Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 14, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:08

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #480

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of Lotus users for today.
	Wednesday, the 14th of September, 2022.
	This is episode 480.
	I'm joined by Harry.
	Hello!
	And today we're going to be discussing the most evil Forbes article ever published.
	Low bar, I know.
	God damn the king.
	No, it's a very high bar, actually.
	Hmm.
	Question mark.
	And also, actually, you're not valid.
	So we're going to be tearing down your self-esteem.
	That's what you come here for.
	But just before we get into it, we'd like to highlight the fact that from 3.30 today, our premium members, if you're not a premium member, go and subscribe to the website.
	There's still time.
	We'll be able to watch live Carl and Callum going through our Cyberpunk Dystopia Part 3, looking through All of the modern examples of why Black Mirror is actually real.
	And don't worry, Carl has plenty more examples for part four, part five, part six.
	Into the future, really.
	Yeah, Saudi Arabia keeps building hive cities, and that's definitely going to happen.
	And then also, I believe that we are promoing here as well.
	On Friday afternoon, Harry and I will be upsetting all the feminists by covering Louise Perry's The Case Against a Sexual Revolution in a premium book club.
	If you're a premium subscriber, hopefully there'll be time at the end to get to some of your comments as well.
	We will be upsetting many feminists, yes, but I will say it's nice that Louise Perry has demonstrated that there is such a thing as a relatively sane feminist, seeing as she is still describing herself as one throughout the book.
	She'll get there, don't worry.
	She'll be trad wife before we know it.
	Without further ado...
	Alright then, so, I was in a bit of a split mind with this one, which was either to call this segment the most insane Forbes article, or the most evil Forbes article.
	I settled on most evil, but it is also completely and totally insane.
	I was made aware of this through a recent tweet by this woman, Katie Herzog, who was highlighting this, saying this article is insane, I cannot believe Forbes published it.
	And if we click on some of the images, we can see parts that she highlighted.
	The title of it, Ex-Trans Activist Chloe Cole, in her own words, I'm Autistic.
	Now, on its own, that seems like a relatively neutral title.
	Yes?
	Yeah.
	It seems like the sort of thing, well, they're just reporting.
	But as you go through the article, you find that they may, in fact, have a reason for highlighting her autism, which is basically just to discredit this poor young girl, who is not just an ex-trans activist, she is a detransitioner.
	So, and not only that, an incredibly young one, who went through it at about 13 years old, and detransitioned at...
	Right, so this was definitely inflicted upon her.
	Absolutely, and she makes that very clear throughout the interview that the article is based around, but they had to put up a disclaimer at the beginning of this, saying, oh, a version of this report first appeared in the Los Angeles Blade.
	Following publication, the activist Chloe Cole tweeted that she's autistic as both an explanation for why she sometimes struggles with her responses to lawmakers and journalists, and to complain that she was mocked In the Blade article for her disability.
	And trust me, this Forbes article will do no better than that original Blade article.
	And I will say, of course, that mocking people for disabilities is not something that I'm above.
	Not something that any of us are above, really.
	You should see the conversations we have on there in the office.
	You can have a bit of fun with somebody without wishing death upon them.
	Yeah, our banter is very diverse and inclusive.
	Yes, but over a specifically serious subject like this, where the person has gone through it, and the autism is an obvious explanation for why it is that this person was inflicted with the things that she was, and you also look at the trends where a lot of these detransitioning young girls do turn out to have been autistic, which has made them particularly vulnerable to this ideology, it becomes much more insidious.
	It's funny, in a very darkly perverse way, that at time of recording, Carl and Callum are going to be discussing cyberpunk dystopias this afternoon, because the Los Angeles Blade, add Runner on the end of that, and you've essentially got the cyberpunk 2049 future of gender amorphism enabled by technological revolution. and you've essentially got the cyberpunk 2049 future of gender Yes, absolutely. - Definitely.
	Cyberpunk's supposed to be a dystopia, but to some of our ruling elites, it seems they're a fetish.
	Yes, definitely viewing it as more utopian than dystopian.
	But anyway, let's move on to some of the other bits that Katie has highlighted.
	So I will give you the context of these as we go through the article in a minute, but they highlight this paragraph here.
	Despite Cole's choice of words matching that of many anti-trans activists, because of course she can't just be someone concerned for the well-being of youth, she has to be anti-trans.
	Actively hating these anti-trans people.
	You want bad thing.
	Federal judges, the ACLU and now the Associated Press have made it clear that the transphobic terms biological male, biological female and biological sex are nonsense words.
	So, this is, once again, a completely insane statement.
	The idea that nobody ever mentioned biology before the bathroom hysteria, which was not a hysteria, was a legitimate concern that people had and still have and should hold.
	I happen to remember that the first chapters of Genesis were written during the North Carolina bathroom bill days.
	Definitely.
	It wasn't, you know...
	Dawn of time when God said man and woman he created them.
	No, it was during current day America.
	No, no, of course not.
	And then the next little highlight here is But her campaign is based on lies.
	The fact-checking team at PolitiFact determined Raychik, the real name of Libby TikToks, Viral claim was false.
	While there have been exceptions for some 15, 16, 17-year-olds, most surgeons won't operate on anyone younger than 18, and you can infer the rest of the context regarding this.
	So this fact check by PolitiFact found that the claim was false, and to do this, they provided evidence that the claim was correct.
	Of course.
	Very, very interesting tactic we've got here.
	So this reminded me just immediately of the sleazy rhetorical tricks that lots of journalists like to pull.
	And if you'd like to see somebody like me and Josh, for instance, talk a bit more about the sleazy tactics that journalists use in their rhetoric, you can check out our premium content, Contemplations, that just went out this last weekend talking about how to spot the lies of a journalist, where we go in-depth in some articles and just point out the very many ways of In which they can manipulate language and use rhetoric to convey an inaccurate picture of reality without outright lying.
	The most egregious example of this was a Snopes fact check from quite a while ago where it was tweeted out on the anniversary of a black nationalist trying to bomb the White House during the Clinton administration.
	Okay.
	And Snopes said, was this woman a terrorist?
	Because she was actually related to BLM in some way as one of the co-founders or something like that.
	And it said, partially false.
	And it got down to, yes, she did all these things, but it depends on if you consider her a terrorist.
	That was genuinely their fact check.
	Oh my goodness.
	It was like, well, she tried to kill people with a bomb, so yeah.
	Have you considered the feelings of the terrorists, though?
	Fact check, inconclusive.
	I can't wait for that to be used at the Defence of the January 6th Insurrectionists Trials.
	Well, I'll be interested to see where it goes.
	It'll be a bold move, Cotton.
	Let's see how it plays out.
	But yes, check out that on our website if you're interested.
	Premium membership starts from as little as £5 per month.
	Anyway, moving back to the article.
	So shockingly enough, Forbes took down this article.
	It seems that after publishing it, they may not have felt confident standing by it.
	I wonder why.
	But, thankfully, people have managed to save it on archives and on the Wayback Machine, so I was able to get an accurate copy of it, so that we can go through and see what the context of this, so that we can see ex-trans activist Chloe Cole in her own words, I'm autistic, written by a contributor, Dawn Ennis...
	Who says, I report on the fight for transgender equality and other LGBTQ issues, which tells you exactly where this article is going to go before you've even read it.
	And also, there will be a little bit more on Dawn Ennis as we go through, but I'll just read through some of this article so you can see the sleaziness, how much this is a complete smear on this poor young girl...
	Who's just stepped off the set of Little House on the Prairie.
	Yes, but still, this poor autistic girl who's trying to raise awareness about a very important subject, this is a smear and a hit piece against her.
	And it's absolutely disgraceful.
	And I hope you can all agree with me as we go through.
	So, lawmakers in Sacramento, as well as Florida, Ohio, and Louisiana, have heard the heartbreaking testimony of a Central Valley California teenager who says she regrets beginning a gender transition at age 12.
	Now, I know we're very aware of double standards, but do you think that this girl's lived experience will be taken into account with the same sort of prestige that other people's lived experiences do that confirm these people's biases?
	I'd bet my inflation-diminished life savings on it not taking one iota of relevance.
	So take Connor up on that 50p bet there if you sit at your risk.
	Her name is Chloe Cole.
	After weeks of exchanging tweets with this reporter, she agreed to an interview via email.
	So the article is based primarily around this interview, which I think was done with the Los Angeles Blade, which they mentioned at the beginning in that note.
	I just want my tits back, Dawn, Cole tweeted last week, but that ain't happening.
	Cole says that she sought and was prescribed puberty blockers at age 13.
	That was in February of 2018.
	She kept those Lupron injections for about a year, she says.
	Then a month later, she says she started testosterone injections for about two years, followed by top surgery at age 15.
	Top surgery, of course, being a double mastectomy, where they remove your breasts if you're a girl.
	Certainly not the sort of decision that you can make at age 15, but the sort of decision that certain people who have financial and political interests would have you believe.
	Why are we treating emergency cancer surgeries like they're cosmetic treatments?
	It's just...
	This would be a torture method in medieval Europe.
	It's insane.
	And this is why, obviously, we've had Francis Foster on the show before.
	The trigonometry guys have been incredibly successful.
	And Adam and Stitch, of course.
	Carl's spoken to them.
	But the sort of centrist position that says, we need to stop division.
	We need to come together.
	I've always maintained the position of it is impossible to reconcile your worldview, the defense of children, with people that will lop the breasts of a 16 year old.
	A 15 year old?
	A 15 year old, even younger in many cases, and I find myself coming to the uncomfortable position of parroting Hillary Clinton's words with "you cannot be civil with people who want to destroy your way of life, your entire worldview and everything you stand for." And the people that would author this kind of article, up against the wall.
	I will have to disavow that for legal reasons.
	In handcuffs going straight to prison, of course.
	Yes, there you go.
	I agree entirely there.
	So, about...
	Of course, this story is harrowing, but if you've been keeping track of this podcast and certainly some of the content that I've done it, you'll know that there are many stories like this, sadly.
	Continuing.
