political standpoint, if President Trump were still on Twitter and tweeted a claim about voter fraud, Someone could add context from one of the 60 lawsuits that went through the court or something that an election official in one of the states said, perhaps your own Secretary of State and his news conferences, something like that.
Adding context so that people have a fuller picture rather than just an individual claim on a tweet.
Unbelievable.
So it's a privileged class that gets to manipulate Twitter around themselves for the detriment of everyone they disagree with.
That's outrageous.
They can decide the context for anything said.
And who gets to do that?
Well, only those who are verified.
Verified doesn't mean you are who you say you are, as it does on literally every other platform on Earth.
They are real people, but they're not trustworthy.
Not trustworthy.
They need, because it's actually a sheriff's badge.
It really is a verified disability in which you are a member of the leftist elite who can edit the context of what's been said about what thing.
Yeah, and just to remember how important editing context is, remember the Count Dankula case, probably many of our viewers will remember.
The context didn't matter, according to the judge.
That's true, but no, the judge had the right to decide.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say.
He edited the context saying, no, it wasn't a joke, it was serious, and therefore you're due for a fine.
That is an extremely large power to be able to edit the context, even if it sounds rather abstract.
And God help these people.
But also, again, the regime saving itself.
I mean, I can't believe he's actually tried to go through with this disinformation BS. I would have thought they abandoned that on day one.
But her, her individually being a front mouthpiece for the regime and openly saying, well, this is how we want things to be run.
This is the ideal of how 2020 was meant to go, at least on Twitter.com, which is I was going to be put in charge of disinformation and me and all my friends were going to decide the context for you plebs because we're verified, don't you know?
It's not that we are who we say we are.
We're actually the verified elite, by definition, in her own words.
And, well, we can't have people like Donald Trump coming back, because then he'll be able to edit the context and show that we're lying instead.
Or anyone else, of course, as well.
I mean, unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
Finally, we have an admission.
Why did people start losing their verification?
Was it because they were untrusted?
No.
It was because the elite didn't like them.
They weren't in the club, yeah.
It is a club.
The thing is, we knew this, that...
Years.
And I remember having numerous conversations where people would take the opinion of, oh, no, but it's like this verified thing.
It doesn't mean anything.
It just means that you've been verified as a real person.
But the fact that right wingers are getting upset about it, God, they're so stupid.
Do they not realize this?
directly from the regime itself.
So also I wanted to go through some of the other Biden moments in the last couple of days in regards to what is true, because of course these people want to decide what is true for you, not reality itself.
Instead, just their party line.
As we can see, Reuters here decided to go with Biden to blast Republicans for not having a plan on inflation.
I forgot to Ted Cruz.
He's got a plan.
It's not a terrible plan.
He's got the next one.
Stop spending money.
Simple.
I got a one-point plan.
No more spend.
Spend equals zero.
Inflation go down.
Yeah, stop printing money as well.
Simplest possible thing.
We go to the next one as well.
We also have the situation, or at least the debate in the United States about sending $40 billion to Ukraine because, I don't know, something to do.
Bored of wasting money on everything else, so we'll do this.
And this is Marjorie Taylor Greene making the obviously great point here, which is that we're meant to be here for the Americans and spending $40 billion on Ukrainian defense.
Meanwhile, our borders are complete crap, and also people can't buy baby formula.
Yeah, there's been a big shortage of that for a while now.
Yeah, if we go to the next one, we can see a story on that, which is just that, yeah, it's not there.
It's too bad.
If your baby goes hungry, the Ukrainians need the money.
Need that much, apparently.
That's where your tax money goes, or they just print it and steal it from everyone via inflation as well.
There's also, if we go to the next one, the funny example of the White House specifically saying, we have no idea what we're doing.
Hmm.
We don't know what we're doing anymore.
We are literally useless.
Quote here, The US Food and Drug Administration is working to fix a baby formula shortage resulting from supply chain problems.
That's code for something, isn't it?
Lockdown policy.
That's what that is.
And a recall audit earlier this year after two infants died from bacterial infections, the White House said, Monday.
So, fantastic.
These things happen, and the product has to be recalled, obviously.
But the supply chain issues, well, who caused that?
Who's causing the mass economic disaster?
Well, you guys.
And we even have admittance from them in this regard.
But first, we're going to go to the next one and just see the fact of why are Dems so interested in sending $40 billion to Ukraine?
Why is this the highest priority instead of American citizens?
Is it because the Ukrainians are now a mascot class to the American people, someone who the American elites can get more gratification out of helping while anyone who's not on camera, they don't care about?
They can put the Ukrainian flag mask on for a bit, and then when they're done with that, they'll take that off, throw it over there, pick something else up, put it on for a bit, and that'll be that.
Although, this is weird.
Nancy Pelosi here, arguing for the Ukrainian mask, for her to stand on because, you know, she cares deeply and knows where Ukraine is on the map.
She's arguing here through the gospel.
Of course, this is America.
It's a religious Christian country, Carl.
Yeah, Nancy Pelosi.
Kill all the babies, but also, praise God.
When you're home thinking about what $40 billion to Ukraine is all about, just think about when I was hungry, you fed me from the Gospel of Matthew.
Deeply religious.
The Dems, as they stab kids for fun, I don't know.
Hang on.
Is she going to tell us they've got a baby formula shortage in Kiev now?
We've got to send them baby formula in Kiev.
When the babies were hungry, who fed them, Nancy?
No.
In America, those babies, they're not getting fed.
I just, I love that the religious tolerance is not present in any other regards, except for when they need to argue for something like this.
And then she's busting out her Bible.
Completely legitimate.
But if we go to the next one, we can see the admittance, as I said, that they are in charge, completely.
Biden said it himself in this press conference.
I love this point here.
Someone's just saying this is the golden ticket for the midterms.
It certainly is.
Let's play.
How do you believe so many Americans believe that your administration is not doing enough to combat inflation?
And do you believe that you and your administration bear some measure of responsibility for the inflation that we're seeing across the country?
