Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 11, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:28

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #499

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast, the Lotus Eaters, for the 11th of October 2022.
	I'm joined by Harry.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about the British George Floyd, female pickup artists, and of course, PayPal taking over the world.
	Don't really have any announcements, so let's just get stuck into it.
	Well, it is our two-year anniversary soon.
	Are we doing that?
	I thought I was announcing that tomorrow.
	Sorry.
	I've not been paying attention.
	Well, I mean, anyone with a calendar can work that out.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, anyway, more announcements there, but I'm down with such.
	So sorry.
	Don't worry about it, Harry.
	All right.
	Well...
	Nothing like a surprise spoiled.
	Sorry.
	Christ.
	Sorry.
	Anyway, let's talk about the British George Floyd, because we do have one, or at least we've got one ramping up on the way, because what is the one thing that you in particular have been pointing out a lot when it comes to American race ideologues trying to import it over to Britain?
	That we don't really...
	Yeah, it's not really appropriate.
	We don't have the same history of racial strife and...
	We didn't have segregation.
	We didn't have segregation.
	We didn't have Jim Crow.
	We didn't have...
	I don't think we had domestic slavery of African people either.
	We had it in the colonies, but then we went and just disbanded that.
	So...
	One of the things that they're missing is that George Floyd figure and that same history.
	And it seems that the mainstream media, as you would kind of expect, are starting to try and ramp up to try and find...
	They really need that George Floyd character so that they can point at all of the native English, even more so than they already do, and say, you're evil, you're bad, and you need to give us things.
	Gibbs!
	That's always the end goal of these things, isn't it?
	That literally is the entire narrative arc of this wing of politics summarised.
	You're evil, give us some free stuff.
	Don't piss off.
	Not just free stuff, political power as well.
	So we can keep giving ourselves more free stuff afterwards.
	The thing that annoys me about this whole line of attack is it's so obviously not true.
	Because if we were actually evil, we'd be like, why aren't you in chains?
	How did you get out of the plantation?
	Like, if we were actually evil, you wouldn't come to us and say, could we have some free stuff, please?
	You'd be like, oh god, no, they'll kill me.
	You know, because they're evil.
	Well, the only...
	It's predicated on us not being evil, that this line of attack works!
	Not just not being evil, being morally weak, because we don't...
	No, we are morally weak, that's fair.
	Because there are many who don't have the backbone to stand up and say, actually, I don't come from a race of evil people.
	In fact, we're mostly quite nice.
	Yeah, actually, I'm not evil, and if I was, I wouldn't respond well to you asking me for something, would I? Yes.
	Anyway.
	But one of the ways that they are trying to push the George Floyd narrative is, of course, sneaky rhetorical tricks that journalists always use, which I will be pointing out as we go on.
	And relevant to that is a recent contemplations that Josh and I did at the beginning of last month talking about exactly that.
	And this is going to be one, I think, that is going to be very relevant all of the time because journalists and journos in particular, for the most part, are quite scummy and will try and manipulate you and manipulate the reality that you exist within.
	I mean, this whole thing is based on sneaky rhetorical tricks, as in, like I just pointed out, you wouldn't actually go to someone you genuinely thought was evil and ask them for free stuff.
	Like, that's disgusting.
	Louis XIV wouldn't have put up with that.
	Louis XVI did, to his detriment.
	Yeah, and how did that work out?
	Yeah.
	But anyway, moving on.
	So the person I'm talking about is Chris Cabber, who I talked about when this originally happened, but there have been developments since, and I've looked into more of the information, and it's becoming very clear what the narrative is.
	And I don't think they're going to be successful...
	Because England, being a much smaller country than somewhere like America, you can't just point to, where was it, Minnesota or something that George Floyd happened?
	There's going to be millions of people very, very far away that go like, oh, I don't know what that state's like.
	Maybe the police there really are racist.
	Whereas in London, I think we know the kind of culture that a lot of sub-communities...
	We know Cressida Dick's woke police force is deeply racist, deeply sexist, and entirely problematic.
	I don't know anything about this story, by the way.
	Well, it'll be interesting to hear your take on it, then.
	So, he was a man who was shot by the police in London at the beginning of last...
	Yeah, he was a saint, don't you know?
	He didn't do nothing.
	He was a pure angel who came to Earth...
	But an inquest has been opened into his death.
	Chris Caber, who's shot by the armed police in South London, his family have asked for an urgent decision on whether criminal charges should be brought in the case.
	I think the police officer who shot him has been suspended, which I'm sure is just part of procedure at this point when people get shot.
	For any foreigners listening, our police don't carry guns, so I'm curious as to how he found himself in some kind of altercation with armed police.
	Well...
	Because that's not a normal thing.
	Even if you're in an altercation with a police officer, they're not armed.
	No.
	We'll get to that, why they might have felt the need to have some armed police show up on the scene.
	So, yeah, the Met Police Sparksman who fired the fatal shot has been suspended.
	The Inner South London Coroner's Court heard that an unarmed Mr.
	Carver, and unarmed is another semantic trick they're pulling here...
	Unarmed, for a certain definition of unarmed.
	Yes, was driving an Audi that had been linked by police to a firearms incident the previous day, hence why they want people with guns showing up, just in case.
	Although his name was not included in the briefing given to officers.
	And just wait, just wait until you see how outlets like The Guardian want to twist that.
	That particular bit of information.
	So he ran them.
	By the sounds of it, the court heard an officer standing at the front of the Audi then fired a single shot through the windscreen which hit Mr.
	Kaba in the head.
	Mr.
	Borsella, flanked by Mr.
	Kaba's mother, names I can't pronounce, that said, this should never have happened, it must never happen again, we must never accept this as normal, someone must be held accountable.
	I agree, you shouldn't be ramming police with the car.
	I mean, a car's a dangerous weapon.
	And the further characterization of Mr.
	Cabba was that he was a construction worker who was due to become a farmer.
	Farmer?
	Father, sorry, father.
	Nothing else.
	Nothing else going on in his life.
	No background to him at all.
	He was just some random dude driving around a car that happened to have a firearms offense against it, as you do.
	It didn't belong to him.
	One might...
	Say that, oh, he was due to become a father when he died.
	It's like, then why wasn't he behaving responsibly?
	I mean, you know, when I was due to become a father, I wasn't ramming police with cars.
	Oh, you've never lived in that.
	I guess you must have been very boring.
	I was.
	Proudly.
	Yeah.
	And in the previous segment that we've done on this, I did cover a bit of the background of the scene that Chris comes from, which is the UK drill scene, which I can absolutely guarantee that you know nothing about this.
	I know something about drill, because I've had to experience...
	Well, I mean, the life expectancy of a drill rapper, I understand, is very short.
	Yes, yes it is indeed.
	15 years old.
	Because in this video I cover some of the background and the UK drill scene.
	Chris Carver himself was noted in some of the earlier articles about this as being a member of the UK Drill Group 67.
	And 67 were involved in gang wars for a long time in the 2010s.
	That's not the number of minutes they last for, is it?
	Maybe.
	Life expectancy when you join.
	And Chris himself has had a number of rap songs under the name of Maddox or Maditch, where he was threatening to put a knife in your eye and do other such things.
	These people, these rappers, they wear masks because apparently the contents of their lyrics are so incriminating that they don't want to be able to put a face on.
	To what they're saying.
	Like I said, there was a gang war that at one point in 2011 led to the death of a 15-year-old boy when he was at school because a rival gang saw him and just tracked him down and stabbed him to death.
	And the thing that Rory has explained to me as well is a lot of this is just down to postcodes.
	It's literally just whichever postcode you're part of.
	That's your group.
	That's your gang.
	And if you see anybody from other postcodes, then you're at war with them.
	One might describe it as tribal warfare.
	You very well could.
	In the centre of London, in Brixton, the most safe place in all of the world.
	And I'm almost certain that in Brixton I actually had a run-in with these sorts of people earlier this year when I was...
	The hell were you doing there?
	I was going to a gig.
	I saw...
	I saw a punk band play at the O2 there, and then on the way back to the car, I stopped in a little corner shop, and while we were in there, a gang of the diverse youths ran in, all started stealing stuff, and we went outside, and there was an older, Diverse gentlemen seemingly waiting for them outside.
	And given that 67 are based around the Brixton Hill area, and I was at the Brixton Hill area, yeah, it probably was them terrorising the local shop owners.
	Poor guys.
	But this news has spread all the way to Huffington Post, talking about Chris Carver, why it happened, what happened and why it's so important.
	Note that I read through this whole article.
	They never at any point explain exactly why it is important.
	They just say it's very important.
	They point out here as well, because this happened the same weekend that the Queen's funeral was being arranged and the queue was going on, they said, Number 10 are refusing to comment on the issue right now, citing the national mourning period of the Queen.
	This is an issue of national importance!
	I can't believe the death of the Queen was more important than drill rapper Chris Carver.
	I know, but look at all these photos of people being sad.
	Does it not make you feel anything?
	No, me neither.
	After dealing with this week in and week out, I'm just...
	I know, people crying now just makes me think I'm being manipulated.
	I no longer take it sincerely when somebody cries.
	Don't read into that.
	Yeah, sorry.
	Anyway, yeah, they point out again he was due to become a father, and they do also say he was a rapper in a drill group called 67.
	Let's just brush that over.
	Criminal investigation is underway, although the government still haven't commented.
	I think most members of the government still haven't commented, because they're like, gang member in London dies.
	Yeah.
	This isn't news.
	During a speech to protesters, because the weekend of the queue, there was a big protest going on in other parts of London, where, of course, who else but Stormzy felt the need to show up, and he said, everyone here today, I would encourage everyone to have stamina.
	I know it's a very difficult thing to say, but when these people do these things, when criminals get into criminal activities and get shot, they get away with it.
	No, no, he's talking about the police.
	Well, yes, of course.
	When the police just shoot black guys, they get away with it.