	About a year post-op, Cole says she realised for the first time that she may want to breastfeed someday because, you know, shockingly enough, 15-year-olds aren't considering these sorts of things...
	And she realised it was obviously impossible following her surgery.
	At 17, Cole says she stopped using the first name Leo, detransitioned and resumed life as a girl, or at least as best you can, having done something like that to yourself.
	But once again, these sorts of life-altering decisions wouldn't have been able to be made if they weren't facilitated by adults.
	And I don't think anybody will question that 15-year-olds can't make such life-altering decisions.
	Now 18, she's become the poster child for far-right politicians and religious conservatives working to ban these life-saving medical treatments and to prosecute the doctors and parents who support their children's transitions for child abuse.
	She calls herself a former trans kid.
	Yes...
	Once again, no matter what kind of demonic language you want to shroud all of this in, these are good things that people are working to ban these so-called life-saving, life-ruining, more like, medical treatments.
	In the case of somebody who may have breast cancer, for instance, yes, a double mastectomy will be life-saving, potentially.
	But still tragic.
	Many women speak about it as in, I feel less of a woman after having it, even though having saved my life.
	You see women going on, like, loose women on daytime TV saying about the trauma of it, and we sympathise.
	And I assume people, men who have testicular cancer, probably have to have their testicles removed?
	Yeah.
	You're making me think of Fight Club, where they literally have to cry into each other's arms about it.
	I would probably feel less of a man if that had to happen to me.
	And it would be a tragedy, not something to be celebrated.
	Yes, but these people have a completely warped view of reality, and this article is very reflective of that.
	The gender dysphoria gets better every day through accepting the biological reality that while being a man may have its advantages, says Cole, appropriating the stereotypes of men will never allow me to become one.
	That's a fair statement, but I will say I forget the name of the person.
	There was that woman who dressed up as a man for a year and a half who went undercover to determine whether male privilege is a real thing.
	And she came out at the other end of it saying that she actually thinks that male privilege isn't real, men have it way harder than women, and said that she wouldn't wish it on her worst enemy.
	And then most recently, she went through assisted suicide in Switzerland, sadly, because after that happened, she had recurring psychological problems that she couldn't get past.
	I didn't know that was the end of that story.
	Yeah, it's a very, very sad story.
	I've completely forgotten the name of the woman and the journalist.
	Please put it in the comments.
	Yeah, put it in the comments.
	I know the book that she wrote is called Self-Made Man, about her experiences.
	So if you worry about male privilege, sadly, that's where it leads if you actually go ahead with the full idea.
	That's borne out by the fact that one of the leading causes of death for young men is suicide.
	And so I suppose we have something in common with the trans community there.
	Big shock.
	So, the Los Angeles Blade asked Cole if that means that she does not consider trans men to be men.
	Of course, the rallying cry to show allegiance to the regime's main cause right now, saying trans men or trans women are men or women, that's how you show allegiance.
	Trans men are not biological males, so definitionally, they are not men.
	Simple as.
	Simple as.
	This does not mean that we shouldn't treat these individuals with respect, but it does mean there's a difference that we need to recognise as a society.
	And immediately after that is where we get the paragraph saying about how biological sex...
	It's a nonsense word.
	So she says something factually correct and actually quite sensitive.
	And this person, this Dawn Ennis, goes ahead and says, actually, that's a load of rubbish.
	Don't you understand that the experts have concluded that biology is nonsense?
	These biologists have completely destroyed their own field.
	Wouldn't you agree with them?
	It's not even biologists, it's gender ideologues.
	And we can know this because in 2016, when Jordan Peterson was coming into public consciousness, he did this debate on Canadian television.
	And it was about the compelled speech pronoun route.
	And there were two people on his side.
	There was a...
	Oh, here we go.
	Sorry, it's Nora Vincent was the woman who went ahead with the journalistic project that I was talking about.
	And sadly, it did recently come out when one of her friends was speaking to the press that, yeah, she went ahead, went to Switzerland, and went through with assisted suicide.
	Poor woman.
	Very sad story.
	Sorry, carry on.
	Yeah, that's alright.
	No, it's important.
	So Peterson was arguing alongside a guy who had transitioned to be a girl who didn't compel people to do their pronouns.
	Oh, I think I've seen this.
	Yeah, and there were two people on the other side.
	There was a...
	A woman with male pronouns.
	A university lecturer.
	And the university lecturer who's an androgynous little egg.
	And he decided to actually say biological sex does not exist.
	Now this was 2016.
	Everyone on the panel was weirded out about it.
	Peterson said, I can't believe I've heard something so ludicrous.
	It's now become the mainstream leftist position to deny biological fact.
	Because the institutions have been captured, including the so-called...
	Neutral and objective scientific institutions because there is no such thing as a neutral institution.
	Or a neutral scientist.
	Of course.
	But it carries on with more smears because don't you know that she's associated now with people like alt-right Nazis, Marjorie Taylor Greene?
	One of the best congresspeople.
	Yes, but this should make you feel very, very terrible about this.
	Don't you understand?
	She's basically associating with Hitler at this point.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene did so in support of her latest attempt to have even one bill.
	She's sponsored, passed by the House of Representatives.
	It carries on.
	Greene's HR 8731 dubbed the Protect Children's Innocence Act.
	Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
	Would make it a felony to perform any gender-affirming care on a minor, gives minors an avenue to sue such providers, and prohibits the use of care on a minor, and gives minors an avenue to sue...
	Prohibits the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care or for health insurance covering such care.
	Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
	It's insidious to call it gender-affirming, because actual gender affirmation would be, you're a boy, we hope...
	Oh no, that's conversion therapy though.
	It's all backwards.
	Telling people that they are the sex that they were born as is apparently converting them to something, whereas performing surgery and giving them hormone-altering drugs is affirming?
	This is the paradigm we live in, I'll just go with it.
	Green's brand of Anti-trans animus is the kind of thing that prompted State Senator Scott Weiner, or Weiner, more appropriately, to introduce Senate Bill 107.
	As The Blade has reported, State Senators sent Governor Newsom that bill on September 1st to make California a sanctuary state for children seeking gender-affirming health care.
	Yet another reason to allow California to secede, if they want...
	Or fall into the sea.
	I mean, I'm happy to take the Tool route.
	You know that Tool wrote a song called Enema, which is literally about California being washed into the ocean?
	I see no problem with this.
	I see it as a very appropriate title for the song.
	Before the vote, Cole was front and centre to once again tell her story.
	I didn't even know detransitioners existed until I was one.
	The worst part about my transition would be the long-term health effects that I didn't knowingly consent to at the time, because of course they predicate all of this off of...
	Off of informed consent, and as we'll find out on Friday when we discuss Louise Perry's book, it turns out consent alone may not be enough.
	Well, children cannot consent, and also, people consent to things that are not good for them all the time and then retroactively take them back, but they do irreversible damage to appropriate Abigail Schreier's...
	Is that a good decision for him to be making?
	Exactly.
	The drugged up porn star consents and yet films herself being essentially raped on camera for thousands of people to see years down the line.
	She consented at the time for people who believe that children can consent.
	I wonder if that road will lead to hell anytime soon.
	And then years on, she can't undo the damage done to her by medical professionals who took the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm but did so anyway.
	It's terrible.
	But she then goes on about some of the physical issues that she's had, and the writer, Dawn, says, Cole has stuck to that script since May.
	Oh, it's a script!
	It's a script!
	This isn't her life story.
	This isn't something that she went through.
	It's a script!
	With minor adjustments, the Blade asked her if she has someone else writing her for her or helping her write her testimony.
	So this is...
	Such a blatant smear.
	The kind that I've not seen in a long time.
	Someone's life story is something that someone else has written for her because she's my political enemy.
	Your coach, says the person retweeting Greta Thunberg's speech.
	Yeah, and then when she sat down with Florida's anti-trans Surgeon General Joseph Ladipo in July, her story changed dramatically.
	He's incredibly based, by the way.
	I'm sure he is.
	I'm sure he is.
	She's speculated that her four years on testosterone might endanger her ability to become a mother and might also put her at risk for cancer.
	That should be true.
	So which is it?
	Is it that you don't know the side effects or you know that you're at risk for cancer?
	It could be both, but this writer is trying to twist it in such a way that it's, oh, it's now a contradiction in her story.
	She may be right.
	Two doctors at the Cummings School of Medicine at the University of Calgary who studied trans men attempting to get pregnant last year.
	What a What a sentence.
	What a sentence.
	Studied trans men trying to get pregnant.
	Okay.
	Is it because no one would...
	No, I'm not going to say that.
	Determined that testosterone can cause abnormal urogenital development in a female fetus.
	Who'd have guessed?
	Who'd have guessed that hormones that your body is not biologically designed to take might have negative effects?
	You're not even meant to eat certain things and use a certain kind of toothpaste when you're pregnant.
	But, oh no, inject a Deanna ball straight into your backside like you're Arnold in the 70s.
	I know.
	Which is why trans men are advised to stop injecting tea prior to trying to conceive a child.
	Who would have thought if you're trying to conceive a child you might want to try being a woman?
	I know.
	But other researchers say they have insufficient data to determine the cervical cancer risk for people who transition from female to male.
	And the article goes on, and then it ends up smearing her, basically saying, like, oh, you know, like, well, she might be autistic, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And it goes on to try and smear a bit of libs of TikTok, etc, etc.
	But we get the gist.
	We get the gist of this article.
	It's an awful article.
	If you feel like reading the rest of it, like I said, it is archived and you'll be able to find it in the links below on the podcast page on the website.
	But...
	Let's find out who this Dawn Ennis person is, because this Dawn Ennis person seems like someone who's a bit of a less than reputable and objective journalist in trying to...
	Dirty, dirty smear merchant.
	Yeah, she is a dirty, dirty smear merchant to the end.
	And she's not just that, in fact.
	She seems to be a completely unhinged lunatic when we look a bit more into her.
	Like, back in 2014, when she was an ABC producer who got fired only weeks after changing her gender...
	For the third time...
	What?
	This was after performance-related issues, and I think this story speaks for itself, so I'll just read through here.