The first is we're in power.
That's the first thing.
And you're justifiably right, we control all three branches of the government.
Yeah, you do.
It's 100% your fault.
Thanks for taking it, at least, finally.
It's no longer Putin who did this.
No, it is you.
You and your regime.
I also love...
I mean, it's almost like it's a Photoshop.
You see the messaging around him?
Lowering costs, tackling inflation.
The man in the middle is the one causing these problems, if you wanted it to be any more clear.
So, good work for whoever makes the set designs for dobbing him in.
We'll move to the last one here, which is also, weirdly, Dominic Cummings decided to make a comeback here.
Dominic Cummings, for people who may not know, is the guy who orchestrated Vote Leave and the Johnson campaign until Johnson went mad and then he left.
And even he's noticed that this is...
We are so effed.
And he makes the point, Biden here saying the number one threat is the strength, and that strength that we've built is inflation.
I don't know what to say to that.
A Biden moment?
I don't even know.
Yeah, another Bidenism.
And Dominic Cummings responds with,"...in the Cold War, nuclear near-misses decisions sometimes had to be taken in just minutes.
This is the mental state of one of the key players in a possible future branching history of a nuclear crisis.
And just like July 1914 rolled 1,000 times faster." I mean, this is American leadership right now.
I mean, a lot of people looking at this from outside the United States are just wondering to ourselves, do we really want to be tied to this right now, of all things?
I mean, should we be distancing ourselves more and more, at least from this guy, because he seems to be embarrassing all of us, not just Americans, and they're standing in the world?
I mean...
Our greatest strength is our inflation.
Joe Biden 2022.
I mean, that's a campaign slogan and a half, isn't it?
I don't know.
It might have been a Freudian slip.
It's certainly the elite's greatest strength.
One of the greatest things about inflation is that it allows the government in power to redistribute the wealth of all of the citizens to its cronies, because whoever it is who's receiving the money that you're printing is basically benefiting for free.
I also look forward to the future of what they imagine Twitter would be, which is inflation is up 7%.
Don't worry.
Inflation is our strength.
Below is the context.
By some verified checkmark who runs the Ministry of Truth.
I mean, we do say a lot, and a lot of worries were made about the Biden administration, but...
Jesus Christ.
I mean, a lot of this stuff is actually getting really scary, and it's only, in regards to Twitter.com, it's only saving grace that some billionaire came out of nowhere and went, yeah, I love that.
Yeah.
Thanks.
Yeah, for now.
And then even he has tweeted something along the lines of, what was it?
If I end up dead, then you know why, or something like that.
You 100% know why it's these people and their obsession with controlling everything.
Speaking of controlling everything, did you know that Disney is after your kids?
And not just in the normal, not quite so creepy and unwholesome way.
The worst way!
Well, they used to be after the eyeballs of your children to watch Disney things and buy Disney merchandise, but no, we learned today that Disney is funding activism in primary schools, and not the nice sort either.
What activism is there in primary schools that's legitimate?
I mean, crickets.
There is no activism in primary schools that can possibly be illegitimate.
Well, that's the thing.
One of the great saving graces of our society and culture for all of its flaws is that we do manage to preserve the innocence of children for a reasonable length of time.
And preserving the innocence is synonymous with keeping them out of politics, which also means the same as not doing blooming activism.
But yeah, no, we want child heroes of gender identity and LGBTQIA plus champions.
So there we go.
Why not?
Indeed.
So, as the postmanalian reports here, Disney funds gender identity LGBTQ curriculum in schools and has been doing so for 20 years.
GLSEN has ways that teachers can incorporate lessons on gender identity and LGBTQ advocacy and issues from 1st through 12th grade.
So, the whole thing.
Full spectrum.
Everyone.
No matter how young, no matter how old, they get the same messaging.
You're never too young for Disney's gender ideology.
Well, this isn't communism per se, but this is a very Soviet-slash-Marxist-Leninist view of it.
Is it not?
It's like the idea that a child is never too young to become a communist.
Sure, they do not believe in the sanctity of children.
No, of course not.
And Disney continues has been funding these guys for over 20 years.
So Disney announced with Pride their plans to fund 10 organisations that are based in advocacy and education around LGBTQ issues, specifically for children and teens.
Among these groups receiving funding is GLSEN, which pushes gender identity and LGBTQ curriculum to schools in the US. But first of all, the Orwellian part of my brain is screaming here because...
They avoid bias and include positive representations of something.
Yeah, okay.
That is contradiction in terms.
Where's the negative representations and also the neutral ones?
That is like, we shall tell the truth and also lie.
It's that kind of formulation.
You can't tell the truth and lie at the same time in the same statement.
Don't you know that alphabet is double plus good?
Okay.
But we're not giving you a biased result at all.
No, exactly.
The idea is that these lessons should start in elementary school.
Further, an LGBTQ-based curriculum should be implemented into most content areas.
So mathematics, LGBTQ. Physics, LGBTQ. History, LGBTQ. Yeah.
Woodworking, LGBTQ. Presumably they'll be coming out of that classroom with giant wooden dildos or something.
God knows.
I just love the idea of some primary school teacher being like, little Billy, you're not queer sexes.
And he says no.
And then the teacher is going to say, well, let me show you.
And it's, no, no, this should not be the conversation that's ever happening.
This is not why we have schools.
Not to mention, I don't know what a queer electron would be, but I guess we'll find out.
Probably a strange quark, I don't know.
Sorry, nerdy joke.
You wouldn't get it.
Sorry, that was so patronising.
Don't worry, we love our viewers, really.
I just have a strange sense of humor.
Quark.
So you've always got to do that quark thing.
Or you say queer, but you say quark instead.
Quark.
Let me just recompose myself.
Care should be taken to fill gaps while looking for opportunities to deepen student understanding of their world and identities, GLSEN writes.
Now, whenever you hear the word identities, you should probably be on the lookout for intersectional identities, because that's what they're talking about here.