	And it doesn't matter what the black guy was doing at the time.
	Who cares?
	That's not important.
	There's no intra-community violence or anything that people get away with on a daily basis.
	Like, who shot Sasha Johnson?
	We still don't know.
	That's true, actually.
	She's still in the hospital.
	Maybe it was one of Chris's buddies.
	Yeah, who knows?
	Who knows?
	But when the police do it, oh, they just get away with it because of racism.
	Yeah, what happens is we do this once, being the protest, and then we get tired.
	We tweet, we get tired.
	Oh, all our difficult activism of tweeting, oh, my thumbs got so tired.
	Are you sure it's not because there was another turf war happening down the street that you need to get involved in?
	Possibly.
	And then we do it for a week, we do it for two weeks, we do it for a month, and they know we get tired.
	What they've done is they've killed someone, and we can't sugarcoat it.
	Dozens and dozens of people every month get stabbed, and they're all black-on-black stabbings.
	And Stormzy is silent, except when he goes to Glastonbury and wears his stab-proof vest.
	I think he just forgot to take it off.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Just shut up.
	And, of course, Diane Abbott was there as well, actually.
	With her two left shoes.
	So this article is wrong, actually, because there was a member of the government, sadly, if we have to...
	She's not a member of the government.
	She's a member of parliament.
	Oh, yes, of course.
	Sorry.
	But someone close enough...
	Thank God she's only a member of parliament.
	...addressed the demonstrators and said, I don't know how I'd feel if it was my own son killed in cold blood.
	You know what?
	If it was due to the circumstances of this, I'd be annoyed.
	But the thing is, Diane, in your community, there must be loads of grieving mothers who have lost sons as a direct result of gang violence.
	There must be.
	She's in Hackney.
	I'm sorry, she must have had this story said to her before.
	It's just it's not politically actionable because it was done by another black kid, not by a cop.
	Well, I can only assume that when Abbott gets those sorts of stories, she scratches her chin, ruffles her beard, and thinks to herself...
	The white supremacy.
	Yeah, thinks to herself, how can the police be punished for this?
	But obviously it's a big grift.
	They know that there's lots of racial grievance points to be won from this.
	Sadiq Khan, of course, had to tweet a statement out saying, oh, my heartfelt sympathies remain with the family, friends.
	I understand the grave concerns of impact of Chris's death on black Londoners.
	Well, black...
	London gang members.
	Capital B black as well.
	Across our city.
	You know, the sort of rubbish that you always expect from Khan.
	And there's been plenty of YouTube reporting from Sky News and such that his relatives need answers to the questions.
	Okay, here's the thing.
	He was ramming the police and they saw that as a clear and present danger and so they shot him because he probably also had a gun or at least they had reasonable cause to think that he had a gun.
	End of inquest.
	My big question is, why did you let him end up in a gang in the first place?
	My big question is, why is all this violence happening in central London?
	Well, and then there's another one.
	I don't think this one's Sky News.
	It's, yeah, it's The Guardian saying, oh, Chris Kaba shooting.
	I have so many questions.
	This one barely goes over any of the details, although there is an interesting anecdote here where this guy, who I think is Kaba's cousin, says that the day it happened, he received a text from his friend saying that there'd been a shooting in Stretham where it happened.
	And with a message immediately after saying, Chris, question mark, question mark, question mark.
	So it's like, you already knew this was going to happen!
	What do you want about it?
	You don't have any questions.
	You already knew the answer.
	You just heard some random guy got shot in Stratham and you're like, oh, must have been Chris.
	Yeah, did Chris do this?
	Yeah, must have been.
	It's interesting how they would immediately jump to that conclusion.
	And then we get more shoddy reporting.
	Chris Carver was not a suspect before being fatally shot by the police.
	Here's inquest.
	No, but the car he was driving was involved, and that's what they were looking for.
	And why is...
	given that he wasn't the owner of the car, why was he driving it in the first place when it had a firearms offence against it?
	So, had he stolen the car?
	Was he the one who shot the firearm out of it?
	I mean, when we look into it in a moment, I'm saying there's precedent.
	There are a lot of other crimes that have been committed leading up to Chris Carver ramming the cops to try and get away.
	And we've got Metro reporting.
	These are all the most recent reports as well after the inquest has taken place, because it's going to take six to nine months to conclude the inquest, which of course the family are saying is just irresponsible and we can't accept such a thing, even though I think the parents have been shown the body cam footage from the police and then immediately like, well, we're going to step away from this one.
	Really?
	Yes.
	So the person who will be held accountable will be Chris Carver, hopefully.
	I can only hope so.
	And then we've got MSN, which is with this article from The Independent, talking about Chris Carver was followed by an unmarked police car with no sirens on before shooting the inquest his.
	Leaving out some pretty detailed information there.
	And the thing that I find so insidious about this kind of reporting is we know that most people just glance at headlines.
	They glance at headlines.
	They know that as well, which is why they do it.
	That is exactly why the editors will put articles like this forward with headlines like this, because it's inflammatory and they know that it's going to stoke up hatred.
	People aren't actually going to read the articles.
	People aren't going to look into the details.
	They're just going to get a first emotional response from this and then just go from there and probably cause chaos in the street and kill lots more black people, as tends to happen in these circumstances, sadly.
	And Sky News again, Chris Carver's relatives need answers.
	They point out again, he was unarmed, except if you count the Audi.
	Which can be used as a weapon, shockingly enough.
	And then even the Daily Mail, the supposedly right wing...
	I love it.
	This time, he was unarmed as well.
	Like, you know, on a normal day, maybe he's not unarmed.
	Which is why his cousin's like, well, did Chris shoot some dude?
	No, Chris was the one getting shot this time.
	Oh, understandable.
	Have a nice day.
	Yeah.
	Met officers did not activate lights or sirens in their unmarked police car before he was shot dead, the inquest hears.
	But that's just the headline.
	Let's hear what was actually said in the inquest.
	We know that it was a contact with the car, but there was also more information that might shed some light on this.
	Dean Brown told the inquest hearing that the officers on duty the day Kaba died were told that the Audi had been linked to a firearm incident.
	The shooting had been investigated, blah, blah, blah.
	So he was told the hearing on Monday 5th, Cabo was driving an Audi motor vehicle in South London.
	It was believed to be linked to the firearms incident.
	A briefing was provided to officers prior to that shift in which the Audi was brought to their attention associated with the firearms incidents.
	His name was left out of this because why would we have any reason to include it?
	According to police logs and accounts received on that date, it was recognized by officers par there.
	The officers started to follow the vehicle and circulated this via police airwaves at around 9.52pm.
	Officers continued to follow the Audi until 10.07pm.
	Officers did not activate their lights or siren.
	The intention was to use an enforced stop extraction on the Audi.
	At around 10.07pm, he made a left turn from New Park Road into Kirkstall Gardens.
	Already present on that road was a marked police armed response vehicle.
	So it wasn't just being followed around by an unmarked car.
	He turned on, they had the sirens on, it was a marked car.
	And the car is marked as an armed response vehicle.
	Yes, it was.
	Don't ram it because we've got guns, lads.
	Shame I can't read.
	I was literally thinking, well, I'm presuming he can read, actually.
	Well, maybe.
	So they'd part with the intention of joining the other police vehicles behind the Audi once it had passed the junction.
	one of the police officers inside the marked ARV was NX121, which is the codename they're giving the guy who shot him.
	Once he made the left turn, the decision was taken to perform an inline extraction.
	Armed officers exited their vehicles and approached the Audi.
	The evidence suggested that contact was made between the Audi driven by Mr. Carver and the police vehicles.
	The evidence further suggests that officer NX121 was standing to the front of Mr. Carver's vehicle.
	So not only was he ramming into this car, he was also trying to run this poor bastard over.
	Okay.
	Even less sympathy now.
	Yep, and then a single shot was fired by the officer, piercing the windscreen of the vehicle.
	He was driving, and it struck him in the head, and...
	dead.
	And I'm sorry, if I'm the police officer, with a gun in my hand, and a guy's ramming my friends and trying to run me over...
	Seems justified.
	I know what I'm going to do.
	But interestingly...
	At one point did the family, the parents especially, have been like, how did we raise this person?
	I don't think they do.
	I don't think they do ask those questions.
	What they do is they find some kind of racial grievance to harp on, and then that absolves them of all responsibility for how their kids turned out.
	But interestingly enough, before this article came out, Daily Mail had a different article which had even more background information.
	This was much closer to the day when it actually happened.
	And also include some witness statements, but they also include some background, some more background, to the angelic figure that was Chris Carver.
	His family have spoken about a wonderful young man who is excited about pending fatherhood.
	He was a good boy not involved in trouble, said his father.
	His son, though...
	He had been released from custody for more than a year ago after being sentenced to four years in a young offender's institution for possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence since January 2019.
	The conviction followed an incident in Canning Town on December 30th, 2017, where there were reports of gunshots fired, but no one was injured.
	So he was just in the middle of Canning Town, firing a gun.
	Shooting his gun.
	Just as you do.
	Just casually, you know?
	Hmm.
	And back in Kirkstall Gardens where he died, there was sympathy for the police.
	In my opinion, said one woman, you have to obey the police when they give you an order to stop.
	Why did he not stop?
	Great question.
	Excellent question.
	And we can get some more witness statements from the next article from the Evening Standard, once again, right as it happened.
	I don't think this one even names him.
	A witness said that they had seen the man trying to drive his Audi at police after his vehicle was boxed in by three police cars in an attempt to stop and arrest him.
	A car was chased into our road and there was a police helicopter overhead.
	There was a clang when two of the vehicles smashed into each other, one was a police car, and the other of the guy being chased.
	Armed police jumped out and was shouting at the man, get out of the car.
	It was at least a dozen times.
	The guy in the car had a lot of opportunities to stop, but he refused.