	So Dawn Ennis, formerly Dawn Ennis, identified as both a man and a woman during a career at ABC News.
	In May 2013, Dawn Ennis appeared at work wearing a black dress and an auburn wig, and asked co-workers to call him Dawn.
	She reportedly received a very public show of support from her long-time colleagues.
	The father of...
	Sorry.
	Yep.
	The father of three explained to colleagues that she believed her gender mix-up was linked to her mother giving her estrogen as a child to prolong a childhood acting career, presumably in the form of soy shakes and soy burgers.
	Or as the librarian at Monsters, Inc.
	Perhaps.
	I don't know.
	Returned to work as Don and claimed to have suffered from transient global amnesia.
	Ennis said that he believed it had been 1999 and thought that his wife had tricked him into dressing up as a woman.
	This is coming across very transphobic, Dawn.
	Very transphobic.
	According to the New York Post, Ennis posted a memo in the newsroom bulletin board which read, I accused my wife of playing some kind of cruel joke, dressing me up in a wig and bra and making fake IDs with the name Dawn on it.
	Seriously.
	The journalist explained that while his memories of the last 14 years had returned, his female identity did not.
	How convenient.
	And then in May of that year, 2014, 49-year-old Dennis became Dawn again.
	She was let go from the company soon afterwards.
	On May 31st, she posted on Facebook, it's all going to work out.
	And then she posted lines from Shakespeare's King Lear on her Facebook page, which read, No, I will weep no more.
	In such a night to shut me out, pour on.
	I will endure.
	So, I really feel for this person's struggles.
	So, you're transgender Harvey Dent.
	I'm not going to make any jokes about the coin flip odds.
	Yes, yes.
	But this seems like the sort of reasonable and rational person who's going to be making a great journalist, or is just...
	No, this is just a typical journo.
	This is what journalism is nowadays, and the sorts of people who conduct so-called journalism.
	But I thought also...
	You know, PolitiFact, they can do fact-checking, right?
	Right.
	Why can't I do a bit of fact-checking?
	Let's go.
	So, 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds don't go through this, according to PolitiFact.
	They don't go through transition surgery.
	What about 13-year-olds?
	They don't fact-check that.
	Why do you put me through this?
	Because this isn't what I'm putting you through, this is what reality and modernity is putting you through.
	Brace myself.
	I'm just the messenger, sadly.
	So TikTok doctor performed breast removal on trans 13-year-old girl, and I have brought attention to this person before, but I do always think it's important to point out that this person, Dr.
	Sid Gallagher, is based in Miami, Miami, Florida.
	What are you doing, Ron DeSantis?
	Clear.
	Her.
	Out.
	Revoke the license.
	Revoke her license, for the love of God.
	She rose to internet fame after making quirky TikToks, which we'll see in a moment, aimed at minors, primarily girls, pursuing gender-affirming procedures.
	And let's see some of the tweets that have been made about her, pointing out some of the terrible things that she does on TikTok.
	This person, Grace, who is a detransitioner herself, and was transitioned by Sid Gallagher, said at the beginning of last year, February of 2021, turns out my surgeon is on TikTok advertising her services.
	She loves talking about yeeting the teats, which I guess is the professional term for double mastectomy these days.
	She posts a lot of helpful PSAs, like, do you feel sad after surgery?
	Don't worry, it's only temporary.
	This is why I didn't clap for the NHS.
	Yes.
	I have major reservations about using this kind of jokey meme language to advertise slash trivialise gender surgeries to kids and young people on TikTok.
	But okay, Dr. Tetis Deletus, that's a name she coined herself.
	God.
	Which would be really funny if she wasn't coining it herself to make herself seem more hip and cool.
	And we've got some examples.
	We've got some examples of these kinds of clips.
	That she puts on here.
	So let's just play some of these.
	Do you hear talking on the phone as much as I do?
	Well, here at Callagher Plastic Surgery, you can just text us.
	You can arrange a whole console, probably set up most of the surgery without talking to anybody on the phone.
	We will do a video console later.
	But just text us on this number.
	You're only, you know, seven months on T. You're seven months and you got top surgery?
	Bro, where are you at?
	What doctor?
	Send me the number.
	Celebration of this obvious teenager.
	Proud, supportive, abusers of trans kids.
	Almost those of parents.
	If you're listening to this right now and wondering what we're seeing, you probably don't want to look.
	No.
	So this one she's just sat next to these little things.
	Can we do informed consent for surgery?
	So she's basically just saying, eh, depends.
	Depends on the surgery.
	Many can just do informed consent.
	And given the age of the people that she's operating on, no.
	She says you don't have to socially transition for a year before you go through the surgery.
	You can just go straight through Oh, and then here's me as Harley Quinn.
	Oh, or the insane person, yeah.
	Fantastic.
	She's obviously insane, she's obviously a clout chaser, and does not care who she hurts to get the kind of social media clout that she wants.
	It's ironic that she's dressing as Harley Quinn, and then that's literally about a doctor becoming a villain because they're ideologically captured.
	But I guess it turns out politifact that there are surgeons who don't operate through appropriate care and don't put up the kinds of appropriate barriers for these kinds of treatments.
	And don't show this page, John, because I don't want to traumatise Connor and other people further, but she has her own website, Gallagher Plastic Surgery, because of course she's not...
	And this is on the female to male procedures under the heading Minors and Top Surgery.
	We are happy to offer top surgery to minors with consent of parents and the recommendation of the patient's mental health professional.
	Doesn't sound as though that's exactly what's going on in those TikToks that she put on.
	When we evaluate each patient, we keep in mind the risk-benefit analysis and understand that it may well be much more detrimental to the patient to wait until the age of 18 for surgery.
	There you go.
	I fact checked.
	Here it is, Miners and Top Surgery, so you can see it there for yourself.
	PolitiFact, I have officially dunked on you and officially wrecked you with facts and logic.
	And please, Ron DeSantis, shut this person down, for the love of God.
	I know why you now change it from insane to evil, because the criminal standard of insanity means you have no culpability for your actions, whereas she is clearly in favour of the mutilation of children that she is conducting, as are all the parents aiding and abetting this.
	It doesn't matter about ideological capture, you know what you're doing, and so you should be held criminally liable.
	You don't deserve a nice comfy sail, even if it is in Arkham Asylum.
	You deserve the longest prison sentence, and or worse, when you can get it.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Dawn Ennis, I would say, is just completely insane, judging by that Daily Mail article.
	Still culpable, but this person, absolutely evil.
	And I think that's all I want to say on that subject.
	Oh, God, I feel like I need a palate cleanser now.
	Okay.
	Now, for the most contentious segment of the day...
	So you might have clicked on this video if you're watching on YouTube because of the inflammatory title.
	This is titled God Damn the King?
	And that's because recently the UK has suffered the loss of its longest reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Kind of the country's mum, its dear old little grandma.
	And no matter how you feel about the monarchy, how you feel about some of the hangers-on like Prince Andrew and his Epstein connection, we pretty much all love the Queen.
	She did years and years of national service.
	She devolved her political opinions from her public position, and she was an incredible link to generations past.
	I mean, Churchill was born in the 1800s, for God's sake, and that was the first prime minister that served under her.
	So it's a pretty incredible amount of history that we've lost.
	If you'd like to see some of the history that was lost, fictionalised somewhat, as well as factual, Callum did do a video on the website for the Politics of the Crown, So you can see this time gap between Queen Elizabeth coming to power and obviously her bittersweet passing fairly recently.
	In the aftermath, I've noticed that many so-called conservatives have conferred what I would say is undue amounts of praise by taking their completely justified sentiments and affections towards the Queen and transferring them straight onto Charles.
	Now of course, in our tradition of divine right of kings, we have to give the position of the monarchy, him being King Charles III, some of the respect it deserves.
	But it's fair to have your reservations as to whether or not Charles will be on our side.
	And so today I'd like to look at the recent history of our new king, his career as Prince of Wales, and weigh up the arguments as to whether or not we should be optimistic.
	There is some of that stuff there.
	Or...
	Not afraid, but tepid as to whether or not Prince Charles will show the same dignity to the position as his mother did.
	King Charles now.
	It's still getting used to it.
	For all my life he's been Prince Charles.
	His face isn't on the money yet, that's why.
	So, I thought we'd just go over some of the quotes from this.
	We're not going to play the video, but you can watch it in full.
	Just to preface it for myself as well, you can be very pro-monarchy as an institution.
	Yes.
	Without necessarily supporting everything that the individuals within that institution do.
	In fact, I would say it's one of the main benefits of a monarchy, as elaborated by Hans-Hermann Hopper, that if the people on top are screwing you over, at least you know who it is explicitly who's screwing you over.
	Whereas with a democracy and a parliament and such, you often have elements of entrenched bureaucracy who might be pulling some of the strings that you have no accountability.
	Yeah, that's why the Republican arguments are majority stupid.
	Not Republican as in the American Republican Party, but as in voting for a republic in the UK to have a new president rather than the king or queen.
	And part of the reason is, as we saw with Boris Johnson, you can campaign as being a libertarian and get in and inflict the worst, most totalitarian lockdowns on the country that are completely at odds with your character.
	I still can't believe he considered himself a libertarian.
	It's laughable, but then he also considers himself a loyal man and was divorced about three times.
	I suppose so.
	So some of the quotes from King Charles' address are, as the Queen herself did with such unswerving devotion, I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, which is a little ominous, but he is in his 70s, to uphold the constitutional principles at the heart of our nation, and wherever you may live in the United Kingdom, or in the realms and territories across the world, and whatever your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love, as I have throughout my life.
	Now, there's no two ways about it.
	Whether or not you're sceptical as to how sincere some of what he says is, he is an excellent, eloquent, and very elocutory public speaker.
	So we can only hope the content of his speech is as lived up to as to what it actually says.
	Yeah, I've been enjoying seeing his public appearances recently because he has been coming across...
	Frankly, quite human.
	Dignified, he's a lot of decorum.
	Dignified, but also human.
	We'll see one of those clips very shortly.