Personality disorder.
LGBTQ people, history and events can be easily inserted into most content areas.
Yes, but should they?
Should they?
Should they?
The answer is no!
Oh, God.
You know we can easily insert queer theory into mathematics?
If you have three guys who are gay and two guys who are straight and you add them up, what do you have?
Three gay guys, because it doesn't matter.
You don't need to.
You know, in North Korea, they actually have this in the education curriculum.
So if you're doing mathematics, I read from a lady who went over there and taught to the elite.
They will literally do addition and subtraction and whatnot by saying, like, 10 Yankee bastards get shot by 30.
It's ridiculous.
But yeah, you don't need to insert the ideology.
Yeah, I would, I don't know.
I feel like if you were writing one of these curriculums and you had a sardonic sense of humour, you could come up with some hilarious queer mathematics questions.
So if any of our viewers are in that unfortunate station in life, you know what to do.
But the next sentence is incredible.
Teaching about identity at any age is valuable for students and can be considered part of social-emotional learning, SEL. I'm going to explain what that means in a minute.
Curriculum should provide students with opportunities to reflect on their own identities, including gender identity and expression, family diversity, including LGBTQ-headed families, and the types of relationships they may want to build in primary school, elementary school, when they're, what, six?
I want to play with the trucks.
No, you don't.
You want to learn about family structures.
You want to build a doll's house with three gay dads.
That's what you want.
One of whom is transgender.
Not dad?
Wait, no, he's a dad.
Oh, God.
I'm outraged by this blatant display of transphobia.
Goodness me.
So, social-emotional learning may be the real story here, in a way, and I just want to bring this to your attention.
So, I have here an explainer for what social-emotional learning is from America.
Quote, Is Mickey Mouse also involved in this one?
No, this is actually much more interesting.
It's not cut and dried as to whether this is good or bad, and I'll talk about it a bit more.
We define social and emotional learning, SEL, as an important part of education and human development.
SEL is the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions, and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.
So there's a couple of things there that might be red flags, but generally speaking, That seems kosher, I would say.
SEL advances educational equity and excellence through authentic school-family-community partnerships to establish learning environments and experiences that feature trusting and collaborative relationships, rigorous and meaningful curriculum and instruction, and ongoing evaluation.
SEL can help address various forms of inequity and empower young people and adults to co-create thriving schools and contribute to safe, healthy, and just communities.
Now that doesn't sound quite so good, does it?
That is very clearly, we are about equity doctrines.
Get out of our way.
We are going to make your community equitable.
Although, to be honest, anyone who wants to talk about this kind of thing with kids at any point, even if they're saying, oh, we're just talking about relationships, I still don't trust it.
Yeah, I think when they talk about relationships here, they're talking more about making friends within the classroom, within your peers, so it's a little bit more...
Sounds like a gateway drug to me.
Empathy is also a gateway drug for the far left.
Actually, I have a lot to say about empathy, but I don't think I'll have time to do so today.
I don't think it is nearly as good or necessary as we advertise in the West, empathy.
I think excessive empathy, especially when you're exposed to social media and the addictive habit-forming patterns that you can see in Twitter and Facebook and so on, I think being highly empathetic makes you much more suggestible and much less empowered, more dependent on external factors, which I think being highly empathetic makes you much more suggestible and much less empowered, more But anyway, getting back to the topic at hand...
So I've been reading up on the history of SEL recently as part of my research for three recent articles on education that we've published on the Lotus Eaters website.
So the first one was this, where I discuss what we really mean by an education.
The next one is this, where I talk about child early psychology when it comes to learning and development.
And finally, there is another one.
This is going up today.
As you see, it says published in an hour about what school does that we don't realize it does.
So if you want more on education, then please check those out.
But moving back here.
So my takeaway is that social and emotional learning seems like it originated as an intelligent framework for discussing the holistic education of young children.
And it's clearly had a lot of time and effort from some very clever and well-meaning people poured into it.
However, it has also emerged from the United States of America, and as such, SEL runs the risk of becoming contaminated with the pathologies of American society and politics.
This focuses on equity and identities.
I think they loom pretty large.
I don't want my school to be guided by the idea of eliminating social inequities and creating social justice.
I don't think that's going to lead to my children being very happy or well-informed.
Anyway.
No, but it's also the point that when you extend this to any part of education, parents really shouldn't be paying to make their kids stupider.
It's just not a good trade.
No, or paying so that some teacher can come in and use this fancy framework to actually support their social justice agenda and indoctrinate or brainwash children into political activism.
Being dumb.
Or into LGBTQIA plus representation, which is what these guys are trying to push that we discussed.
That kind of gender ideology.
Yes.
But it's not just that.
There's also the repeated focus on the materialistic, which never quite escapes American discussion of education.
If we scroll down here, there's a review, which I'll just cite from briefly.
There's an 11 to 1 return on investment.
So for every dollar invested in programming around social and emotional learning, we see that they're saving $11.
It's like, okay, yeah, that's the focus, is it?
Saving money, not about educating children.
Whatever.
How does that make any sense?
Yeah, well, they're trying to say that you get greater economic outcomes, I think, from children who are educated via SEL programs, according to research.
I call bull on all of that.
There is no way of going through some program when you're just this young about relationships somehow makes you 10 times more economic.
There's been 28 years of research into this, Gammu.
Who do you think you are to challenge that?
Yeah, I could also make up some studies.
Why not?
Take the money.
Yeah.
So, okay, we have a definition as well from here if you want to get a summary of the history of this SEL framework.
So, the term social and emotional learning is relatively new.
However, the concepts of SEL have been used in education for a long time.
SEL was formed when scholars from multiple fields such as emotional intelligence, child development, prevention science, bullying prevention and public health came together in 1994 to identify key skills and competencies students need to successfully navigate school and life.
These scholars developed SEL as an umbrella framework in an attempt to end a piecemeal approach to social and emotional issues that students face and create a common understanding and goal for student development.