	He then started driving forwards towards a police car and smashed into it, then reversed.
	Just wouldn't stop the vehicle.
	I heard one shot.
	From what I could see, he could have killed one of the officers with his car.
	I don't understand why he didn't stop.
	I just want to...
	Sorry to interrupt.
	I just want to say, this guy is making George Floyd look like a much more sympathetic figure, right?
	In the circumstances, yeah.
	I mean, he was just overdosing.
	Exactly.
	George Floyd wasn't trying to hurt people.
	He wasn't even trying to hurt himself.
	He was just trying to get high.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You know, George Floyd...
	I can see, like, now, in retrospect, that George Floyd looks like...
	Perhaps he was a saintly figure, after all.
	Not necessarily saintly, but, like, he wasn't trying to hurt anyone.
	He was a benign figure, you could say.
	I'm not saying that I think that, you know, George Floyd is murdered, either.
	But I can see why people think that it looks that way.
	And, like, you know, he wasn't doing anything...
	This guy, Jesus.
	This guy was an actual gangster psychopath.
	It doesn't matter if he was about to have a kid.
	George Floyd was just a druggie.
	It doesn't matter if he was about to have a kid.
	Well, yeah, John is also pointing out that George Floyd had previously held a pregnant woman at one point.
	Sure, sure.
	But that had happened previously in his life.
	In the moment where everything happened with George Floyd, he wasn't actually threatening anyone.
	Like, he wasn't doing anything?
	Because this guy was actively trying to kill people so that he could escape from the police somehow.
	I suppose his plan, his thought process was rampast car, profit.
	Yeah.
	They'll give up eventually, surely.
	I mean, that's what the cops normally do, isn't it?
	Yes, so this man is not sympathetic.
	I think with this information floating around, I hope it gets a bit more mainstream attention, because I hope that the reporting, when it comes from the Daily Mail and Sky News and the Independent and the Guardian, I hope they start to include this information, even if it is politically...
	Disadvantageous to them, sadly.
	They probably won't include the information, but it's going to be a much harder sell than George Floyd when you've got this guy as the poster boy for your movement.
	There's the witness saying that he was using his car as a weapon.
	Quote from a witness.
	Unarmed.
	Yeah.
	Okay, whatever.
	No sympathy whatsoever.
	But yes, basically another violent thug met a violent end trying to do something stupid.
	Let's not make a big movement of this.
	So, changing subject completely, let's talk about female pickup artists.
	Must we?
	Yeah.
	Is there such a thing?
	Yeah, exactly, right?
	I stumbled on this the other day, and it led me down a rabbit hole.
	This is going to be like 50 different ways to tell him you'll kill yourself if he leaves, isn't it?
	No, no, no, no.
	It's actually a lot more sophisticated.
	Oh, right.
	And of course, because men and women are different, they have different dating strategies.
	And so what women are looking for, different outcomes that they're looking for, men are of course looking for easy access to sex, And women are looking for relationships, which is why you should go to lowseas.com, sign up and watch this relationship wisdom from Patrice O'Neill.
	This is remarkably relevant to this subject, actually.
	And if you want a fuller understanding, that will probably help you.
	And I kind of got onto this because I covered Andrew Tate and Piers Morgan the other day.
	Andrew Tate destroying Piers Morgan instantly.
	I watched the full interview, and I was going to do something on this, but the thing is, it wasn't markedly different to the clips that they put out, which actually is to their credit for not misrepresenting Tate.
	But Tate being like this sort of life coach, manosphere type that the feminists love to hate.
	And I ended up falling down a rabbit hole on our female dating strategies.
	Have you ever heard of this?
	Being that I don't often find myself browsing Reddit, especially not the female dating strategies, no I haven't.
	I don't either, but I found this somehow, I can't even remember how I found it, but it turns out this is like the female version of the manosphere, and so this is like the, I was going to say the evil mirror image, but I won't go that far.
	How to get knocked up quick?
	No, no, no, no.
	That's the thing, right?
	I mean, honestly, I wouldn't mind if it was stuff like that.
	You're thinking of this from a man's perspective.
	Well, yeah, I generally think of the male pick-up artistry as just a bunch of scumbags trying to get laid as easily as possible.
	Yeah, but women know they can get laid anytime, anywhere.
	Oh, that's true.
	That's not what they're looking for.
	That's not the pick-up artistry of a woman, right?
	The pick-up artistry of a woman is how to get a relationship.
	That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
	But the language used and the tone in which this is all delivered is very much, it sounds just like the Manosphere, sort of like the cold calculus.
	Are they trying to be girl bosses, trying to set themselves up?
	No, no, no.
	It is remarkably Machiavellian, though, right?
	All right.
	But we'll begin with this article from The Verge.
	And what I love about this is you can see the weight, the power in society, right?
	How do you think The Verge reports on the Manosphere?
	Not with any great sympathy.
	Rather, oh look at all of these misogynists online.
	Well, our female dating strategy, they say, it's in many ways initially refreshing.
	Oh, this is very positive.
	Okay, so positive coverage for the female side, but negative coverage from the male side.
	The Female Only Forum was founded in February 2019 and prides itself on being the only space in Reddit for women who date men to safely vent their concerns about their relationships with men who often devalue or ignore them or even abuse them.
	It's filled with memes and advice.
	And it had 54,000 subscribers, but it was 250 when I checked the other day.
	So it's quite big, right?
	But they say, while female dating strategies advice can seem appealing at first, underneath is a socially conservative approach that's often deeply critical of women and their behaviours, placing limits on how they can act and what they ought to seek from a relationship.
	I am now fully in support of R slash Facebook.
	Female dating advice.
	Well, isn't that interesting?
	Like, progressive atlas like The Verge are like, yeah, this seems to be for women only.
	What do women want?
	Oh, no, it's conservatism.
	It's like...
	They want men who act like men who treat them like women.
	Kind of, yeah.
	And they want relationships.
	They want to be happy.
	They want to, you know, fully realize the sort of female teleology.
	You know, get married, have kids, have a successful husband and a strong relationship.
	So far from their description, I'm, you know...
	Fully on board with this.
	If women want to learn how to, you know, get good old-fashioned relationships, that's fine.
	And if they want to get advice on how to deal if they've got a partner who's abusive, either emotionally or physically, this sounds perfectly fine so far.
	It's not very progressive, though, is it, Harry?
	They're not promoting polyamorous couples on a female dating strategy.
	They're not promoting how to trans your kids.
	Yeah, there's no question of what a woman is on FDS, right?
	But it is remarkable how they get to.
	But they say the sexual conservatism of their approach can be oppressive to women.
	These women are busy oppressing themselves.
	They've figured out whole strategies.
	They've got a handbook on how to oppress themselves.
	I don't like sleeping with lots of random dudes.
	Oppression!
	Well, they say women are encouraged not to disclose their sexual history to partners or have sex too soon because they believe no man would ever love a woman who has sex quickly.
	Poster-backed sex workers can be incredibly whore-phobic with comments on one post saying that abusive men should see sex workers instead of normal women.
	So it's deeply reactionary is what they're claiming.
	Similar conservative guidelines, such as Don't Rush into Sex, Let Him Take the Lead, were promoted as dating advice in books of the 90s and 2000s.
	Female Dating Strategy even has a page dedicated to FDS-approved dating books.
	These dating advice books and FDS mirror generally repressive norms about women's sexuality, and they're specifically about women policing other women's behavior in the name of winning a man.
	So...
	What they're saying is that there's an underlying reality to being a woman, and when stripped of all of its sentimental value, this is what women arrive at, and it's not progressive.
	Interestingly, this incredibly critical perspective The Verge is taking on this whole thing is reflective of what Connor and I discussed when we were talking about, when we did a book club on Louise Perry's The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, which is very much from a woman's perspective.
	She spoke often about how Say you could go back to some time in the British Empire, I forget exactly what it was, possibly the late 1800s, when we had colonies in India.
	And to make up for the fact that there were lots of just lonely men out there, a lot of people rounded up lots of poor and disadvantaged Indian women to be used as basically sex slaves in brothels, which is...
	Very bad stuff going on right there.
	And there was a particular woman, I forget her name, who organised to try and prevent this mistreatment of the women and get them released from these places.
	And how contemporary feminist critique of this critiques the woman trying to save the women for upholding oppressive, conservative, reactionary sexual standards.
	These women should have just been grateful to be getting all the sex they could have wanted.
	Aren't you happy?
	Happy as a sex slave?
	Ask the modern feminist.
	It's just symptomatic of how these people, these women, turn to these feminists and go, like, actually, I've tried the whole sleeping around thing.
	It makes me really miserable.
	I feel lonely and isolated.
	And they go, you just need to sleep around more.
	Well, that's the thing.
	This entire subreddit, this entire movement, this philosophy, is a consequence of the sexual revolution and the negative effects that this has had on women.
	This is women coping with the fact that men are no longer obligated to have long-term commitments to them and still expect sex.
	And so much of the female dating strategy handbook, and go to the next one, they have a whole handbook on this, right?
	They have an ideology, right?
	They have an entire strategy for dealing with the consequences of the sexual revolution.
	Now, in your grandmother's day...
	I like, number one, be a high-value woman.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Great advice.
	But in your grandmother's day, she would not have had to worry about this, because, as Jordan Pearson would have put it, they had enforced monogamy, socially enforced monogamy.
	So everyone got married, and then you were just married forever, right?
	And that's what these women are actually looking for.
	Because what underpins all of this is a fear of being hurt.
	It's actually tremendously sad.
	Of course.
	But I like the combo of one and three there.
	Be a high-value woman.
	Number three, most straight men aren't relationship material for you.
	Basically means find a high-value man.
	Just find a man who's going to treat you right.
	Yeah, that's exactly it.
	Not somebody who's going to treat you like a whore.
	So, this is be a high-value woman, as in have standards.
	And much of this is dedicated to women having standards for themselves.