	I just want to continue.
	There's one more quote from this.
	Most importantly from this, he says, My life will, of course, change.
	As I take up my new responsibilities, it will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply.
	But I know this important work will go on in the trusted hands of others.
	So I thought we'd look at, just after the good of what we're going to see in a minute, some of the other issues he genuinely does care about.
	Some of those issues are fantastic.
	Some of those, not quite so much.
	So let's look at what he was referring to, shall we?
	And I'd like to play this brief clip from 3.30, not 2.30, John, if that's possible, to 6.30.
	The teachings of the traditionalists should not, in any sense, be taken to mean that they seek, as it were, to repeat the past, or indeed simply to...
	Draw a distinction between the present and the past.
	Theirs is not a nostalgia for the past but a yearning for the sacred and if they defend the past it is because in the pre-modern world all civilizations were marked by the presence of the sacred.
	As I understand it, in referring to tradition they refer to a metaphysical reality and to underlying principles that are timeless as true now as they have ever been and will be and by way of contrast in referring to modernism they refer to a particular though false definition of reality a particular though false manner of seeing and engaging with the world that likewise is
	distinguished not by time but by its ideology in an article written in 1983, for the traditionalist journal Studies in Comparative Religion, Professor Nasser put it this way.
	When we use the term modern, we mean neither contemporary nor up-to-date.
	Rather, for us, modern means that which is cut off from the transcendent, from the immutable principles which in reality govern all things and which are made known to man through revelation in its most universal sense.
	Modernism is thus contrasted with tradition.
	The latter implies all that which is of divine origin, along with its manifestations and deployments on the human plane, while the former by contrast implies all that is merely human and now ever more increasingly subhuman, and all that is divorced and cut off from the divine source.
	Most especially, therefore, we can see that it is the very Timeless quality of these immutable principles of tradition that makes its teaching so timely.
	For me, the teachings of tradition suggest the presence of a reality that can bring about a reality of integration.
	And it is this reality that can be contrasted with so much of modernism's obsession with disintegration, disconnection and deconstruction.
	That which is sometimes termed the malaise of modernity.
	Cut off at the root from the transcendent, modernism has become deracinated and has separated itself, and thereby everything that comes with it is through all, from that which integrates, that which enables us to turn towards and reconnect with the divine.
	I'll be honest here.
	He's speaking my language.
	It's fantastic.
	It's genuinely the ideal defence of institutions, Christianity, anti-materialism that you would want, hope for, love coming from the mouth of a monarch.
	I don't think you can get a better articulated rallying against that possible.
	If he could be consistent to that kind of ideology and manner of living that he's just put forward there, I would say that you would have a credible argument that we would have a philosopher king.
	Exactly, yeah.
	And I don't think it's even ideological.
	I think it's...
	Yeah, ideological is the wrong word for it.
	It's...
	I think it's Burkean in the sense of he is appealing to the United Kingdom as a nation of time-worn traditions that are sentiments and experience built on top of one another.
	And he is talking about modernism, with its perpetual living in the present, severs us from the respect and gratitude for the sacrifice of our ancestors and what we have to pay forward.
	It's not hard to see.
	Exactly.
	If Charles can keep that covenant, if he can focus on conservation and beautiful architecture and, as he said, integration, not multiculturalism, You will hear me singing God Save the King from the rooftops, because that's definitely what we need after years of Blair and Blairite Toryism.
	There's also, as you said, he's been very human recently.
	We can definitely sympathise with his being in mourning with his mother.
	We're not going to play this clip, but CBS News tweeted out yesterday Charles saying, I can't bear this bloody thing and trying to write with a fountain pen.
	We saw him What was it?
	I believe it was on Saturday as well, the Saturday just passed, when he was with all of the former Prime Ministers, Penny Mordaunt, signing declarations with his son, and even Nicola Sturgeon in the room for some reason.
	He knocked the table over, he knocked the inkwell over, he was getting visibly frustrated, and it's because...
	Let's be fair, the man's mother died.
	Yeah, and he's still planning...
	On Thursday.
	He's helping plan the funeral arrangements while he's on tour, and he literally steps into the job from the moment his mother's passed away.
	There's no coronation yet, because it's going to be a summer coronation, but he is king.
	And so, even though he's trained for this job all his life, which is something that people were criticising him for in the tweet thread beneath that, people just whining, of course, a foreign...
	Well, that doesn't make him not human all of a sudden.
	Exactly.
	You can be tired, irritable.
	He's also in his mid-70s, so you're going to be a little bit exhausted.
	And as John suggested when Chris Williamson was on the podcast with Carl, looking at his fingers, occasionally they can look quite bloated, so we don't know if he has any health issues.
	And obviously, I don't have to agree with the man's lifelong politics to say, I hope he's well.
	Of course.
	I don't want him to kick the bucket all of a sudden, even if I do quite like his son and look forward to his reign as well.
	So, if we're looking at that as the good of Prince Charles, I unfortunately have to go on to the bad.
	Let's go first of all to, will he be defender of the faith or defender of faiths?
	And there's an extract from an interview here.
	I'll just read it.
	Prince Charles, when he was Prince, said, I said I would rather be seen as defender of faith all those years ago, because, as I tried to describe, I mind about the inclusion of other people's faiths and their freedom to worship in this country.
	And it's always seemed to me that, while at the same time being defender of the faith, you can also be protector of faiths.
	It was interesting that 20 years ago or more I mentioned this, which has been frequently misinterpreted, that the Queen, in her jubilee address to the faith leaders, said that as far as the role of the Church of England is concerned, it is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions.
	Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.
	Now that doesn't work, I'm afraid, because...
	Sadly, experience has definitely shown us that.
	Exactly.
	There are, unfortunately, religions which are ideologically antithetical to the Christian tradition.
	This country is founded, its monarchy is founded on the Christian tradition, and the...
	Amorality and cultural relativity that has been adopted by the Anglican Church, with Justin Welby saying about climate change caused by the global oppressors, well, that's distanced you from Christian principles and towards the exact kind of socialism that Marx preached when he said that he wanted to dispense with God and have every man revolve around himself as his own true son.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	You cannot be so broad a tent that the The tenets collapse and fold in and fall on you.
	And so you have to be, as head of the Anglican Church, and I'm not an Anglican, remember?
	You have to be a defender of the faith.
	You're a Catholic.
	Yeah, and the Pope's rubbish.
	So, you know, I'm non-denominational.
	You're between worlds at the moment.
	Exactly.
	I'm the type that doesn't prey on street corners, as Christ himself said.
	There's also a complaint, his admonishment to the British Empire, the good boys who didn't do nothing, almost, Prince Charles acknowledges the atrocity of slavery as he allows Barbados to become a republic.
	He was the one that gave the speech as they departed, with Rihanna in the audience, and he said, Why was Rihanna there?
	Because, historically, I believe her family are from Barbados.
	She's American.
	Yes.
	As far as I'm concerned.
	Yes, as far as facts are concerned.
	But remember, that didn't stop Marcus Garvey either, did it?
	Not being actually African.
	From the darkest days of our past, and the appalling atrocity of slavery, which forever stains our history, the people of this island forged their past with extraordinary fortitude.
	Emancipation, self-government, and independence were your waypoints.
	Freedom, justice, and self-determination have been your guides.
	How awkward when Black Lives Matter was the reason they severed from this, even though the majority of their government are black.
	I believe it's actually 100% black government, and most of them are left-wing politicians.
	And also, as soon as they went to Republic, they went on China's Belt and Road program.
	So we've just given them to the clutches of the Chinese, and also another nation we gave to the clutches of the Chinese was in 1997 he oversaw the separation of Hong Kong from the British Empire, and look how that went.
	And now we've got to take in thousands of Hong Kong refugees.
	Well, that's the thing, is that yesterday Callum was looking at footage on the podcast of how people in Hong Kong were reacting to the news of the Queen's death, and they were mourning as well.
	Which suggests to me that they don't want to just be a vassal state for China...
	Who would?
	Exactly.
	That's the tragic thing.
	There's also, speaking of refugees, or asylum seekers, or boat people, we have a thing from France 24 here, an exclusive report, Prince Charles slams the UK's Rwanda plan.
	He said, it's appalling.
	And in a BBC documentary marking his 70th birthday, seems to be contradictory, Charles said he would no longer make public interviews on political matters once he becomes king.
	I'm not that stupid, he said.
	Well, the problem is, if you've got a...
	That's fair, at least.
	That's great if he continues that.
	Wait, I just want to double-check.
	Did he say that it's appalling because it's inhuman to treat them that way, or appalling because that's obviously not going to work?
	Inhumanity, that's what he fell back on, unfortunately.
	He wasn't very much the get-the-invaders-out mentality, which we would support.
	I hope he keeps up his promise from 2018 that he's not going to give political interviews, but you have such a storied history of running your mouth that it does give us reservations as to just how dignified you may be in office compared to the stellar example set by your mother.
	So speaking of undignified appearances politically, let's look at the ugliest parts of his show.
	we've got our wonderful man behind the camera, John, and as you just alluded to, Callum, at Christmas, covering how the Prince's Trust and the Royal Institution, of which Charles is a patron, worked with valent projects to create psychological profiles for vaccine-hesitant Brits, and then wanted to, quote, establish a YouTube channel which portrays these critics as dangerous super-spreaders of disinformation. establish a YouTube channel which portrays these critics as dangerous They funded channels from BreadTube, like PhilosophyTube, funnily enough, directly funding them to make pro-vaccine confines.
	The great revolutionary philosophy tube.
	Yeah, the great monarchist.
	A philosophy tube, I'm not paying my rent, you can't make me, in solidarity, was actually getting funding from the Crown itself.
	To promote Big Pharma.
	As we will talk about in our book club with Louise Perry on Friday.
	Freedom Fighters!
	Yeah, at time of recording, it'll be on Friday.
	The actual only capitalist institutions, as Marx mischaracterised free enterprise, the true exploitative capitalist institutions are the ones the leftist defends, which is the Beyond Burger fast food joints, pornography, and...