And so they formed CASEL, Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning, which is the main sort of block or organisation driving the adoption of this framework in schools.
Since the conception of SEL, thousands of schools have implemented SEL programmes and researchers have conducted more than 500 evaluations of the various types of social and emotional learning programmes.
School districts are opening offices of SEL. There are SEL coaches within schools.
SEL is being incorporated in teacher preparation programmes and multiple national and state initiatives have been developed to support student social, emotional and academic development.
So it has a long history and it's recognised everywhere.
Reading between the lines, basically, SEL is poised to become the new fashion in mainstream educational programming.
And so I think it's worth taking the time to influence it with more wholesome values and rescue it from the grasping hands of ideological activists like this LGBTQ plus activist crowd.
They fully recognize the value of infiltrating and subverting this educational theory.
As we can see, if we go back to the degeneracy, teaching about identity at any age is valuable for students and can be considered part of social-emotional learning.
So they've identified a theory which may have some intellectual merit, which is slowly taking over the educational establishment, and then they are pushing to slowly take over that theory, because by doing that, they get to take over the educational establishment by proxy.
But let's just see what this means in practice.
GLSEN provides lessons that teachers can use to indoctrinate students into their views.
Many of these lessons centre on teachers drawing out students to talk about their own identities and explorations of those perceived identities.
That's a bit creepy.
I don't know what that means.
In early elementary, students will be taught about non-traditional family structures and gender stereotypes.
What, are they meant to embody those?
To experience them?
Yeah, so, you know, you send your kids off to primary school wearing their uniforms for the first time, you know, six or seven years old.
You've got your books, you've got to do your reading.
Right, settle down.
Got a magic key in there.
Yeah.
No, no.
And they're sitting down and it's like, okay, do you have two dads?
What would it be like if you had two dads instead of a mummy?
And that sort of thing.
It's like, ugh, that's what you send them to school for, is it?
God damn.
But also, why do you pay a primary school teacher to do that?
Because that's the other aspect of this.
The taxpayer pays for all this, and instead you're paying for what?
Well, apparently to have your kids just harassed instead of being taught how to read.
Yeah, and Disney are paying for this as well, so it's not just the government and the state, it's also via the private sector.
I mean, what the hell does Disney have to do with this?
Why is it its business to fund these kinds of programs to indoctrinate your children?
If it wants to indoctrinate your children, it can carry on making movies like Moana.
Mickey Mouse has a special interest in your kids at school.
Why?
Why do I really want the mouse turning up?
It's not really his place.
Yeah.
Upper Elementary brings a lesson called Identity Flowers, which encourages students to explore their own identities and personal experiences with race, culture, ability, family structure, religion or spirituality, and gender identity.
And expression encourages students to explore their own identities and personal experiences, and so on and so on.
It's like, what the hell does this mean?
This is just intersectional, woke, claptrap.
Middle school lessons are about giving students an opportunity to experience what it's like to be labelled in a negative way.
Wait, wait, wait.
Sorry, we're going to sit the kids down in middle school.
We're going to shout racial slurs at them.
We're going to shout the M-word of the kids until they know what it feels like to be black.
Do you know what this sounds like to me?
This sounds like the educational speak for those lessons we've seen in Britain, where they have class segregated the white students from the non-white students, and then they have treated the white students as second-class citizens in the classroom, making them do fetching and carrying and guilt-tripping them, this sort of thing.
There was also that case in America in which a black lady did segregate the class and started shouting K words and got all the class to shout K words at the other side of the class and then mock bury them alive because they were Jews.
Right.
This is exactly the sort of thing they're talking about, I think.
And this is middle school.
This is children of the age of, what, 11 to 13?
These people are evil.
You're going to get an education kit.
It ain't going to be a good one.
Yeah.
Goodness me.
High school lessons teach how students can be empowered through self-identification.
The lessons teach students how to undertake the process of self-identification and then be proud of those identities they've identified with.
This is sounding more and more like a cult, because the idea is you break people down and then you give them something that they can latch on to.
That's how cult indoctrination generally works.
And it seems like they've got the middle school lessons to break students down, to break them out of their culture.
Just as their teenage years begin, they're being trained essentially to fight against the culture that they've come from, of their parents as well.
And then after that, they have this rescue package, which is the complete ideology of empowerment and intersectionality.
I really don't like this.
In the discipline of science, children are meant to learn that sex isn't all about the gender binary, and should be taught, per GLSEN, about animals' diversity in gender and family structure.
By middle school, children learning science and sex education should be given the gender triangle so they can learn to distinguish between gender identity, gender expression and bodies.
Educators teach about biology and the human bodies in ways that do not reinforce gender binaries and include intersex people.
In this lesson, students will learn that chromosomes have nothing to do with a person's gender.
I still can't read, but at least I've got this graph now of a triangle of gender identity, body versus...
And they have it right here, the triangle, if we scroll down.
There we go.
This is what's important to learn in high school.
The kid can't read the words, but he could look at the graph.
Fantastic.
It just boggles belief.
High school lessons will focus on the problem with Western culture, which traditionally views reproduction between cisgender men and women, and how many stories are different from that traditional view.
GLSEN has curriculum plans and guides for every subject and every grade level, with pronoun lessons plans for students to write articles about LGBTQ leaders, historical lessons, word problems using LGBTQ themes in maths, and using basic activities as an opportunity to explore a range of gender expression and activities.
Sorry, I've just noticed.
On the body section, that third person there, that's a man with a beard and a moustache, but tits?
He might just be a fat man, Callum.
Okay.
We'll go with that.
That's what I'm clinging on to.
Oh, dear.
In each and every area, GLSEN has ways that teachers can incorporate lessons on gender identity and LGBTQ advocacy and issues from 1st through 12th grade, and Disney has been funding these guys for over 20 years.
So there are going to be some of our viewers who have graduated from school or out working or at university, and throughout their entire lives, Disney has been funding this kind of subversion.