	Now, the language they write in is very similar to the manosphere language, where it's not treating the person they're dealing with as a complete human being.
	They're not thinking in an emotional way.
	They're not thinking sentimentally.
	But they're not necessarily wrong either.
	And it's...
	Getting past the sort of blunt way that these things are described is difficult for progressives, obviously, and just regular people as well.
	But once you get behind it, you see, oh, actually, these are people, this is a defensive strategy for women who are kind of on their own and don't want to be.
	I've found, I say often, it's the sort of experience that you probably haven't had coming from a different generation to me, that I've got lots of female friends who I've seen ruined by the fact that they don't value themselves, their self-esteem is shot, and then they get with men who recognise that, these are very scummy, low-value men, who then exacerbate that by treating them like a hawk.
	and so these women with low self-esteem, it becomes a loop where they just live up to the expectations of their terrible partners and it's very horrible for people.
	- Much of this is dedicated to try and break that loop. - That's good. - I'm actually remarkably sympathetic to all of this.
	When I first started reading through it, I thought, oh my God, look at this.
	Then I realized what was happening.
	I was like, oh my God, these poor women actually.
	This isn't the product of a conservative society is what I'm saying, right?
	So they have an ideology, which is be a high value woman And that obviously means, and as they say, if a man isn't chasing you, he's not that into you.
	That's absolutely true.
	This is what courting was.
	A man would be actively courting a woman.
	And so they're like, yeah, I'm not going to bother with just some guy on Tinder or whatever who I have to message.
	Of course, most men are going to be in this category, so don't worry about them.
	As women, we have the responsibility to be ruthless in our evaluation of men.
	Again, it sounds...
	Yeah, a bit harsh.
	It's true, though.
	But it's not wrong.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Also, for men, how are you going to improve yourself if you don't have women holding you to standards?
	Exactly.
	And we know that men are happy to sit there and go, well, okay, then I'll work the minimum number of hours, go home, drink beer, play on my Xbox, forever, without women's expectations.
	Men are miserable in this as well, because there's no meaning.
	There's no goals to strive towards.
	Yep.
	Number five, and this is just...
	You can see why The Verge is furious.
	Don't have sex before commitment has been established.
	Verge editors screeching.
	Yeah.
	It's like, but that's good advice for women.
	Don't have sex with a man unless you're in a relationship with him.
	Ooh!
	Ooh, crazy!
	You know?
	And again, like, you can see this is the product of bitter women, right?
	This has been put together through various posts that women have made on the internet.
	So it's kind of crowdsourced, right?
	So it's crowdsourced from the collective pain of women who are looking for traditional relationships that have been denied them by the sexual revolution.
	It's genuinely tragic, actually.
	I do kind of find the idea amusing of feminist women discover secrets to happiness as monogamy.
	Well, these aren't feminist women.
	That's the thing.
	These are women who have been damaged by feminism.
	Well, that's the thing.
	They might have been in their younger years, but now they have certainly grown out of that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, yeah, absolutely.
	And a lot of them have clearly been...
	I think they feel debauched by this.
	They say, if a man is really into you and sees you as girlfriend material, he will commit to you in two months or three months max.
	If you're looking to have a dependable friend with benefits, you must still require investment from him so he provides you with the respect and fun times that you want.
	Again, look at that.
	The entire point is how to get commitment from a man.
	Also setting appropriate boundaries.
	And to get it within three months maximum.
	This is what the women are looking for.
	To bring it back to personal experience again, that's what happened to me, which is that if a man is really into you and sees you as girlfriend material, he'll commit to you in two months.
	And that was my experience when I got with my missus, is that two months in, and I remember being absolutely terrified...
	To do this was the first time I told her that I love her, which is the first, which is a massive step up in commitment.
	And she had been so sort of conditioned by this culture that we live in that when I said that to her, she freaked out.
	She just looked me in the eye and said, no, you don't.
	No you don't.
	Why not?
	This is exactly the result I wasn't looking for.
	But, you know, a few hours later she turned around and said it back to me.
	She'd sort of come around to it.
	But the very fact that just a man who you've been with for two months says, you know what, actually, this relationship's going well, I do love you, is such a shocking thing for young girls nowadays.
	And this is genuinely what this is all about.
	And the thing is, again, it's written from the perspective of broken people on the internet, but you can see what's broken them underneath.
	So chapter one is establishing queen energy from day one.
	But that sounds bad.
	It's put in a funny way, but...
	But what they could be describing is essentially establishing the boundaries that your grandmother would have enforced with her husband.
	You know?
	This is entirely what it's about.
	It's about reclaiming the dignity that your grandmother's had for modern women, because this is what feminism has stripped away from them.
	No, you will be essentially a free prostitute.
	You will go to a club, you'll get drunk, you'll have sex with a couple of men every week, and then by the end of that, you won't even know why you should have value.
	What's your self-worth as a woman after that?
	You know, that's what these people here are trying to get away from, and I don't blame them, you know?
	Now, I'm not saying that, like, they are essentially at war with men, because obviously there's a certain sort of class of man who has been taking advantage of the secular revolution, and they're the ones mistreating them, promising them, yeah, yeah, yeah, we'll go hang out, and then they don't call their blockchain.
	The Hugh Hefner types who promoted sexual liberty back in the 1960s, totally for the benefit of the women, not to make his available pool of women larger.
	Exactly.
	And for most men, they always complain it's 20% of men getting 80% of women on dating apps.
	Well, for most men that's bad, but also for the women who are sharing this 20%, getting their hearts broken over and over, what's bad for them too?
	But anyway, they're very awake to what the difference between men and women are.
	So here's one quote.
	Always remember, men do not have access to sex 24-7 like women do.
	They will deliberately try to get your guard down and get in and get what they want as quickly as possible, even with zero interest in you as a person.
	Keep this in mind when he comes out with flattery.
	He needs to prove his worth over a set amount of time before you get excited and emotionally invest.
	That's Chad from the dating app just trying to get in your pants.
	And you're like, yeah, but does he actually like me?
	No, he doesn't like you.
	Thank God feminism has done this to you, though.
	Right?
	Like, that's terrible.
	And so, basically, it's...
	It comes down to all women really want is to be cherished by a man.
	That's really what these people are talking about.
	And it's sad that they can't have it.
	I'm actually going to skip over a bunch of it because it's 200 pages long.
	So it is actually a thing.
	I quite like Girl Game Part 4, which is, no excuses date until commitments establishes, and have a selection of men on the go until one man commits to you.
	It's not that I like that, it's obviously terrible and tragic, but you can see the mindset that they're in.
	It's genuinely this kind of combative, scared, responsive mindset.
	Well, I mean, from the very beginning, the sexual revolution and contemporary feminism teaches them to treat men as opponents and competitors in everything.
	So even when they're rediscovering sort of traditional and old-fashioned virtues, they're still having to approach it from that frame of mind because that's all they've ever been taught to do.
	Chapter 18, don't move in with a boyfriend.
	You're not auditioning to be his wife.
	If he's serious about you and doesn't want to lose you, he will propose.
	It's all about securing commitment.
	That's what female pickup artistry is about.
	Chapter 22, keep your heart on lockdown.
	Don't think about him.
	It creates an unhealthy dependence on him mentally.
	Make sure that he doesn't have a hold on you, basically.
	It's quite sad to hear that.
	Isn't it?
	It's terribly, terribly sad that this is what feminism has spawned from women.
	An entire class of women who have just been heartbroken From the sexual revolution and now need to read this sort of stuff to understand the way that they have to craft themselves to be able to survive in this kind of environment.
	I think it's terrible, right?
	But anyway, they ended up abandoning Reddit and now have their own website, which is thefemaledatingstrategy.com.
	They have a forum on there.
	And again, it's very much the female mirror reflection of the manosphere because you get like, you know, Lots of bitter women who have been obviously hurt over and over, complaining men are evil, men are this, men are the other, women are great.
	Fine.
	Once again, having encountered and seen the effects that many of the types of men that these women will be relating to firsthand, I can understand if you're going on dating apps expecting to get good results out of that and only meeting those sorts of people, I can understand how you would get that sort of mindset.
	Even people I've seen go down routes with people who have basically catfished them and led them on, like they're trying to get a committed relationship.
	These are kind of the more patient types who will then sleep to them and immediately blank them, ghost them.
	Yeah, it is really terrible.
	And so it's not surprising that there's a selection of women who are kind of stewing in their resentment and finding themselves hating men.
	In the same way you've got a bunch of men who are screwed over by divorce courts or anything like that, and incels who can't get a woman, who are stewing over women.
	These are the casualties of the sexual revolution.
	And it's just terribly sad to see.
	And you get posts like this one, who is just like, oh, I was crying in my eyes out because I read the handbook and I realized that this completely represents everything about me.
	And she's like, suddenly I'm repulsed by men.
	I'm not surprised because look at the men you've been dealing with.
	You've been dealing with the 20% on Tinder or whatever that have been making you feel like you are not sufficient because frankly you're not.
	You're just part of the playground for them.
	Yeah, I mean, that's an interesting one as well.
	Secondly, I've realised I'm a huge pick-me.
	I pander to men.
	I try so hard for the man that I'm saying.
	It should be the other way around.
	Yeah.
	It should absolutely be the other way around.
	No, the men should be the ones trying to court you.
	Yeah, but you are, and I hate to say this, you're obviously trying to punch above your weight.
	Potentially.
	This one was probably, on average...
	A five or a six, because that's where most women are, someone between four and six on average, and they're seeing like seven or eight or nine guys, and they're like, yeah, you'll do for a night.
	Just saying.
	And yeah, he will just go, yeah, you'll do for a night, yeah.
	And again, just to be clear, there are lots of them that are just angry with men.
	Like, stop being fair to men.
	You know, men don't care about you.
	They don't give an F about what's fair to you.
	He's busy thinking, or not at all, about what is easiest and most convenient for him.