	Pharmaceutical industries.
	That's a very good point.
	But nice to see that Charles is furthering that.
	Speaking of terrible environmental and big corporate schemes, if we go on to the next one...
	Oh, actually, sorry.
	This was during the height of the Omicron variant.
	Sorry, the vaccine thing from the last one.
	At the height of the Omicron variant, Prince Charles was saying that they're...
	Spreading misinformation, it's so frustrating to see these nonsense conspiracy theories.
	Now, bear in mind, this was at the height of the variant, which the vaccine did not prevent transmission.
	And unfortunately, tragically, lots of people who were in hospital with COVID were double and triple vaccinated, but they still passed away anyway.
	And our thoughts goes to those families, but...
	Seems that misinformation was accidentally spread by the king.
	So, on to the next.
	Charles' most egregious fault.
	A golden opportunity.
	His Royal Highness leads the keynote speech with other leaders on the World Economic Forum's Great Reset at the 2022...
	This, to me, seems very, very contradictory to that original video clip that we were seeing, because the World Economic Forum, the idea of the Great Reset, all of this seems to be exactly the sort of thing that he was railing against in his defence of traditionalism.
	These are the products of modernity.
	This is an extension of the modernity project.
	This is the thing.
	Even if he goes and doesn't give political speeches as he promises, it's the places and institutions to which he shows up to and legitimises by being there as his capacity of king that would lead him to debase the office.
	And appearing at Davos, the World Economic Forum, is one of those.
	So I'll just read a little quote.
	There is a golden opportunity to see something good from this crisis.
	Global crises, no, no borders.
	And highlight how interdependent we are as one people sharing one planet.
	He's talking about COVID there.
	Speaking at the launch of the World Economic Forum's Great Reset on Wednesday, those were the words of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on humanity's chance to craft So I don't quite understand how climate policy is meant to prevent a Wuhan lab, but...
	I don't see the connection between those two sentiments, but okay.
	For those unaware of why the World Economic Forum's Great Reset is not just a conspiracy theory, but is actually an openly proclaimed terrible policy, we have a little interview I did actually before I joined Lotus Eaters that can summarise it pretty succinctly.
	Honestly, plugging himself, don't worry.
	New entryways.
	Well, I just thought this was a nice little crash course.
	Were you wearing a turtleneck?
	I was there, it was cold.
	I'll try not to look like a serial killer.
	Anyway, so just to summarise briefly, the WEF is an unaccountable, unelected organisation funded by billionaires and hedge funds for those who are monarchists but are outside of our cultural wheelhouse and political wheelhouse when we've spoken about these things before, if you're new to Lotus Eaters.
	They want to create a scoring system for businesses who can qualify for investment.
	No, they have created one and have implemented it in a lot of places.
	They haven't rolled it out fully yet, though.
	Not everyone's signed onto ESGs just yet.
	It can always get worse, is what you're telling me.
	Fantastic.
	Only if you invest in renewables, appoint women or non-white people as board members despite their qualifications, so to be anti-meritocratic, or donate to campaigns like BLM despite the documented money laundering and legal infighting between the self-avowed Marxist creators, that's the only way you can qualify for backing from the hedge funds to prop you up.
	It's an insurance scheme against get woke, go broke, so it means that companies are no longer accountable to their consumers.
	Think things like Unilever or your banks.
	Then they also want to give you as consumers corporate social credit scores.
	It's a digital ID and tie it to the digital currencies that people like Rishi Seneca are pushing, which they can inflate or confiscate at will if you say the wrong thing on social media.
	And we didn't appoint these people.
	Much like the EU, if you're pro-Brexit, for example, we didn't have any say over our lives.
	And unlike the monarchy, an institution which has a time-worn tradition, which is...
	As accountable to its people in many respects, because it wants to leave a lasting legacy, it feels beholden to stabilising the country, these are globalist internationalists with too much money to care about whether or not you're suffering, and your life is just a number on a spreadsheet.
	So I don't think Charles should be throwing his weight in.
	Let's not forget as well, referencing, we've already spoken about one terrible Forbes article today, let's not forget the article...
	Yes, welcome to 2030.
	This is from the World Economic Forum contributor.
	I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.
	Yes, and if you'd like to read more about that, you can obviously go and sign up to the website.
	We've got lots of videos and articles, including my deep think on the WEF CFGs of the Mark of the Beast.
	There's plenty of information out there, but let's just say Charles should not be legitimising the World Economic Forum.
	However, he's continued to do so both at Davos and outside of it.
	If we go to the next link, the time to act is now.
	Prince Charles urges businesses to...
	Oh, sorry, that was the one after, but I'll talk about this one first.
	Hashtag The Great Reset from his personal website.
	Today, through His Royal Highness' Sustainable Markets Initiative and the World Economic Forum, the Prince of Wales launched a new global initiative, The Great Reset.
	He's just openly taking their name.
	For over 50 years, His Royal Highness has promoted action for a sustainable future to ensure that the natural assets can endure for future generations.
	In January 2020, the Prince launched his Sustainable Markets Initiative at Davos, which he calls on communities, businesses, investors and consumers to take the urgent and practical steps required to transition to more sustainable practices.
	All of this from the man who has an Aston Martin which runs on wine and cheese.
	I'm not joking about that.
	Right, okay.
	Okay, I'm King Charles.
	And he took a jet to obviously get to Davos.
	So Charles should not be, he should be speaking about conservation.
	Absolutely, he's done lots of conservation efforts.
	But he should not be climate catastrophizing and palling around with the global elite if he was sincerely committed to these kinds of things.
	Okay, fact check.
	True.
	Exactly.
	Go to the next one, if you would.
	The time to act is now.
	Prince Charles urges businesses to see coronavirus pandemic as a golden opportunity as he launches his Great Reset project to help industries rebuild in a sustainable way.
	The reason I wanted to do this is because there's a photo thing with Greta Thunberg.
	Fantastic.
	The Swedish schoolgirl, who is utterly uninformed, probably doesn't want him to be in his position, and has single-handedly, with her activism, aided in collapsing the European energy grid and funding the Ukraine war.
	Lovely.
	I will do one thing here, and I'm going to be stretching to be as fair as possible.
	Please do.
	Which is that in the position that you are in as the prince of a country, or now the king of a country, the likelihood is if you go to these sorts of organizational meetings like the World Economic Forum, people will just ask you for a photo, or photographers will sort of shoo you into these pens where you will be asked to take photos with people.
	But at the same time, he was still at...
	Of course, but if they're rhetorically identical, then one may presume that he agrees with Greta, unfortunately.
	Certainly, potentially.
	Yes.
	If we go to the next one, just from The Guardian.
	The pandemic is a chance to reset the global economy, says Prince Charles.
	He promotes a circular bio-economy.
	So you're familiar with the donut economics, aren't you, proposed by an Oxford academic that the UN then seized on to do their 17 sustainable development goals?
	Sadly, yes, and sadly my prescience of the future is seeing us do a book club on her ridiculous donut economics book.
	We should do something on ESGs and donut economics very soon, yes, because it's very important.
	But for those that don't know, the donut economy is, as you presume, a donut on the outside of it, things we can't control.
	In the ring is all these social goals and environmental goals like sustainability, recycling, equity, gender inclusion, all which aren't hierarchically ranked, so we must pursue them all at the same time.
	So that's a bad economic and policy-making idea 101.
	In the middle, there's this hole of things that are like a shortfall, like waste, like inequality, like crime.
	And what we want to do is close the hole of the donut to make it a fixed pie.
	Who divides the pie?
	Number one, the idea is...
	The socialist misconception that economics are fixed and can be equitably divisible, which is never the case.
	And number two, it doesn't account for the fact that things are always entropic, people are flawed, and even the people in power may not be pursuing the right ideals, they may not have accurately calculated them, or any state commissar can't accurately describe prices or exactly what people need or want.
	So you're just going to have a lot of suffering and a lot of indifference, and the global elite are just going to amass a lot of power at your expense.
	And do, as Yuval Nova Harari said at the World Economic Forum, they're going to become digital Stalins and erase the class of useless eaters.
	Again, Prince Charles, sorry, King Charles III now, Your Majesty, don't throw your lot in with these people, please.
	Please.
	Yes.
	Okay, your duty is to the faith and the English people.
	Yes, and if you do more of the traditionalist speak, we'll be delighted.
	So, I would like to finish with the sentiment of Dominique Samuels, who is frequently on GB News.
	She's really lovely girl, actually.
	I won't be saying God save the king until I'm given a reason to, I'm afraid.
	And that's where I stand.
	I can respect the institution to the highest of heavens.
	I really had the utmost admiration for the Queen.
	I thought Prince Philip was hilarious as well.
	Repeated congressional addresses.
	He visited Scotland and China within a hair's breadth of each other quite a few years ago.
	And both times, the only interview he gave was when they went, oh, how did you find your trip, Your Majesty?
	And for both places, he was ghastly and just got in the car.
	Fantastic.
	I miss Philip so much.
	So I can respect many people of the royal family, Andrew Osayed, of course.
	But I would hope King Charles clings more to patriotic Englishness, just as his mother did, than the globalist internationale, which are, I'm not bothered about unaccountability, but just have evil intent for us over...
	I would rather he be an elite on our side.
	And, Your Majesty, if you're somehow listening, please give me a reason to like you, because I'm really hoping you do.
	Listen, crack open Everlet again.
	It's obvious you'd been reading that in the 1980s and 1990s.
	Just do that, and then go from there, okay?
	Alright then, so, on to the last segment now, which is probably going to be a little bit shorter, and maybe a little bit unusual, because this is going to be much less structured.
	I felt like perhaps having a little chat, because I've had a bit of a bugbear for a while now, About a particular word that I see not only just employed by leftists and the sorts of people that we always get annoyed at, but instead by most people of our generation, that being the Millennials and the Zoomers, constantly telling each other that they are valid.
	Is this part of the don't judge me man mentality?
	Yes, it is.
	It absolutely is.
	Because it really annoys me.