Disney has given funds to organisations around the world that support LGBTQ plus communities in celebration of Pride and our Pride collection, Disney writes, around the world as well.
So it's not just subversive in America, it's subversive around the world.
I'd love to hear what the Saudis think about this.
For our 2022 Pride collection, we are further deepening our support and look forward to sharing more information shortly.
They list the 10 groups, including ones that are Spanish language, Japanese, get your hands off Japan, you absolute hacks, French, Italian, German, and some based in the UK and Australia, as well as South America, showing that their commitment to indoctrinating youth into gender identity and adult sexual lifestyles is a global initiative.
Imagine my shock!
The international mouse.
I mean, I don't know if you've ever seen Russian propaganda.
They generally do still use Mickey Mouse as a symbol of Americanism, to be like, the Yankees are here.
But now Mickey Mouse is turning up and also talking to your kids about queer sex.
I think the Russians may have a point.
Well, the thing is, right, okay, so in Japan, at least, Disney is immensely popular.
It's super, super popular, far more than it is in Britain.
You can go to their shops and their parks and things everywhere.
Yeah, and there are genuine people whose hobby is Disney.
I know that sounds strange to Western news, but that's the thing.
I don't think the Japanese would be very impressed to hear that Disney is deliberately trying to indoctrinate their population and their children specifically into LGBTQIA plus Western degenerate activism.
I'd love to hear what the Japanese nationalists have to say on that one.
But they finish here.
The new funds provided by Disney will be used to deepen the impact of student leadership programs and racial equity capacity building across the GLSEN network, including such programs as GLSEN's National Student Council and Freedom Fellows.
Ah!
I don't know.
I just find all of this stuff completely, well, demoralizing.
It's aimed at demoralizing the entire West, quite frankly, and reading about it is not very fun.
Well, on that depressing note, let's go to the video comments.
Callum, for your question about abortion in Caesar's Legion in Fallen, New Vegas, in the quest where you learn that Boone's wife was sold into slavery, In the bill of sale, it lists his wife and her unborn child separately.
So the Legion does seem to view a fetus as a human life.
But when it comes to their stance on abortion, I don't know if they go over that in the game.
Caesar's Legion, more moral than the Democrats.
Yeah, I suppose Boone's daughter was listed as a person and had a value.
I don't know what it was, some amount of denarii or whatever, but okay.
Fair point.
I've got to take that into account when writing the script.
That's an interesting way of looking at it, if nothing else.
Ugh.
Anyway, I love Paulette New Vegas stuff, so thanks.
Let's go to the next one.
Two of my younger brothers worked together using my dad's skid steer on the weekend to pull the motor out of the motorhome.
And so now my brother has it sitting in the shop next to his truck, ready to put in for when my dad gets back from Saskatchewan.
Aw.
Awesome.
I just love how the entertainment industry is destroying itself by constantly doubling down.
Nobody likes a lesbian fat woman.
What do we do?
I know!
Black lesbian fat woman.
Nobody likes Starfire's lesbian fat daughter.
I know Superman's son is now gay.
Nobody like a woman doctor.
This one hurts me.
But now, now we have a black gay doctor.
Yay!
And they are wondering Yeah, no, I saw as soon as that came up and I saw the Dalek in the background, I was like, I know what this comment is going to be about.
Probably should have realized that more as well.
But I do wonder, because Sophie mentions the idea that they're sat around thinking about it, you know, what could work.
I don't even know if they think what could work.
Because there is a little bit of that.
We did see it.
I don't know if Harry mentioned it.
I'm sure he did.
In which the Doctor Who Twitter account was trying to vibe with black Twitter to try and expand...
Yeah, we're that blue phone box show now.
Yeah, but it's obviously...
It's not even a phone box.
It's a police box.
Okay.
It's not that that ever matters.
The Doctor doesn't even matter.
Did you guys go over the butchering of the entire Doctor's backstory?
The fact that he's now a refugee immigrant who was abused and taken advantage of by the native Gallifreyans who are evil.
Oh, boy.
But I don't know if they ever think about, okay, we'll just expand the viewers to make the show work.
No, but that's totally in line with leftist activism in the sense that it's taking the character, the Doctor, and it is carving them away from the society and culture that birthed them, which is the Gallifrey, and so are now evil.
But the idea that you're doing all this to try and expand the viewership to, we'll include refugees by making the Doctor a refugee, it doesn't make any kinds of sense.
So I don't even know if they even attempt to think about that.
They just think, how do we ruin it today?
Yeah, they usually short-circuit that thinking by thinking diversity good for its own ends, and therefore.
So they assume that if you have good diversity, if you have this diversity, you will get the viewers anyway.
Let's go to the next one.
I was thinking about Joshua's comment that abortion acts like a blooding of feminist progressives.
As a former serviceman, he will know that it means two things in the military, the exposure of someone to the act of killing, but also the mental preparation that killing is something not totally forbidden.
Harry presented data that supports the second meaning.
Despite abortion being shockingly easy to access in America, the raw numbers seem relatively low, but I wonder how many instances in the data are women going back for multiple abortions.
They would be like shock troops, who will campaign rabidly for access because they have been blooded.
That was a great point of looking at.
I was wondering what the hell that footage was you were playing at the start.
Gonna go have to find that.
But I don't know if there are real numbers on that.
If there are, and someone out there does know, please let us know.
We'll find it and let us know.
But the number of women who go for multiple, and then their persuasion, because I imagine, as you say, they're pretty much shock troops in their regard.
We did see some of them on college campuses screeching about going get it done now.
Yeah, very immoral people.
Go to the next one.
So, just a quick potential theory.
I theorize that many gamers are actually pro-life because they know how much BS it is to get spawn killed.
And that's why they sympathize.
Tap.
Reroll.
Land in India.
Goddammit.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Let's go to the next one.
So I don't think this is going to come as a shock to anyone, but art is really hard and no one starts good at it.
But it seems to me that only some people seem to get encouragement and validation early on in the development.
And I think that plays into why all of Hollywood and everything has lurched left.