	It's like, right, I can tell the kind of guys you're busy dating on Tinder.
	But that's how it affects normal, average guys as well in a negative way, because the fact that they're in this bubble where they only interact with scumbags makes them think that all men are scumbags.
	And to be clear, there is a female dating strategy that is not just women against men, it's also women against women.
	There was a thread that was going around Twitter that I saw.
	I was going to go through it, but I don't think I'll have time now.
	By Marie here.
	How's still someone's boyfriend?
	A thread.
	Alright.
	It's dark, actually.
	Are we sure we don't have time for this?
	I'm curious.
	We can if you want.
	I don't want to be preyed on, after all.
	Well, no.
	Actually, this is good advice for men to know.
	And, again, men...
	The relationship with a man is the prize.
	Because women are the gatekeepers of sex, but men are the gatekeepers of commitment.
	She says, That leaves you, a single woman, nothing wrong with you though, apparently, you know, single woman, nothing wrong with you, with a desire to start a family with only one option, stealing someone else's boyfriend.
	That's quite the leap.
	The most important thing to start out is maintaining plausible deniability.
	Don't be too upfront.
	Just enter a sphere with a friend.
	Talk only a little about your other dates, your family, your hobbies.
	Find out what he likes and get interested in those things.
	So if a woman comes up to me and is like, yeah, I love one.
	We know what's going on.
	I know what you're up to.
	I know what your tricks are.
	I've seen your games.
	Dig in about his current relationship.
	As a woman, you know how it feels to be sad and frustrated, so help him channel that negative energy.
	Find out what his girlfriend is doing wrong and make him fixate on it.
	But remember plausible deniability.
	Don't say anything bad about her yourself.
	As you dig deeper into a relationship, mould your personality to his alleged likes and dislikes.
	His girlfriend argumentative?
	Be agreeable.
	His girlfriend is dumb?
	Be an intelligent girl boss.
	Don't like the way she cooks?
	Same me too.
	As you get closer to him, ask him to introduce you to his girlfriend, either online or IRL. Get close to her and start sowing seeds of discord between them.
	This is just evil, isn't it?
	I'm so sorry.
	This is so insidious.
	Someone tried to do this to me in university.
	I bet they did.
	They really did.
	I bet they did.
	Thankfully, I could see through their womanly wiles, but it is very interesting.
	But this is the thing.
	What Marie here is doing is actually...
	She's not inventing this.
	I've seen this happen multiple times.
	All she's doing is spelling out for women.
	Again, female pick-up artistry is not just women against men.
	It's often women against women.
	She's basically just going, well, here's what you're probably doing already.
	Yes.
	Well, yeah.
	That's how she ends, actually.
	But anyway, she says, you know, make it seem like he lied or did something stupid or said something bad about her.
	Make it seem like you're on her side.
	As you're simultaneously destroying their confidence in their relationship and also being their only comfort, things are going to get tricky.
	He's going to try and make a move, but you cannot let yourself be the other woman.
	He has to break up with her before physical stuff happens.
	If it just can't be helped, you have to show immeasurable guilt and shame and force him to break up with her.
	He can't see you as easy.
	You must show that you have morals and values and hate breaking your own moral code.
	You were just overwhelmed with passion for him.
	This is so evil!
	Oh yes.
	This is incredibly evil.
	You've got to be the best actor.
	You've got to have a Daniel Day-Lewis-esque performance of guilt and shame.
	And I just want to be clear.
	This is not a product of the sexual revolution.
	This was going on.
	This is time immemorial with women.
	The previous ones hurt people because of what feminists did.
	No, no, no.
	This isn't that.
	This is just your typical woman flavour of evil.
	Just when women are evil to women.
	A manifesto.
	Anyway.
	The only problem now remains is the ex-girlfriend.
	Now, if you've done your job correctly, she kind of hates him now anyway, and you're free to drop out of her life before you make your shiny new relationship public.
	Notice how she doesn't view the man as having any agency in this.
	He's not responsible for any of this.
	I think what she's also recognising is that to a certain extent, men can just be led by the nose by women.
	Easily.
	I'm sorry to say, blokes, but we are really morons when it comes to this sort of stuff.
	We have not thought this through like they have.
	Convince her to block him.
	Drive at home that she's too good for him.
	Then send a couple of men that you rejected her way.
	Then start...
	Then start a petty fight with her.
	Tell her she's toxic and end the friendship.
	A very important part of all of this is that no one can know what happened or else the whole relationship is publicly tainted.
	Again, what other people think matters here, right?
	People will think bad things about your future family and it could affect your progeny for generations.
	Wait a few months before making things public.
	Even if you disagree, you should all thank me because this is the way of the world and now you're all more enlightened and aware of how things work.
	That is dark.
	That is really dark.
	I think she is right at the end there.
	There are definitely women who do this.
	Yeah, there is a major truth to this thread.
	And as a man, it actually is good to have it all spelt out, because as I said, halfway through, just realising, oh wait, someone tried to do this to me.
	Yes, gentlemen, be aware or be next.
	Alright, let's move on.
	So, Carl, I don't know how you feel about this one, but I, for one, welcome our PayPal overlords.
	I mean, I'm not thrilled about the idea of an unaccountable social credit system being...
	The dominant factor of our economic life online.
	Too bad, because it's already been implemented pretty much.
	The only thing that they're missing is the will to actually just go ahead with it.
	Just to throw aside all phoniness and all sorts of subtlety and just say, okay, we are evil overlords, we control the finances, we control everything, and you have to submit.
	Yes, we're evil.
	Yeah, if they just go mask off, but they've just not quite got there yet, because at the end of the day, Silicon Valley and all of these tech companies are still run by spineless nerds.
	They don't feel they've quite got the tendrils in yet.
	Yeah, when their rich, spoiled, chaddy kids end up taking over the companies, that's when we'll get the true tyranny.
	Don't worry.
	But this is all stuff that I have discussed recently in my video, Central Bank Digital...
	I really should have shortened this title.
	Central Bank Digital Currencies are the Next Step to Social Credits That is true, though.
	Yeah, and emphasis on the PAL there.
	It becomes increasingly easy to control the population and control what you're allowed to do.
	And I explored this through the subject of Black Mirror's episode 15 Million Merits.
	I don't know if you've seen that one.
	I have.
	It's also relevant to the one where they've got the app that you can rate each other and give each other a star score.
	It's also relevant to that sort of stuff, but it's a good demonstration of how, if you control how people get money, if you can control To control what people can spend money on, etc, etc.
	All of a sudden you just control them in their totality.
	But anyway, moving on to the relevant subject itself.
	PayPal recently released a new policy update where they announced that they were going to pull $2,500 from users' accounts if they promoted misinformation.
	I mean, that's just the most evil thing I can imagine.
	And that's mask off.
	Yeah.
	And they really scrambled to get the mask back on.
	I mean, A, 2,500, that's an incredibly large and arbitrary amount.
	If it was 15 pounds, it'd be too much.
	Well, if it was any amount, but two and a half grand, especially given that most people probably at any one time don't necessarily have that much in their account, especially one that they have hooked up to PayPal.
	But of course, secondly...
	That could put you into an overdraft and screw you over with your bank as well.
	Absolutely.
	But of course, secondly, who's the arbiter of what misinformation is?
	How are they going to fact-check this?
	Who imbued them with the authority to make sure that nobody is allowed to say something incorrect?
	Well, misinformation just means not approved by regime experts.
	Yeah.
	It's the expert class that the regime has got at the moment.
	Whatever they say goes, if you disagree with them, sorry, you're not allowed your money anymore.
	Not even when you're not allowed your money.
	We're going to take your money.
	Yeah.
	This is worse.
	But Daily Wire writes here, The Financial Services Company, which has repeatedly deplatformed organisations and individual commentators for their political views.
	Was it you that they deplatformed at one point?
	They've deplatformed most recently the Free Speech Union.
	Yes, they mention that in here.
	Misinformation.
	Yeah.
	It will expand its existing list of prohibited activities on November 3rd.
	Among the changes are prohibitions on the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials that promote misinformation or present a risk to user safety or well-being.
	Users are also barred from promotion of hate, violence, racial, or other forms of intolerance that is also discriminatory.
	So no one can use PayPal now because I don't think anybody is entirely innocent of any of those online.
	Black Lives Matter, not the platform from PayPal.
	The company's current acceptable use policy does not mention such activities, and the policy only applies to actions taken using PayPal's platform.
	So supposedly if you're sending money to a friend or family and you go, here you go, N, you know, I know you needed that money, G. Here you are.
	Then you get taken off.
	But we know that that's not how these...
	We know that's not how these things actually work.
	What happens is...
	That's a really funny way of doing it, to be honest.
	A little message with the money you're sending over.
	Yeah, here's some money and then just racial slurs.
	It'd be funny.
	I think we should, as a...
	I mean, don't do it, obviously, because PayPal will take you down.
	As an active protest, perhaps someone should consider it.
	It's just funny.
	I mean, you know...
	Yeah, but we know that that's not how it actually works.
	It doesn't only get applied if you're on the platform and it's done using the platform.
	Obviously, they'll check your other social media.
	If you're some kind of part of an organization that's high profile or if you're a high profile individual yourself, if there's anything that you do that's remotely...
	John's saying we need to start paying our salary with that.
	I agree, Carl.
	Maybe.
	Carry on.
	Alright.
	But no, they'll take a look at all your other socials, and if anything controversial happens that is related to your name, they'll just take you straight off.
	Including the Free Speech Union.
	What was it that they were defending recently?
	Free Speech, I presume, yeah.
	Which apparently is misinformation, according to PayPal?
	Oh, I don't think it was the Free Speech Union per se, actually.
	I think it was Toby Young's Daily Skeptic.
	Ah, yes.
	Which they had been critical of verboten subjects on social media.