	Because this sentence, this word, when it's trotted out, you are valid, is to me, one, a sign of pure neuroticism that you get from a lot of people my age, sadly, because most people are not particularly well-adjusted.
	I'm not calling you out, Nick Dixon.
	I know you score high.
	On neuroticism.
	But you're one of the good ones.
	You're one of the exceptions.
	But it's trotted out often by neurotic millennial Zoomers and...
	Very agreeable ones as well.
	Yes, very agreeable ones.
	And the corporations that pander to these people.
	So what does it mean?
	Why do they say it?
	Because this is another aspect that I wanted to harp on, which was the manipulation of language.
	Mm-hmm.
	As we covered, and you might as well just go to the last link I've got in here so I can say it now.
	As we covered in our book club of Michael Knowles' Speechless...
	This is fantastic, by the way.
	Yes, which was honestly quite a surprise for me because I wasn't familiar with Michael Knowles' work before.
	But Speechless was an excellent book looking at how it is that...
	Political actors and activists can use words to control reality, use words to control how you think about things, because if you have a word for something, you have a concept for it, that concept will have intrinsic value of a moral factor, and you need to recognize how you can manipulate language to manipulate people's minds to think about things in a particular way.
	And the left, sadly, have always been...
	Amazing at this.
	Yeah, they've abluted our lexicon of our ability to make judgments.
	That has made us incredibly nihilistic, and from that nihilism, they want to layer a reality-denying socialism on top of it.
	They believe that by resetting us linguistically to year zero, they can bring about the socialist utopia.
	We cannot fall for their tricks.
	Instead, we should unapologetically assert that, yes, our ideals are right.
	And, well, he makes a case for, shall we say, pacifist right-wing repressive tolerance, which is very compelling.
	So subscribe to go find out just how much we agree with him on that.
	But just as an example, and I don't single out this particular example for any particular reason.
	It's just jumped to my mind.
	I was reading a paper recently where they were talking about how it was a linguist, and he was talking about how, for instance, in Africa, people who used the Zulu languages before English colonization, the Zulus did not have a word for promise.
	Right.
	And as such, an observable characteristic of people descended from Zulus that you can notice is that they tend to be very bad at keeping promises.
	Which shows that if you have a word for something, you've got the concept for it.
	If you don't have that, it can affect the way that you behave in your view of morality.
	There is an article coming out very soon on the website that will be free from me, and I've just gotten back from a two-week holiday in Turkey, and there is a very clear distinction between the tourist traps on the coast who have a facsimile of Englishness, who do very much a cash-in-hand dealing,
	speak to the husband before the wife or the boyfriend before the girlfriend out of respect, please come in my establishment, sir, what can I do for you way of doing things, an entire economy based on gentlemen's agreements, especially because there's no CCTV there, And then the surrounding countries and the regional areas where there is a get one over on you culture, of where they'll try and skim a bit money off the top if they can get away with it, of where there is not such an understanding of reciprocity that makes the world go round.
	It is because things are scarce, because we don't have all the infrastructure set in place that we do in this country.
	Every man for themselves.
	Exactly.
	That's the way to put it.
	Yes, but let's see what the actual definition of valid is before I go any further.
	So the one that I was able to get off Google Dictionary was just saying, of an argument or point having a sound based in logic or fact, reasonable or cogent, or legally or officially acceptable, which is not the way that progressives use the word.
	What the progressives use the word for Four is to remove any moral content from your decisions or your choices and lifestyle, and instead tells you that anything that you do is acceptable as long as you have chosen to do it.
	Because it has that legal connotation, because it has a certain clinical sound to it, it's removing that element, and it's a self-fulfilling fantasy of the lack of consequences that It comes across very Jonestown.
	Yes, and the reason that this all came to my mind, because obviously there's been this big furor about the Rings of Power, which I still haven't watched, refuse to watch, please boycott that show wherever you can.
	No hate watching!
	Don't do it!
	But they've had a lot of criticism for the race-swapping of characters, the malforming of Tolkien's original work, so they released a statement, and this statement...
	Reminded me, yet again, how much I hate this word.
	And I think the way they use it in this context should show you exactly why it is that I find this so frustrating, which is the statement they said after all the bullying, after all the hardships that these incredibly rich and privileged actors have been through for starring in a terrible TV show.
	J.R.R. Tolkien created a world in which, by definition, is multicultural.
	No...
	It's going to be hard not to just...
	I mean, he created a world that had many cultures.
	These cultures were not multicultural, though.
	They were none of them particularly eager to associate with one another, especially not the elves.
	I think distributors put it well on a recent stream where he spoke about how...
	Yes, there's lots of cultures, but each of these cultures is very particular.
	They're not universal cultures, and they want to remain particular.
	And in fact, Sauron and Saruman in particular, in representing in the books his rainbow cloak that he wears, is a representation of trying to bring all of these particular cultures together into a more universal culture, which of course in the book is depicted as demonic and evil.
	Yeah, that's what Wheatley did his video about on the website, which is fantastic.
	Yeah, it's a very, very good video.
	But they carry on a world in which free peoples from different races and cultures join together in fellowship.
	Yeah, only when it absolutely pressed to.
	That's not true, though.
	That's not true.
	There are multi-ethnic men, so they're not just all white.
	You've got Rohan and Gondor, of course, which are the Anglo-Saxons.
	Then you also have the Haradrim and the Easterlings, who ally with Sauron.
	Yeah, yeah, that's true.
	Hmm, wonder why.
	Rings of Power reflects that our world has never been...
	I didn't mean for that to sound how it came across, just in case it did.
	Our world has never been all white.
	Middle Earth is not all white.
	BIPOC belong in Middle Earth and they are here to stay.
	Finally, all our love and fellowship go out to the fans supporting us, especially fans of colour who are themselves being attacked simply for existing in this fandom.
	What?
	No.
	No, they're not.
	No?
	No, I've never met a black Lord of the Rings fan and shied away from them.
	I've been like, oh great, you like Lord of the Rings too.
	Great, let's talk about it.
	We don't treat black people like Gollum.
	Shock.
	We see you, your bravery and endless creativity.
	This sickeningly pandering.
	Your cosplays, fan cams, fan art and insights make this community a richer place and remind us of our purpose.
	No fan cam makes a fan community a richer place.
	You'll just cringe.
	Of course.
	But here it is.
	You are valid.
	You are loved.
	And you belong.
	You're an integral part of the Lord of the Rings family.
	Thanks for having our backs.
	Namari.
	Namari.
	Yes.
	So, within this context, do you understand what I'm talking about?
	Would the use of the word valid to add sort of an official legalistic legitimacy to these kinds of statements?
	Just saying you're loved, you belong.
	They're emotional statements, whereas you are valid kind of removes some of the emotionality of it...
	And puts it in an official manner.
	It reads like an Oedipal mother patting her child on the head who is disliked in school because he keeps stealing the other kids' toys.
	And she's like, don't worry, honey, there's nothing wrong with you.
	Actually, your child might be a little shit.
	Yes, but as far as I'm concerned, in this context, they use valid in the place of just saying they exist and you can't change that if you're somebody trying to Criticise them.
	If you are the person it's directed at, it means you're the most amazing person ever.
	You're not supposed to question anything that you do.
	Your life choices are correct no matter what path you choose to go down, which is just wrong.
	It's millennial self-esteem culture.
	Yes, it really is.
	It's giving yourself a reach around, verbally.
	But, like I say, it has the sound of impartiality to it, as though you've been determined by scientists that this is a valid result, etc., etc.
	And it's very dangerous, I consider, to tell people that they're always in the right no matter what.
	Like you say, millennial self-esteem culture has turned into millennial victimhood culture, because if you're always in the right, except everything in your life is constantly going wrong, that can only mean one thing.
	The world is wrong.
	That it's society's fault, and the world needs to change for you.
	Yeah, that either forms you into a revolutionary, which is pretty much purposeful by a lot of the Marxist ideologues that do this sort of representation stuff, or it sends you into a nihilistic tailspin.
	And that's what Peterson has been saying.
	He said, the worst thing you can tell a young person is you're okay just the way you are.
	Well, if I feel at a total loss and things aren't going right, then I'm going to think either it's all hopeless or the world's wrong and it needs to be fundamentally remade.
	And you are precisely the least likely person that we would want to be put in charge of the world.
	Exactly.
	why something is there, you are the last person who should be tearing it down.
	But this has been going into the pop culture and media for a long time, and most recently yesterday on the podcast, I referenced this, which is a Possum's review of the live-action – quotation marks, because it's all CGI anyway – Pinocchio remake, which completely removes and malforms the moral of the which completely removes and malforms the moral of the story.
	Supposedly, it removes Pinocchio's individual agency in him making the bad decisions that he does to go along with Honest John, and instead makes him a Puppet bigotry in the school that he goes to who kick him out after he's been bullied and then he basically has no choice but to go with Honest John.
	So it's not his fault that he makes the bad choices and it's nothing that he needs to grow internally.
	The external world needs to fit him and accommodate to him.
	To do a parallel of this, we have a video coming out soon on the second channel from me, which is a bit of a trick.
	Oh, it'll be very interesting.
	I'm looking forward to seeing the editing.
	It's a tad inflammatory, but it's fantastically edited by our brand new editor, Jack.
	but it involves John Wayne Gacy.
	And I've noticed a trend in some of the Gacy documentaries as to where multiple people, professors, keep blaming the homophobia and intolerance of American society on not only the reason why there were so many young boys in Democrat City bus stations taking drugs that Gacy could pick up and murder, but also keep blaming the homophobia and intolerance of American society on not only the reason why there were so many young boys in Democrat City bus stations
	And so you are morally exculpating evil people by depicting societal intolerance as the reason they make poor choices or children land themselves in the clutches of predators Stop doing that.
	If only people had been nicer to him and he never would have murdered anyone, is the answer.
	And with films like this, I think to myself...
	Are the people doing it on purpose as propaganda, perhaps, or is it just that they, not to turn around and say actually it is society's fault in some sense, but no, these people have been surrounded, the writers of this, have been surrounded since they were young with a culture that's only reaffirmed constantly that the only thing that can ever be wrong is with the outside world and not with you, and just don't know any better.