It's because it's a means of getting the okay when you're not okay.
So if someone's out there putting in the effort, keep it up.
It's a good message and also a good boy.
Yeah, no, but that's a very interesting point, actually.
Yeah.
Go to the next one.
An issue I have with your grooming gang problem is that the victims are often condemned as sluts and, you know, should have known better, despite being kids and whatnot.
But the fact is that they're told from a very young age by every strata of power that being promiscuous and doing drugs is a good and positive thing, and if you don't do it, you're an evil Tory.
You don't want to be a Tory, do you?
Also remember that they're brought up to believe POCs are like a Brahmin class that can't be disagreed with I mean, a lady somewhere in England got arrested for saying she wouldn't date a black guy.
I mean, sure, it's inelicantly said, but that's very excessive.
And combine that with the fact that POCs won't be punished for taking revenge on white women for not dating them, they don't really have a choice but to go along with it.
Yeah, some of that's the idea that it's because they're not Tories.
It's not that.
It's because you don't want to be a prude, do you?
But when I was in Telford, I didn't mention this.
I didn't realize what to make of it at the time.
We were stood by waiting for a friend of ours so we could go and watch the communists, and some guy came along on his bike.
It must be 70s or something.
And I said, what's all this then?
And I told him, a documentary, you know, left us over there, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And he's just, well, everyone knew, didn't they?
And we had this big, long conversation with him, and he was just like, yeah, no one really cares.
Like, the girls, you know, if you've got the option between being poor or going out with these...
He used the P word.
We've got these Lamborghinis and whatnot.
What do you reckon they were going to do?
And everyone in the drinking community, as he put it, didn't care.
And anyone in the upper crust didn't know about it, so they didn't care either.
It's just like...
Whenever someone, especially a foreigner, talks about it, I feel some real shame for where I live, because it is a real embarrassment that not only this takes place, but the fact that it's culturally almost accepted as a part of life, instead of something that needs to be rooted out.
Hmm.
And even there, I mean, the guy living in a town where this took place, people died, people got murdered because of it, not just groomed.
The numbers, God knows how many, and the perpetrators, one of them's on bail.
He served his sentence for murder and then went out and he's free, and he never served any time for the grooming.
That's not something the police were interested in doing, even though he clearly raped the child, otherwise the child wouldn't be pregnant with his kid.
Sorry, one of them ever ran there.
But yeah, it's unbelievable.
I really, yeah, I hate it.
I really hate it.
Go to the next one.
The challenge to make a small classical building using that software.
Hey John, I'll take you up on the challenge one day, but I just want to mention that this is not a house.
This is a museum and a UNESCO World Heritage set by Le Carversier, who was born only a generation after Gaudi.
And Gaudi has made Sagrata Familia, I would say the most beautiful building I've ever seen in my life.
And there is no part of this building, interior or exterior, that I can copy in CAD in any capacity because it requires artistry, something I do not possess.
But with no artistry, I can easily copy this.
That's a very good point, yeah.
Everyone talks about that cathedral like it looks amazing.
I can't stand it.
The little holes at the top.
I don't know if we can go back, can we?
They're in the spires.
What's that fear called where you have some skin and there's a bunch of holes in it or a plant or something?
I don't remember the name.
But it's all it reminds me of and I can't stand looking at it.
You know what I'm talking about?
I get what you're saying.
I must admit, I do think it's overhyped.
However, I do like it still.
I feel like bugs are all going to crawl out of it.
Put it this way, when I went to Barcelona, I didn't visit it.
I saw the outside and thought, yep, good enough for me.
I know people, what's it called?
Trypophobia.
Yeah, that's all I see when I look at the cathedral in Barcelona.
I feel like a load of tyranids are going to come flying out of the spires and just devour everyone.
Awful building.
Can't stand it.
Go, next one.
Jersey Devil exploded on the scene in January 1909 during the Jersey Devil hoax, and it appeared in newspapers all over the country.
People were seeing it as far away as Texas.
A Camden police chief shot at it, but it was this illustration that became very famous.
It was basically a police sketch of what Nelson Evans saw on the top of his shed at 2 a.m., one fateful night.
See, the thing is, Carl will defend this on the same logic as Bigfoot, so I can't really say anything, which is, are you going to tell him he's wrong?
But then again, I also wonder, does the Jersey Devil stop being the Jersey Devil once it leaves state lines?
Like, once it crosses into Texas, does it become the Texas Devil?
Or is it perpetually just stuck in Jersey, because that's where the entrance to hell is or something?
A very interesting question.
You'll have to let us know in the next comment.
Cheers for that.
Let us know.
Otherwise, we should go to the written comments.
General Hai Ping says, John, when's the death of Starling Media analysis coming?
All I can tell you is, it is coming.
On A Tale of Two Conflicts, we have Lee B saying, The first victim of war is truth.
I'm quite sick of talking to people about this conflict who just take either side's propaganda as gospel.
Yeah, pretty much.
Robert Miller says, with regards to the reporting on the war in Ukraine, like the ghost of Kiev, it is all designed to inflate the perception of the Ukrainian forces and government and to deflate and warp the perception of the Russians.
As an ex-British soldier, 90% of my training and focus was to counter Russia.
So believe me when I say that whenever our MSM tries to portray them as inept, it is pure propaganda.
The Russians initially pushed forward beyond the areas they actually wanted to occupy so they could take out military targets in the north and west.
And then withdrew to the areas they really wanted in the first place.
No assault was made on Kiev.
When you look at troop numbers, it is clear that was never their intention.
Remember, lads, truth is the first casualty of war.
Keep up the good work.
And thank you for your comment there.
With regards to that analysis of Russia's initial campaign in the north, that may be true, although that's not the interpretation I've taken.
But one thing that I will say about it is I've noticed the West is trying to turn this narrative into the Ukrainians counterattacked and pushed the Russians out.
That's not what happened.
They ran away.
Yeah, like they literally withdrew days before.