	Of course, but they say, and if you're wondering about who gets to decide it, how it gets decided, well, they'll just say, deliberations will be made at the sole discretion of PayPal and may subject the user to damages.
	So we decide what's misinformation and what isn't.
	Just making this up, let's pull this out for us.
	Yeah, two and a half grand, we get to decide.
	Isn't it great to have all the power in this relationship?
	And those damages can include the removal of $2,500 debited directly from your PayPal account.
	And of course, if you don't have the money in your account already, they'll take it straight from your bank account, which could screw you over if you don't have the money.
	I know, it's pretty...
	How could we be really evil?
	We haven't been evil enough today.
	We need to be more evil.
	Company's user agreement contains a provision in which account holders acknowledge that the figure is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal's actual damages.
	So what they're saying there is they could up it.
	But damages!
	PayPal has been severely damaged because someone we don't like used our servers.
	If I ask for proof, do they just send me a picture of their offices crying?
	Due to the violations and damage to the company's reputation.
	Right.
	So if a Nazi uses PayPal to transfer money to his mum or something, but like, oh, well, I mean, you know, PayPal's reputation has been so damaged.
	Well, that's the thing.
	No one thinks, oh, well, PayPal is an evil platform now.
	That's ridiculous.
	No, it is ridiculous and it's obviously just an attempt to punish political enemies.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And make money.
	Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, if they try to do something like that, it's just theft and it's completely unacceptable.
	But I got some stats up about PayPal.
	Just to...
	Remind everybody how powerful an organization they are and how far-reaching a decision like this can be, because currently they've got 429 million registered users as of 2022, according to Statista, which is very interesting because that's larger than the population of the US. 87.5% of online buyers use PayPal.
	PayPal had $5.46 billion in net revenue in 2020, so it's probably gone up since then.
	PayPal accounts for 22% of online transactions in the US.
	PayPal has invested $500 million in Uber.
	It shares its users' data with over 600 other companies, but they swear that it's all done encoded and all that sort of stuff.
	We make sure to protect your data.
	Share.
	Yeah.
	Share.
	And they also own another payment processor called Venmo, which handled $12 billion worth of transactions in 2020.
	So imagine a world in which you spread misinformation, whether you know at the time or not.
	Apparently you can't know because it's at the sole discretion of PayPal.
	It might change tomorrow, but who knows?
	And then all of a sudden, you can't use an Uber.
	They steal two and a half grand from you.
	And then you're cut off from using 600 other companies.
	And this is the kind of web that they create with these gigantic financial services.
	And why all of a sudden, when they control all of your finances, you can suddenly be shut off.
	From a lot of places in life.
	But the article carries on, saying, Under existing law, PayPal has the ability as a private company to implement this type of viewpoint discriminatory policy, according to Aaron Turr, a senior program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
	Whatever motivation PayPal has for establishing these vague new categories of prohibited expression, they will almost certainly have a severe chilling effect on users' speech.
	As is often the case with ill-defined and viewpoint discriminatory speech codes, those with unpopular or minority viewpoints will likely bear the brunt of these restrictions.
	It's like PayPal is being run by Dr. E.
	Evil.
	I just generally assume that everywhere is nowadays.
	Whatever their motivation.
	Well, I'm guessing world domination.
	I mean, it's pretty globalist.
	So wasn't his organisation, his cover organisation, called something like Global Corp or something like that as well?
	Probably.
	So if you follow all these, it's probably some gigantic mega corporation with a bald guy with an equally bald cat running it all.
	Some sort of moon base.
	Yeah, and they carry on.
	They explicitly say what you were talking about there.
	So the move comes after PayPal cancelled three accounts linked to Toby Young, a commenter who runs a non-profit called the Free Speech Union.
	They defended people like Russell Brand, who has said verboten information, as you said, regarding certain So, PayPal is...
	Run by evil paedophiles, apparently.
	Pals with Nambler?
	I assume.
	That's what I'm taking away from this.
	But at this point, they are just, like, not to...
	No pun intended here, but they are just rubbing it in our faces?
	That they just can control us now at this point?
	Total domination.
	The only reason that they decided to back away from keeping the Toby Young affiliates off the platform is because of the criticism they received.
	If they had...
	Threats of legal action, I imagine.
	I would imagine that.
	Changing the law.
	But if they decided that they wanted to fight against these sorts of things, they probably would have the financial and legal power backed up to do it.
	They just decide not to, because they're cowards, and that's the only thing we could really rely on at the moment, is the fact that they're cowards.
	I mean, you'd think that just governments would start legislating.
	If they're in the interests of their actual citizens, they'd be like, we're just going to not allow that.
	Well, you know, if, say, somebody like Ron DeSantis was in charge of the US right now, or Donald Trump, Donald Trump would probably start legislating it.
	If I was in charge, I'd start legislating against this BS, to be honest.
	But they did eventually backtrack.
	After all, it was only an accident...
	That they put that information in the newest update.
	Just a mistake, guys.
	I know this has been written out by a team of lawyers, and it's detailed, it's two paragraphs long, and it's explaining exactly what you can't do, and if you do, and what we're going to do.
	How did that get in there?
	Listen, for that section, we had a bunch of monkeys with typewriters, and it just happened that way, guys.
	Copy and pasted from there.
	You know how it goes.
	Yeah, it happens easily.
	Oh, absolute bull!
	They only announced, of course, that it was a mistake after Elon Musk and a bunch of other notable businessmen decided to come out and say, hey guys, that's evil.
	Don't know if this might surprise you or not.
	After Hank Scorpio has to come out and be like, maybe.
	Guys, this is going a little bit too far here.
	So they reversed their decision to find the users for violating terms of services after Elon Musk and a former executive left a furious backlash against the move on social media.
	Elon Musk, of course, used to be, I think, an executive.
	He helped found it.
	Yeah, he did help found PayPal as well.
	So he's still, by the sounds of it, got some influence and say in the organisation.
	Well, I mean, he's got 100 million Twitter followers, so...
	That also helps.
	In a tweet Saturday, former PayPal president David Marcus spoke out against the new policy.
	It's hard for me to openly criticise a company I used to love and gave so much to, but PayPal's new AUP goes against everything I believe in.
	A private company now gets to decide to take your money if you say something they disagree with.
	Insanity.
	Agreed, wrote...
	Sorry, Marcus, you're the president of PayPal.
	Former president.
	Oh, former president.
	Right, okay.
	So who's the current president?
	I don't know, actually.
	Literally Dr.
	Evil, probably.
	I assume so.
	But I find it funny, because Elon Musk, you know, you can criticise him, but he's a bit of a dissident in the Twittersphere.
	And one of the other co-founders of PayPal is Peter Thiel, of all people.
	Noni Arvin Associates.
	Can you imagine them both looking at their company going, what did we do?
	What have we created?
	Well, I imagine they're all sat there thinking, we shouldn't have sold that, really.
	I shouldn't have sold it.
	I'd be like Frankenstein looking at my monster that I've created going, what have I done?
	But this is why, I genuinely think this is why Zuckerberg isn't giving up his shares in Facebook.
	It's because look, look at what happens.
	Who's got control of it now?
	Look at what you've created.
	You've created this giant monster, and at least when you were riding on the back of it, you had some measure of control, so you could stop it from steamrolling through a village or something.
	Who can stop PayPal?
	If nothing else, Facebook is at least nowhere not as extreme as Twitter and other organisations like this.
	And Facebook isn't threatening to just take thousands of dollars off me for promoting misinformation.
	Not yet.
	Well, they've got no function to do it.
	Not yet.
	Once they're hooked up to PayPal and you have to pay a monthly subscription to use the service.
	Although, if they did that, they'd go out of business.
	Thank God.
	Yeah, but the criticism from Marcus and Musk, who was on the board of directors and briefly CEO of PayPal during its early days, were at the front of a furious backlash to the proposed policy.
	Get your money out of PayPal right now, said venture capitalist David Sachs.
	The misinformation police are now extending their reach beyond your social media accounts and into your financial accounts, said Vivek Ramazwamy.
	PayPal probably isn't protected by Section 230, so it could face legal liability in states with political non-discrimination statutes, which is a good point.
	The backlash prompted PayPal to walk back the new policy.
	An AUP notice recently went out in error that contained incorrect information.
	So you must have had like 30 lawyers poring over this who are being paid six figures a year.
	So do they get held accountable?
	I guess like Chris Carver, they just couldn't read either.
	Yeah, but this, you know, PayPal, yeah, so this went out in error.
	This has cost us probably billions of dollars.
	Are we going to fire anyone for that?
	No, no one's going to get fired.
	No.
	Because this didn't go out in error.
	The only error is that you went too quickly.
	You thought you have the power to do it now, and you are surprised by the backlash.
	I mean, that is a good point because give it a few months and they'll probably try and slip something else exactly like this in again and it just will try to be worded in a way that's not as high profile.
	PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted into our policy.
	It just happened to fall there.
	Somebody slipped and knocked the page into the documents.
	Our teams are working to correct our policy pages.
	So, despite this obvious BS, I think we should all just recognise that PayPal's an enemy.
	I don't know how else to describe it.
	There's no other way to look at them.
	PayPal is controlled by enemies, anyway.
	Yes.
	And until such time as we can recognise that they are no longer run by our enemies, we just don't use them.
	Just don't use PayPal.
	For your own good, really, because who knows when they are going to implement this absolute nonsense policy, and all of a sudden you could be in the crosshairs.
	So get off PayPal, and just a reminder of the sorts of things that can happen when, you know, big financial companies are able to control the flow of money and what it can be used for.
	Earlier this year, nice reminder, GoFundMe seized the funds of the Canadian protesters after the protesters went outside and did their best geese impersonation at the Canadian Parliament.
	PayPal is wide awake and has a will of its own.
	And this was taken over by Give, Send, Go, who took the money instead and processed it for the protesters, which was very nice of them.
	It's good to know that there are companies that do believe in free speech and have our backs, but this is the danger of these gigantic financial companies.