	They look at the original Pinocchio and see him making bad decisions and changing because of them, And go, that can't be right, I've never experienced that, because I've never been wrong.
	I think some writers, definitely, I think some have an agenda to push.
	Goelmiro del Toro, who is in charge of this thing, has been ideologically captured to see the shape of water for that, and so...
	Why does it have to be del Toro?
	He's made some really great movies.
	The original Hellboys were fantastic, but as we see, ten years makes a hell of a lot of difference to pretty much every creative.
	It does.
	But let's take a look at some examples, now that I've gone through this, of the way that people use it.
	Now, this one is what appears to be iHeart Intelligence.
	I think this is some kind of self-help, where it's just saying feelings are valid, you do not need anyone to validate them for you.
	A few tips on what you do when someone invalidates your feelings.
	Now, this is kind of more self-help, and when you read through the article, it's much more acceptable than what I've pointed out so far.
	And it's also actually doing something relatively okay here, which is saying you don't need anyone to validate your feelings for you, whereas one of the big problems I see nowadays is, say, with the trans community, they constantly need outside validation from everybody else, where it's like, okay, if you're so...
	Sure and confident in yourself, why can't you just feel that without other people having to bow down to you?
	See women on social media, fact check true.
	Yes.
	And they do stray into dangerous territory when they say, when in doubt, validate your own feelings, which can be dangerous, but is...
	This one is not one I have as much of a problem with, although some of the advice they give out could lead to, as far as I'm concerned, the phenomena of the insufferable teenage child lecturing their parents on how they're right and you're wrong.
	But then there's when the term gets used as a political attack tool to shame people who disagree with you, such as this article from LGBTQ Nation saying, pansexual people who aren't real, they are just bisexuals in denial, or with a completely warped view of reality, are real and valid.
	No, they're not.
	No matter how uncomfortable it makes you.
	So there you see again, the valid term is being wheeled out to make sure that you know.
	It's basically the same as saying, the science is settled.
	Right.
	Yeah, you're a denier.
	The science has settled that pansexual people are real.
	I mean, I'm not denying that there are people who consider themselves pansexual.
	Ironically, I'm considering the validity of the label when placed against factual reality.
	And then no matter how uncomfortable it makes you...
	Well, yeah, I'm sorry.
	If somebody is literally not saying that there are any limits to where their sexuality could lie...
	That might make me a bit uncomfortable.
	Those people that say that there are no limits to where their sexuality might lie often end up in prison, I may suggest as well.
	Yes.
	Then there's also the fact that, as with much else in any modern social movement, you can package it and get it sold back to you, for instance, in this Gay People Are Valid t-shirt.
	Once again, this is stripping the word of any actual meaning, but it all has underlying implicit meaning.
	Part of growing up is not wearing logos on your t-shirt anymore, I think.
	So, like, you don't walk around with a Batman or a Hulk t-shirt, but these people People in a stage of Arrested Development are walking around like ideological billboards and it's just cringe.
	Listen, man, most of my t-shirts that I own, I still own from when I was a teenager, so I do have a lot of Batman shirts.
	I'm shaming Harry.
	He showed up to the office in a Rick and Morty t-shirt at one point and I thought I was going to have to close his Reddit account.
	Listen, I don't have a Reddit account and I've had that shirt for years and everything else was in the wash, okay?
	That's valid.
	That's...
	Oh, the pain.
	The pain.
	But then there's people on Reddit.
	I mean, I know I said I don't use Reddit, but I typed in, people are valid, and this was one of the things that came up on my Google search, where it's just saying, transgender people are valid, and then listing off a bunch of the talking points that you expect.
	Gender is separate from sex.
	No, it isn't.
	Gender expression is people trying to, once again, get outside validation for their own lifestyle choices.
	Gender identity, who cares?
	Social medical transition is beneficial for trans people.
	Nope, the suicide rate does not bear that out.
	Sex is not binary.
	Preferred pronouns are correct.
	No, it is binary.
	And preferred pronouns, you can't dictate how someone refers to you when you aren't around.
	You can't dictate your adjectives.
	Yeah, exactly.
	We're both handsome geniuses.
	Thank you.
	Well, I mean, I don't have any problem with that particular one.
	But this last one as well is just showing where this all goes, which is that they are priming you to not just say, well, if you've accepted that they're valid, which in reality means that they are perfect human beings who can do no wrong, if you could scroll down here, you must also accept that they're not just valid, they're also beautiful.
	So it's just a psychological primer to get you ready to bend over and accept whatever these people are going to shove in you, basically.
	Just saying that, no, we're not just valid.
	We're beautiful.
	In my defense, I think most people are fat and ugly.
	I mean, that's true.
	Sadly, that's just true.
	Feminism loading.
	I know, I know, right?
	The NPC script is just loading up.
	We're just booting it up right now.
	And they say in this particular article, if you're an ally who proudly proclaims that trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary people are valid, I ask you to go beyond acknowledging our validity.
	Acknowledge the validity of this...
	Artist, Connor.
	Sir, please step back from that ledge.
	But you need to go beyond acknowledging the validity.
	To appreciate this richly varied community's beauty, strength and power, listen to our voices, follow our lead and act in solidarity with us for a future free from oppression.
	Now I can translate this into English for you.
	It means Gibbs.
	It just means Gibbs.
	It means government Gibbs.
	And it also means kiss my arse on social media.
	No, not even in social media, as we found out through many articles, sadly.
	It also means in real life, too.
	Kiss my arse on social media.
	No, in real life!
	But yes, like I said, I thought I just wanted to get that off my chest, because the term ballad just has become cancerous to me now.
	If I ever hear it, even in an official term, I hate it.
	Slightly.
	I hate myself for using it when I do.
	And that's because, as with everything else, everything woke turns to S. And the fact that wokists and leftists and all sorts have co-opted the word valid has made it go to S. And like I said, at the beginning, if you're interested in learning more about this sort of stuff in a more structured and official sense, you should check out the book club that we did on Michael Knoll's Speechless.
	For premium content subscribers only, £5 a month minimum.
	That's...
	All you need to pay for it.
	But yes, don't wallow in your or excuse your mediocrity.
	Get some goddamn standards and hold yourself to them.
	You are not valid.
	You are flawed.
	You are probably worthless as it stands right now.
	But you can change that.
	And people just telling you that you're valid is not going to motivate you to make the changes necessary.
	Well, that's the point.
	And with that, let's go over to the video comments.
	So, I know this is going to be a hard sell for you, Connor, but you really need to check out the Angry Birds movie from way back then, because it is bizarrely red-pilled, but with the whole idea of the pig migrants coming to this hyper left-wing bird society where they abuse their trust before eventually stealing all their children and blowing up a music concert.
	If anything, you'll probably greatly relate to the main character, who's like the one-faced guy that's like, yeah, you're being stupid, but because we're all supposed to be sensitive, Everyone's truth.
	We can't say anything.
	So...
	That sounds...
	Why have you so angry?
	That's quite good.
	I like that one.
	Oh my god, that is you.
	That's fantastic.
	Especially the bags under the eyes as well.
	No, no, actually, no.
	That's me.
	Big friendly guy.
	You.
	That's my girlfriend every time I come home.
	Aww.
	So, to keep up the trend of me reviewing children's movies, Beau and I on Friday will be recording a podcast on Labyrinth.
	You've got a busy day on Friday.
	do.
	We've got loads and I can't wait.
	He's a pretty devout Catholic, and I wouldn't encourage the Rings of Power bastardization creators to look up his letters on saying that I would consider any adaptation of my work an aberration.
	Well, of course.
	I would also think that these people just can't write.
	Yeah.
	They came from Bad Robot, so...
	The only kind of scripts that people can write nowadays in Hollywood, or in those sorts of circles, are Joss Whedon-lite, funny, witty, ha-ha dialogue.
	These people don't know gravitas, they don't know appropriate tone, they only know how to write, here's a single serious line of dialogue, but we don't want the audience to get too bored, so let's throw a bunch of jokes in there.
	Well, they're also the liberation theologians of modern cinema...
	And it's because you've gone from the self-made man hero's journey conception towards a Rousseauian conception of you had the power in you all along.
	You're like Captain Marvel or you're like America Chavez in New Doctor Strange.
	And it only takes someone to believe in you or to take the boot off of your neck of the oppressive patriarchy where you can fully let your power be unleashed.
	And so the power was within you all along.
	It's society keeping you down.
	You've watched Captain Marvel as well.
	Sadly.
	Unfortunately, yes.
	I was subjected to, like, a girl, the fight scene with the music over it, and it was just...
	No, to be fair, I do have one favourite line from that film, which is when she's standing up to, what, the Great Intelligence or something, is it?
	And they call her some random name, and she goes, No, my name is Karen!
	As if it's some rallying cry.
	It's Karen?
	Yeah, because her name...
	Carol?
	Carol, sorry.
	You just confused the haircut.
	Yeah.
	You know that grand intelligence?
	You know who that's meant to be, by the way?
	It's meant to be Mar-Vell, as in the original Captain Marvel, who died of cancer, who would have been fantastic.
	They should have done a Thanos origin movie.
	Well, Mar-Vell's a woman too, so you can't do anything about it.
	You're right, I do hate her.
	Next video comment.
	Right.
	Black Little Mermaid is actually worse than you think.
	She has been the national symbol of Denmark for over a hundred years and have been sitting there in Copenhagen since 1913.
	I should have been casted as Ariel.
	Why didn't they cast me?
	Actually, that would have been a good fit.
	You've got the red hair for it and all.
	And the first video comment you gave us was you off the end of a dock swimming, so you were just method acting for the role.
	Yeah, I forgot to mention that because I did see that Copenhagen had had the aerial statue for a long while, but that's just another point of cultural erasure because we're not allowed our culture, only black, brown and indigenous people are allowed their culture.
	Well, ropes are going to be thrown around it and it's going to join Edward Colston at the bottom of the ocean, I'm sure.
	Sorry to say that, Sophie.