It wasn't like there was constant fighting beating them out of the country or anything like that.
No, the Russians just packed up and left, leaving.
Anyway, but the narrative is going to try and persuade you that that's not what happened and the Ukrainians kicked them out forcibly.
Now, you could say, more fairly, that the Ukrainians did defeat them there, because it may be the case that the Russians ended up in an unsustainable position, unable to take Chernihiv or Kiev and so on, or funnel the logistics to the frontline units they needed in order to fight an efficient war there.
And so you could argue that Ukrainian resistance was something that defeated them, that forced them to withdraw.
What you cannot say is that the Russians were kicked out by a Ukrainian counteroffensive.
That didn't happen.
Just put the tank in reverse and...
General Hai Ping says, That was a long sentence!
I do get the feeling that if the monolithic beast that could be called the Russian military actually wakes up, things could start changing very quickly.
What's going on with that?
Because I don't really understand why they haven't pushed more in to get this done sooner.
Is there any rationale behind this?
Or you can...
Well, I think fundamentally modern war is a messy process, especially...
I think Russia is best equipped for the conservative strategy which they're using at the moment, which is the slow grind with masses of artillery and airstrikes and so on and so forth.
And I don't think at the moment they have the capacity to storm the heavily fortified and entrenched areas of East Donbass that they have.
So the best that they can do is make the advances they're doing at the moment to essentially cut off and strangle pockets of Ukrainian troops at the front.
If that's what's happening, then that's succeeding.
If that's not what's happening, then they have more problems to solve.
But yeah, that's my take on it.
Lord Nerevar says, These stories are so nakedly false.
Every single MSM source I've seen wants to portray the conflict as Ukraine winning, Russia losing, even though that really doesn't seem to be the case at all.
This feels like a really dangerous path to be treading to me.
It only goes downhill from here.
Yeah, and one thing I've seen is actual, genuine, legit ex-intelligence officers coming out of the woodwork and writing articles and saying things like they don't believe national governments are actually trusting the intelligence agencies they've got and are more relying on private contractors and agencies and even Twitter and things like that.
If that's true, and that sounds quite shocking, then God help us all.
But there we go.
Ignacio Junquera says, And you know what that reminds me of?
It reminds me of the BBC. They've trotted out every substory they can out of this conflict.
We've had the grandma, we've had the baby born in the...
In the bomb shelter.
We've had all of these stories, like the widow of the serviceman, all of that.
And they focus on all of these personal stories and that.
And, you know, those are stories, certainly, but that's not the sort of thing you look at when you're actually looking to build a cold, rational picture of what's happening.
Well, it's because they're obviously a propaganda outlet.
You know, for your side or not, that's not the relevant point.
So why do they not have the same guys in the occupied zones or liberated zones, as Russia would say, and then, you know, same stories there?
No, they'll only never do it on one side.
No, absolutely.
And there are a lot more good comments on Ukraine, but in the interest of time, let's move on to the rest and we'll move back to them if we have time.
We'll go to the death of the regime.
So the Minicus Monicus says, Elon criticized the decision of banning Trump permanently, partly due to the increased polarization of society it caused, splitting Trump fans off further from the mainstream discourse.
I think the mistake he makes there is assuming increased conflict and polarization isn't part of their goal.
Yes, I mean, that is literally why they're trying to get the national divorce online between the rightists and the leftists, and they've been doing a good job of it, at least when they start banning everyone who wasn't a leftist.
And I think Elon is correct that the human response and the correct position anyone would want that isn't all that war at the end is that we're all in the same place debating each other, but of course the leftists can't have that because they'll lose.
Lee Beast says permanent bans are unethical.
Most murderers get out of prison at some point.
Big Tech just loves to permaban people they don't like, like a Discord janny living in their mother's basements.
They have the same mentality, that's for sure.
Francis Taylor says, is that person wearing a mask on a Zoom call?
Yeah, a lot of them were.
It's embarrassing, isn't it?
Yeah.
I mean, we were in Telford and some family turned up and you could see all the kids, the dads and everything were in N95s and you just look at them and think...
Alright, you better have some, like, compromised immune system for doing this.
Otherwise, you've got no excuse for being this paranoid.
Adrian Bradley says, Finally hoping that free speech is gaining some ground.
Hopefully nothing stops Elon's takeover.
Bans are equivalent to a virtual death sentence, which we don't even do for literal murderers in the UK, much as I wish we still did have the death penalty for some crimes.
Terrorist murderers, for example.
How many people get sentenced for 25 years, out on parole in 10, with good behaviour, yet breaking the TOS leads to a lifetime ban?
P.S. Callum, that is my real name.
So you're not Adrian Brodeley.
But I do want to say on that point, so I have a theory that you basically earn civilisation.
Like, countries earn the civilisation they get.
And I think that it's a very civilised country that has no death penalty, because it has no need of such.
But I think the fact that there are...
I think that basically we do need a death penalty now because we don't have any way of dealing with the unofficial death penalties we have.
So what I mean by that, for example, is if you cross the wrong gang or the wrong religion or the wrong extremist group or something, you can get a death sentence even if it's not passed in the court just by someone assassinating you.
And so there are death sentences there, just not ones carried out by the state.
I think we have demonstrably lost some of our civilization, and one of the ways that we could actually engage with the reality that surrounds ourselves is by reinstituting a death penalty.
The state actually has a duty to intervene, to install an order so that normal life can continue in areas like that, where you can be killed for saying Mohammed was a pedo.
No, that shouldn't be a realistic thing that takes place in our country.
Back to the comments.
So Andrew Nerog says, Ah, that's Jack Posobiec tweet about 40 billion to Ukraine.
While we're suffering around 40% out of stocks on baby formula, it's hard.
The wife and I have been struggling a fair bit to find formula for our child, especially since we have to fortify his milk, meaning yet more formula being used.
Downright evil that funds are being used in this proxy war instead of taking care of our own citizens.
Yeah, mate.