	Because remember what it is that they're going to classify as being misinformation.
	It's not going to be, say, you calling the earth flat or something like that.
	Not that you should be punished for saying such a stupid thing anyway.
	It's going to be ideological attacks.
	For instance, how long until J.K. Rowling starts to get financial sanctions placed against her?
	Well, she is being discriminatory against trans people.
	I know, and she's misrepresenting the D-trans.
	She's just using those D-trans people as a political tool to further her own narrative.
	There's no interest I'm in asking if their breasts will grow back after a mastectomy is concerning.
	They're really doing these surgeries on people who don't know what the F is going on.
	Now that sounds like misinformation to me, being spread by the people telling them that it'll be absolutely fine.
	She carries on with a little quote under here where she's saying, oh, people are questioning whether this is true.
	If you scroll down, John.
	The comment below was posted by a detransitioner I know in real life and whose truthfulness and integrity I can vouch for.
	The first time a young detrans woman asked me this, my jaw hit the floor.
	She thought once she came off T or once her estrogen levels returned to normal, she'd grow her breasts back.
	I agree with PayPal here that somebody should be punished.
	Somebody should be punished at the very least.
	But I feel like I would disagree with PayPal on who needs to be punished.
	Whoever is feeding these poor people such wrong information should be in prison, at the very least.
	And Boston Children's Hospital also spread some misinformation recently when they said that kids know that they're trans from the womb in a video that they subsequently deleted.
	Interesting.
	Babies don't know anything.
	No, of course.
	But this is very interesting, because if you recognise what's going on here, they say that a good portion of children know their gender identity from the womb.
	So this means, given a level of awareness, that if you're in the womb, you're alive, you're a baby, you're a human being, so surely doing certain things would be a murder.
	Good anti-abortion argument there from the Boston Children's Hospital.
	Yes, thank you for reinforcing my arguments.
	And Jon Stewart also has become an arch...
	Arch misinformation fighter by spreading misinformation on the medicalisation of transitioning young children.
	Oh, really?
	Did he say that it's not permanent and can be reversed?
	Close enough.
	Close enough.
	He delved into the national conversation surrounding gender ideology in his latest episode of The Problem with Jon Stewart.
	And I want to know what the problem is as well.
	I love the title of the show, The Problem with Jon Stewart.
	Oh, there are many.
	There are many.
	We could do a deep dive on this at some point.
	We should do a deep dive.
	Yeah.
	In doing so, he fully endorsed medical transition for children and teens.
	That's one of the problems with Jon Stewart.
	There you go.
	He's an insufferable woke retard, for one.
	He spoke to Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General for Arkansas, and went into the interview with the idea that he needed to re-educate her, that he was an expert on gender dysphoria in trans youth.
	Arkansas had banned the practice.
	Based.
	Based Arkansas.
	To bolster his claims that drugging children who are experiencing gender dysphoria is the appropriate treatment.
	I do like the way that they're framing it in the post-millennial.
	Taking no prisoners with this framing.
	Yep.
	Stuart cited medical experts at the American Medical Association who have called on Biden's Department of Justice to censor and suppress those who speak out against the medical gender transition of minors, claiming that this is misinformation.
	And there you go.
	And you can see the tweet that I've got next, where they were actively promoting this as well in the tweet over, where they're like, oh, I spoke to this woman and asked her about why her state banned gender-affirming care for minors, ignoring the guidelines of major medical organisations and taking the decision out of parents' hands.
	So he's calling for rule by experts.
	Oh, you're taking the decision out of parents' hands whether they want to castrate their children or not.
	Yeah, we're taking that decision out of their hands.
	Good.
	You know what?
	The state might also take the decision out of parents' hands whether to smother their babies, for instance.
	We might take that out of their hands as well.
	You know, we're going to make the decision for you.
	Don't do it.
	But, obviously, PayPal is going to support this kind of spreading of misinformation and not the other kind of spreading of misinformation that they deem to be misinformation because they think this is absolutely fine.
	Because we are under a regime, ladies and gentlemen, a regime that hates you.
	So get away from PayPal.
	Get away from all those sorts of financial institutions.
	And hope for the best, I suppose.
	Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	Hey Carl, if you get back on Twitter, any chance you can give me a boost?
	In all seriousness though, you guys need to do a deep dive on NuScale SMR technology.
	You're going to love it.
	Once again, that's NuScale.
	Don't mess it up, Callum, or you know what's going to happen.
	Callum's not here right now.
	No, but NuScale?
	I've never heard of it.
	I haven't either.
	I couldn't actually hear most of that video when it was going on.
	So what was he talking about?
	New scale technologies.
	Do you want to just Google that?
	New scale technologies.
	It might be something quite interesting.
	We'll go for the next one.
	While Fran Leibowitz identifies as a mild form of feminist, she is a democrat on the liberal, i.e.
	extreme, end of the scale.
	However, that doesn't mean she's incapable of high thought.
	My favourite quote of hers is, the opposite of talking isn't listening, the opposite of talking is waiting.
	If one quote could capture the malaise with the legacy media and the attraction people have for the long-form interview style of new media, then I'd say it is that.
	Fair.
	So, judging by the description that I've got on here, New Scale Power says it's a publicly traded American company, designs and markets small modular reactors.
	So you could get a nuclear reactor in your pocket.
	Yeah, my McNuclear reactor.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So there was a recent story about them euthanizing a 22-year-old survivor from one of those ISIS bombing attacks in Belgium.
	She was a white woman, obviously.
	And I wonder if we're ever going to get a demographic breakdown of who gets the euthanasia diagnoses from these left-wing doctor institutes.
	I wouldn't be surprised if they view this as reducing the number of high-cost patients who are competing with the vaunted new Europeans, who are naturally most deserving of the healthcare that all the taxpayers are paying for.
	I mean, that probably is the case, but I just think the idea that...
	She was 23, if I recall correctly.
	The idea that in Belgium, they're like, yeah, we should euthanize a 23-year-old because she has depression.
	Oh, I saw that as well.
	I mean, Canada, I've done a segment on it before, what is it, one in six deaths in Canada now is a voluntary euthanasia.
	Voluntary being in many, many, many quotes.
	Although, if I have to see more pictures of Rachel Levine, I might take voluntary euthanasia.
	Why must I be tormented with this?
	Such an evil regime that rules over us at the moment.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Tony D and Little Joan with another legend of the Lotus Eaters.
	This one is from Thang Scotty of Swindon.
	So we're back in Swindon with the Frake Arms and it is a bar in Swansboro.
	It has a ghost of a 17th century woman with ankle-high blue boots.
	It has a strange shadow.
	It has coffee cups moving and names being called out.
	But I'm most excited about the dog menu.
	You can bring your dog there, Joan.
	I finally have a reason to bring Joan to England.
	Yeah, but we've got quarantine.
	Do we still?
	I'm sure we do still have it.
	Well, I'm hoping to go on holiday in January.
	No, I mean for pets.
	Oh, for pets?
	Yeah, for rabies.
	Oh, fair.
	When I lived out in Germany when I was younger, we had a dog and the dog would have to come back.
	You've got to spend like six months in quarantine.
	Bloody hell.
	Yeah, it's rough.
	But, you know, it's to prevent rabies from getting here.
	Oh, that makes sense.
	But, you know, I've been to that pub.
	It's nice.
	I didn't notice any ghosts when I was there.
	Well, I'm going to have to check it out on the weekend now, and I'm going to have to take all of my equipment with me so that I can prove you wrong.
	Yes.
	What are they using Ghostbusters?
	The little meter thing.
	I forget the name of it.
	I know they've got, what, EMF readers in real life?
	Those things that really pick up, definitely pick up actual ghosts.
	You know, you wave them about, you get a spooky voice through the radio.
	I'm convinced.
	Let's go to the next one.
	On my notes to most people in the West, there is a movement in some parts of the Arab-speaking world known as de-Arabization.
	This initial process started during the Lebanese Civil War, when Lebanese Christians often extinguished themselves as Phoenicians rather than Arabs.
	Such movements have also been seen in Egypt with terrorism, Iraq and Syria with Kurds and Assyrians, and even North African nations like Libya and Morocco, which the latter have been caused by the rise of Burmaism.
	I think that's pretty based, actually.
	I've never heard of such a thing, de-Arabization.
	I need to look into that.
	Perhaps we could try something like that in Birmingham.
	We actually don't have many Arabs in the UK. Let's go to the next one.
	Hello there.
	Our government workers unions have just received a pay offer from the government itself at 6%, the way things are working over here.
	We don't think we're going to get anything better, especially seeing so that our government is the biggest employer on the island.
	The amount of services they have to provide, especially to be comparable to what it is in the UK, we aren't going to get any better, so it looks like we're going to settle.
	Back pay will give me a nice holiday, hopefully.
	Well, 6%.
	Better than what anyone else is getting, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Maureen says, how about people holding themselves accountable for once?
	From what I've...
	From what I've read, the Carver family took a step back after viewing the police footage.
	I understand they must have been upset, but the public figures and organisations who immediately jumped to conclusions have tried to demand answers the whole country needs to hear while demonising the police made themselves ridiculous.
	Well, that's the thing.
	You're the mum and the dad who watches the footage.
	Oh, jeez.
	Oh, bloody hell, Chris.
	One last embarrassment.
	Why don't you?
	But again, he's been in jail.
	He's obviously been involved in other firearm offences.
	He's been involved in gangs since he was a teenager.
	You can go back and find on YouTube, there's like Maddox freestyle raps from 2015, 2016, where he's just got a hood on, he's doing that weird little groove moves that they do.
	And he's just, the entire freestyle is him just threatening people.
	Presumably people from the postcode over.
	I don't know why they want to live like that.
	I know so little about the actual internal psychology of the subculture.
	I couldn't tell you why.
	Maybe it's just what they're born into.
	Yeah, it must be.