	I hope that doesn't happen.
	These new hobbits are portrayed as morons, laughing about one of their friends who was killed by bees and trying to eat berries by mashing them into their faces.
	I have some thoughts on this.
	In the Jackson films, the hobbits are portrayed as concerning themselves mostly with matters involving food, beer, and pipeweed, taking pride in things like giant pumpkins.
	They don't concern themselves with politics or gender studies.
	That sounds like a nice life to me, but Amazon is composed of the sort of people who couldn't imagine taking pride in a prized pumpkin unless you were a flaming retard.
	Sorry, the prize pumpkin thing has made me realise a film we desperately need to cover.
	The most English film ever made, alongside tying with Hot Fuzz, Wallace and Gromit, The Curse of the Weir Rabbit.
	What?
	I've seen it, of course I've seen it.
	I'm just wondering where you're going to take this.
	Where the entire narrative is based around the competition that they're going to have for who can grow the biggest vegetable.
	It's the most English thing ever.
	That sounds very inappropriate.
	Well, the film is quite inappropriate at times, watching back on it.
	Obviously, I haven't seen the first episode of The Rings of Power, but I have had a lot relayed to me, especially by my grandad, who has sat through it.
	Poor guy.
	The gist I get from it is, they're portraying the Hobbits as babbling buffoons, but they also have the Harfoots, who are the black and mixed race a lot, right?
	I wonder...
	Well, they're the Mediterranean lot, really, but yes, in the show, yeah.
	I wonder if part of that reason is because in the original Jackson films, they're the shy folk, right?
	They're the little Englanders, in many sense, who, if you wanted to draw an allegory, and obviously Tolkien's against allegory...
	You mean the ones that Tolkien looks most favourably on?
	Yes, they're essentially the boys that went off to war with him.
	Even though it wasn't an allegory and he said it was never an allegory, but you can see where you've got elements of that.
	You can't help sometimes bringing your own personal experience into your work.
	Exactly.
	So I wonder if that is disparaged by slapstick comedy, but the fact that the Harfoots are in it almost justifies having this Little Englander lifestyle, because they kind of like the hobbyism, even though they don't get it, but they've repackaged it to be more acceptable black and brown, and so the rest of the Hobbits are just idiots.
	I don't know if they've repackaged it out of any great liking of it.
	I think they've done it out of habit.
	It's impossible nowadays for any Hollywood marketing executive to not try and repackage something and sell it as a product rather than something with intrinsic value that can't really be measured or calculated.
	Yeah.
	With that, we'll go on to the comments, I suppose.
	Yes, I'll go through some of the ones on the most evil Forbes article.
	Robert Longshore, if tobacco companies can't advertise products to children, why can surgeons advertise their services to children?
	I mean, it's simple enough because the elites are happy for them to do so.
	Lord Nerevar, good to see you back, Connor.
	Life-saving medical treatments doesn't really hold up when you factor in the suicide rates of trans individuals.
	What is the point in the surgery if they're just going to off themselves anyway?
	And how is it life-saving if they still have a high chance of still dying?
	Well, that's the great part, is that this is plan B for if the abortions don't work.
	You know it's true, if we can't abort them, we'll trans them and then they'll be sterilised and maybe they might even take themselves out.
	It is a strange coincidence that all of the actions being pushed currently by the woke global elite just so happen to end up with a lowered population.
	Huh.
	Ain't that magical.
	Bill Gates has a few books he would like to sell you on the subject.
	Hammurabi VI says, Harry is becoming increasingly efficient at making people's souls vacate their bodies.
	I'm very good at my job.
	I don't want to watch my face back on that.
	Glad you took this job yet, Connor.
	Genuinely, I love my job.
	I really do.
	But you're a bastard.
	It put me through that.
	But someone put in the comments of the Studio Ghibli clip that we put up, I think it was yesterday, saying, I much prefer Connor when he's talking about something he's passionate about.
	And I wanted to comment something, but I couldn't find a way to put it.
	But I'll just say it here.
	Of course, I love talking about cultural products that I'm genuinely passionate about.
	Unfortunately, we're living through the fall of the West, and so talking about this horrific stuff, we're raising consciousness about it to push back on it.
	It's kind of a necessity.
	So if I look dispirited, it's only because it's reality, unfortunately.
	Have you ever watched Red Letter Media?
	Occasionally, yeah.
	I watched The Last Jedi.
	I'm sure you might have seen the clip in that case where it's Mike and Rich, and Rich just asks Mike, how does it feel to see every franchise you loved as a kid crash and burn?
	Feels great, Rich.
	Yeah.
	Feels great.
	I feel like that whenever I see anything announced, apart from, you know, stuff that I wasn't even interested in the first place, Top Gun, at least the Top Gun fans are getting a good time out of it.
	Well, if you would have told us that there's a Batman movie, an Obi-Wan Kenobi series, a Lord of the Rings series, and a Halo series out in one year, ten years ago, would have jumped for joy.
	Now I've seen one of them, and I hated even that.
	Yeah.
	In the mid-2000s, maybe you would have got people excited.
	Taffy Duck says, Connor, going for the correct approach to trans-activists, enablers, and defenders.
	Based...
	Let's go on to your comments.
	Lord Nerevar, I must say that I've been pleasantly surprised so far by King Charles III, knowing that this is the earliest days and far too soon to come to any conclusions, but I've been wary of him for years now, and when I heard of the Queen's tragic death, my first reaction was one of worry for the reign of Charles.
	Since he's come to the throne, he seems to be coming across as dignified, respectable, and above all, human.
	I would agree with that.
	He's thrown himself into his duties admirably, and we can only hope that he emulates his mother during the reign.
	For now, I feel confident in saying with a full throat, God save the king.
	I certainly hope we can stay that way.
	Yeah, I'm happy to give it six months, and hopefully if he is dignified while occupying the throne, fantastic, I'll join you.
	I just am concerned of his part to play in the global immiseration and our distancing from our cultural heritage conducted by the WEF, for example.
	S.H. Silver.
	How does one reconcile Charles' talk of tradition with his weff shilling?
	He is just lying in his beliefs, but I think he may be lying in his beliefs, but I think it's genuine is what I think he meant to say.
	A major blind spot for traditionalists is that they don't recognize the empire for what it's been, a force for globalism and the elite.
	I disagree with that.
	Charles and his ilk simply replace the sacred of old with the new religion of progressivism to control the people with, making us the serfs of their new world order.
	We don't need any more monarchs or elite ruling over us.
	It's not necessarily about ruling over us.
	It's about a reciprocal relationship with a figurehead from the past, and having that sort of object permanence of a person occupying that throne rather than someone you boot out every four years and have two parties squabbling over is pretty useful.
	Because imagine if we had two Borises.
	I mean, it would just be relentlessly miserable, wouldn't it?
	I think the practical fact of the matter is, as well, the vast majority of people in this...
	Hurts me to my very soul to say this as a libertarian.
	Yearn for a leader, a great leader that they can stand by and trust a personification of either the nation or the general will, as Rousseau would put it.
	They need somebody that they can turn to.
	For advice.
	Purely on a spiritual level, whether or not they ever have to go to the king for help or anything, it comforts them to know.
	Well, that's why post-Nietzsche and post-Nihilism and post-wars, America's leading cultural export has become the superhero.
	And what is that if not a pseudo-religious demigod?
	Well, it's a metaphysical restatement of hierarchy.
	And as Peterson makes very clear, hierarchy is something that is built into us.
	As old as trees, exactly.
	Colin P. I hope His Majesty does live up to what his speeches suggest.
	I suspect he was brought up in the same tradition of service as his mother, but he has had 70 years of independence to get set in his ways, possibly.
	And then just one last one.
	Henry Ashman.
	I'm prepared to give King Charles a chance.
	A similar case of Prince Albert, who became King Edward VII... Exactly.
	I am far from a Cromwellian.
	I'm far from a pure parliamentarian or a Puritan.
	I think he's a miserable git.
	But there's not exactly no historical precedence for the English people not taking too kindly to King Charles's not serving as the king's...
	Once again, one of the best things about Monarchy is being more easily able to hold them to account.
	After all, we did manage to get the old Magna Carta through.
	Exactly.
	After all.
	So, on to the last comments here.
	I've only got a few seconds.
	So, S.H. Silver says, Del Toro is not responsible for the new Disney Pinocchio.
	Disney simply wanted to preempt his upcoming film and occupy market space.
	While that may be true, I don't know if it is.
	From what I've heard of The Shape of Water, he seems to be personally ideologically captured anyway.
	Lord Nerovar says, "My total erasure of reality is valid.
	My destruction of your favorite Holby is valid.
	They can take their validity and stick it.
	This rhetoric isn't based in reality, it's just used as an intellectual cudgel with which to beat opponents over the head in the name of tolerance.
	Nobody wants to be the first to oppose tolerance as a concept." I've become increasingly happy to oppose tolerance as a concept.
	I agree we should start calling them invalids.
	I agree as well.
	Invalid nationalism.
	Sophie will be the last comment of the day.
	It's the ironic thing about this.
	These people never think they should change for the world.
	They think the entire world should change for them.
	And let's be real, even if the entire world did change into what they wanted, they still wouldn't be happy.
	They would still be just as miserable, because that's just not how this works.
	Yeah, and people just don't know what's going to make them happy nowadays, sadly.
	No, the majority of them don't.
	Thank you all for your comments.
	Thank you to Daniela Munoz and Anonymi for wishing me all the best for returning.
	I was on holiday, don't worry, I wasn't ill, but it's lovely to be back.
	We've got plenty of content coming onto the site.
	Stick around at 3.30 for all premium subscribers to watch our Hangout with Carl and Callum, the third part of their Cyberpunk Dystopia series.
	And on Friday afternoon, Harry and I again will be doing Louise Perry's The Case Against the Sexual Revolution book club.
	Get your comments in from that because we'll be reading them out on air.
	Until next time, thank you very much for watching.
	That's all from me and Harry.
	Join us tomorrow at 1.30.
	Goodbye.
	1 o'clock.

▲