I'm sorry, but it is just embarrassing to see as well that the Washington economy cares so little for anyone who funds them.
Instead, they are just incessants on their weird foreign obsessions endlessly, their fetishes elsewhere, not to do with anyone who pays the goddamn bills.
Mr.
Spaniard says the root of the problem with the social media oligarchs is that they feel entitled to ban your entire internet presence and places the same threat onto anyone that would dare to have you on for matters of opinion and legal speech.
It's totally true as well.
I remember, what was it, I think it was Patreon, trying to claim that they own everything you've ever done on the internet.
They were just like, yeah, well you set a stream that has nothing to do with our platform, a word that we don't like, therefore we're banning you.
Yeah, no, that doesn't work, mate.
That doesn't make any kind of sense.
No one should do business with them.
The boat guy, TfWSpark, says, hey, look, the lefty media is going to have their This Week in Trump's Twitter timeline back.
Maybe someone will actually watch them again.
They can hope.
They may not even come back.
I was a bit sceptical that he would boycott it, but the more and more I'm seeing him not making any noise, I am wondering if he'll just be like, nah, screw to her.
Got my own place.
Don't care.
Come to me.
He's gone to the effort of setting it up now, hasn't he?
Especially if he becomes the president again, you can just sit on his platform and be like, if you want to see what I'm saying, that's where you've got to go.
And, well, financially it seems like a pretty good move.
It almost seems like it was an idiotic decision of him not to do it while he was in the presidency.
It would have been quite easy for him to do so.
Should have done sooner.
General Hyping says, did Elon set his microphone up in a booming voice of the Lord mode?
Hilarious Chad move.
No, I think that was just the setup of the call there.
Let's move on a bit.
Baron Von Vorhock says, don't worry about the lack of baby food, just think of it as late turn on.
No, come on.
Come on, man.
Agent000 says, taxation may be theft, but inflation is much worse.
Pirate Skeleton says, interviewer, You would bring back Trump even though we claim he did things that we can't prove he did?
How dare you?
Did you know he was carrying a noose?
What noose?
The hell are you talking about?
There was one guy with a make-believe gallows, which is perfectly legal.
You're allowed to do that.
That's part of protest.
He wasn't exactly wearing a white pointy hat, was he?
No.
I love how he's trying to frame it as well.
They were trying to hang black people or something.
No.
It's an obvious loaded question.
There were black people in the protest.
What do you think about that, huh?
They were bashing down the doors singing Black Lives Matter.
Anyway, let's go to the Disney stuff.
So Maureen Peters says, According to J.L. Austin, his book How to Do Things with Words, speech is not only descriptive but performative.
Apologising, for instance, is something you do and say simultaneously.
Nowadays, many people think all language is performative.
These people believe some words and statements are literally violent and that certain terms are enough to change reality.
The teachers who are trying to change the children for the good of society by claiming that their sex and gender is determined by their feelings believe this.
The children are taught to mistrust their parents.
They are taught to be more accepting and tolerant while disregarding the reality that sexual encounters can involve peer pressure and regret.
By normalising porn and masturbation, there is also the chance that because they have very little sexual experience, they will normalise even the most explicit forms of sex.
This will result in confusion, where there was none, and enough emotional harm to change their entire lives.
Yes, that's why we report on this because it's horrible.
It's grim.
Very grim.
And it's the sort of thing that you should be aware of because it's something that could actually affect you and your families and the mainstream media is not going to tell you about it, are they?
If they do report on this, they will cloak it in so many stunning and brave assertions that they delude you into thinking that something good is happening, even if you don't understand what until it actually hits home.
So that's why we have to report on it.
Charlie says, John, on your point about empathy being overvalued, I totally agree.
I love it when people agree with me.
Best part of the job.
Dissent, who wants that?
My opinion's gone.
Your opinion's dirty.
Pathological empathy is definitely cause for concern, especially when you consider empathy always comes from the individual's perspective.
If you frame a certain class of people as inherently bad, you'll struggle to be empathetic towards them.
Take, for example, the fallout when PewDiePie was robbed, leading to the anti-rich crowd to celebrate his misfortune.
I don't remember that.
Yeah.
Francis Taylor says, indeed, much of what they've done on the left is weaponized compassion.
Don't you want everyone to be equal?
It's like, no.
No, why would I want that?
Why would you want that?
Not compassionate.
No.
Like, the only way we're going to be equal is when we're all eating babies like they were in China.
Well, yeah, when we all have nothing, basically, yeah.
And even then there will be inequality.
Some people have more baby corpses to eat.
That is an inequality.
Callum.
Callum.
I'm sorry.
We've got two minutes left.
Let's end this on a positive.
It really annoyed me.
Ignacio says, schools and teachers should stay away from teaching kids to socialize or remote.
They should most correct them if their socialization in the school is destructive or disruptive, as those are responsibilities of the parents.
I've said it before, schools should be cold and a place of learning.
Drop stupid programs and teach kids more useful things such as taxes, home economy, or introduction to trade jobs or firearms.
Longshanks1690 says, Chinese children, learning complex engineering.
Well, speaking of that, Chinese children, Longshanks, learning complex engineering.
Indian children, learning complex mathematics.
Western children, if we divide 27 genders by white supremacy, how much climate change do we have?
I love his comments.
That's good.
Mario Manzi says, Disney, funding reading and racism.
What can possibly go wrong?
Indeed.
And Freewheel2112 says, Communism is a cult.
It has all the necessary traits, including cult personality of the great leader.
Yeah.
They literally are baby eaters.
Bleach Demon says, Disney, you can insert the agenda into anything with an African loop.
Oh, God.
Should we end on that one?
Let me see if I can find a positive one here.
Yeah, Francis Taylor says, OMG, love the cute nerdy physics jokes between the two of you.
Astro nerd here.
Ha ha.
That's nice.
Well, there we are.
We'll end on that.
So if you want more from us, lotuses.com, of course.
Otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow at one o'clock.
▲
Export Selection