	I mean, the guy had a dad, so we can't...
	Yeah, it's not fatherlessness.
	Yeah, we can't say it's fatherlessness.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, if you want to see the worth of society or a movement, just look at who they display as their heroes and martyrs.
	Yes.
	Lord Nerevar says, it seems he is the British George Floyd, though, a queer criminal who got himself killed and was blamed on police brutality.
	It's like for like in my eyes.
	Well, I mean, the guy, like, you know, George Floyd, like I said, he wasn't doing anything at the time, you know, and I don't think he was killed by police brutality either.
	No.
	But he wasn't doing anything.
	The only thing I'd be interested to hear is if part of this inquest we hear about whether he was high at the time or not.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, I'd be very interested.
	I wouldn't be surprised.
	If he was on Flint and all of them, fair enough, you know.
	Andrew says...
	Absolved!
	No, no, then he is the George Floyd.
	Andrew says, these racial activists blatantly pushing false narratives really ought to be held liable for the inevitable damages from their inflammatory language.
	That would be nice, but they won't be.
	Ewan says, this child of his is going to have no hope.
	The mother and his parents will be whispering poison in the child's ear about how even white people are.
	Yeah, and then he'll be stabbed by a black kid around the block.
	And then they'll be blaming white people on that as well.
	Don't know what you can do.
	Ewan Baker, great shot too.
	American police would have fired 20 shots each.
	That's right, our police don't normally use guns, but when they do, they're damn good at it.
	Robert says, have the police tapes been released yet?
	If not, why not?
	Great question.
	No, they have not.
	Based Ape says on the female pick-up artist, Yes, exactly.
	Ignacio says, the effects of the incel crisis being felt right now.
	The full effects of the relationship drought for women will be felt in 10 to 20 years, and I regretfully think it will result in a massive peak of depression and suicide.
	Yeah, because at the moment these women are still dateable.
	These women are still in the 20s and 30s thinking, I can still find a man, I can still find a man.
	When they're approaching 50, they're going to be like, well, that's it.
	Yeah, once again, I worry for some of the people that I know, because I am not seeing them set themselves up for a good future.
	I saw...
	I'm not going to name any names.
	I showed this to Michael yesterday because it was a case of, well, if I saw it, then somebody else has to as well.
	I know a person who is a cam girl, and on her Snapchat story...
	I'm telling your wife.
	LAUGHTER On her Snapchat story, she had posted an email that she had received from a potential client asking her to humiliate him by...
	He was like, oh, if I appear on cam and you appear on cam, can you tell me to eat this plate of literal excrement that I have to humiliate me?
	Pleases and thank yous.
	Hope you have a great day.
	Can't wait to hear back from you.
	And if I was, you know, in any way romantically involved in a person like that, I wouldn't be.
	I just wouldn't be anymore.
	I don't know how you could look yourself in the eye or in the mirror.
	I'm starting to understand Callum's fascination with the Taliban.
	The West is degenerate.
	Yes.
	Very, very degenerate.
	Alexander says,"...women relearning to be women and not whores.
	A step in the right direction.
	However, the elephant in the room is how the legal system injects itself into male-female relationships." As long as a woman can still make an accusation against a man and ruin his life with no evidence required, men will still be avoiding relationships in not insignificant numbers.
	I know at this point in my life I just don't see myself ever wasting time trying to have a relationship with a woman.
	I'm happy by myself and don't have to worry about a woman getting upset with me for whatever reason, having the state steal half my paycheck to give to her as compensation for not liking me.
	Yeah, I mean, this is the one area where the feminists have clearly decided, actually, we don't need that, because, like, okay, well, you want everything to be equal.
	Okay, well, then no one's giving anyone alimony or child support or anything like that.
	It's equal.
	You've got your own job.
	No, not that kind of equal.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Not that kind of equality.
	Maureen says, dating or starting a relationship with the same mindset as if you're going to war seems a bit obstructive.
	Seems a bit destructive to me.
	Exactly.
	This is the problem with the female pick-up artist.
	They're not femme cells.
	They're the kind of relationship cells.
	There is some good advice, but I can very well see how some individuals will take this too far and end up alone because they refuse to make a reasonable compromise.
	But yeah, don't invest in people who are not appreciated and do the same.
	Yeah, that is exactly right.
	But again, it's the pain that underpins all of this that I found interesting.
	These are casualties of the sexual revolution, without a doubt.
	Jossie says, regarding the second segment, imagine here a picture of Grandma...
	Undies.
	Underneath, I assume I mean.
	With text nice...
	Oh no.
	Imagine a picture of Grandma in undies.
	Yeah, with text nice lingerie.
	This is the garment your Grandma wore to catch a man, have a bunch of kids, and live happily as a housewife outside the squirrel cage.
	I'd happily be that Grandpa.
	Yeah, exactly.
	that your grandmothers had all this sorted out because they weren't feminists.
	The Onuses on You says, about chasing women, I met my wife when she was attending a French learning camp.
	She lived 400km away then went back for three weeks after we met.
	I travelled the distance to be with her for a weekend, now happily married with a family for 12 years.
	If we were interested, we will chase.
	Yes, exactly.
	Women, get off the dating apps.
	just get off the dating apps George says funny how many male pickup artists get backlash and deplatformed while women openly stating how to manipulate men and use relational aggression are celebrated gynocentrism is a hell of a drug also the much demonized manosphere includes MGTOW and MRAs who are much different than PUAs as in their advice is actually useful yes I don't know anything about any of these spheres because I don't really partake in any of them so I'll take your word for that
	Yeah, well, the pickup artists are very much like the female pickup artists, but just to have sex.
	The MGTOW are the sort of, you know, 40-year-old guys who have been screwed by the divorce courts, and a particularly unsympathetic woman using those divorce courts to take everything they have.
	And so now are just like, oh, I'm not going to get in a relationship with women.
	And the men's rights activists are the ones complaining about the divorce courts being unfair and asking for a sort of liberal equality, saying, well, look, you know, men are also people with rights, and so maybe the divorce courts shouldn't screw with men.
	So, you know, the pick-up artists, I think, are a part of the problem, but the MGTOW and the MRAs are genuine...
	They sound like people with genuine grievances.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They are.
	Anyway, Charlie says, about the female pickup artists, I saw a subreddit dealing with femcels, female incels, and what they were talking about was near exactly the same as what the male incels have been complaining about.
	Makes you wonder why we don't just set up dadism and mumism courses for these people to start on the right path.
	Yeah, I mean, maybe I should.
	Maybe that's something for the future.
	Lotus Eaters courses.
	Lotus University.
	Robert says, establishing queen energy is exactly the same as saying to a guy that he's a king.
	The queen needs a king.
	Yeah, but it's about a person who has self-respect.
	That's what it is.
	And it's not the wrong perspective to approach at all.
	I think especially many young men and many young women nowadays could do with a bit more self-esteem because they're all just miserable and hate themselves.
	Look, self-esteem comes from self-respect, right?
	Like, these women who have got, like, double-digit, like, you know, Andrew Tate got in trouble for saying, you know, double-digit or triple-digit body counts by the time they're, like, 25.
	You don't have any self-respect.
	Like, there's...
	What about you?
	Do you look at it and go, yeah, I've done a good job there.
	You know, there's nothing.
	And so it's...
	it's just sad to be honest Alexander says female pickup artist is this just telling what other women if you want to hook up with the guy just walk up to him and ask want to have sex no as we explained As effective as that would be.
	Oh yeah, but that's not what they're looking for.
	They're not getting the relationship.
	Do you mind doing a couple because my thing hasn't reloaded?
	Yeah, yeah, of course.
	So, on to PayPal.
	Omar Awad says, Segment 1, how to screw yourself.
	Segment 2, how to screw men.
	Segment 3, how to screw your customers.
	Sensing a theme today.
	I mean, we can be a bit blackpilling sometimes, I will admit.
	Although I'd like to think that Segment 2 was a bit more hopeful, if only because we're recognising that there are women out there who are...
	Yeah.
	Slowly, but they are starting to reassert themselves, like you say, gain more self-respect.
	Casey Darling says, Since when are financial institutions responsible for my safety and well-being?
	Since they got all of your money and decided that that's what they wanted to be.
	This is where society is led when we abdicate personal responsibility and embrace the nanny state.
	I wouldn't actually even necessarily say that it's related to the nanny state.
	I would just say that this is the situation of a gigantic financial institution wielding far, far too much power.
	Paul Newbar says, who gave PayPal the authority to steal money from people?
	PayPal did.
	Stuart Beresford, PayPal need to rebrand.
	Not your pal, buddy.
	That would work.
	Heathcliff Flohan says, close my PayPal account.
	Feels good.
	I think I'm going to as well.
	Omar Awad, there's a video of Rand Paul asking Congress that if they want to censor misinformation, they should first think about who the largest distributor of misinformation is, the government.
	Yeah, Alaska is kind of a typical libertarian.
	That answers nothing, solves nothing, and protects no one from anything.
	Like, okay, Rand, but at this point, right, it's actually useful to use the government to legislate that PayPal can't just steal money off you, Rand?
	I think Rand does push for legislation on these things, but you're right.
	I hope so.
	That sort of statement is true.
	Sure.
	It's true and accurate, but when you're playing politics, it's not really going to get you anywhere to just say that.
	It's like walking up to, I don't know, Hitler or Mussolini and just pointing at them and going, you know who's the real bad guy?
	You!
	Yeah, exactly.
	I like Rampal, and I don't disagree with libertarian instincts, but there's got to be a sort of realistic calculus where it's like, look, we need to use the government to stop them from killing us.
	Well, the fact of the matter is, you've got to play politics against those who are going to play politics against you.
	Exactly.
	There you go.
	Alpha of the Betas says, Canadian truckers were called Nazis in Parliament because honk honk is an acronym for Heil Hitler.
	I remember this!
	Genius!
	Days later, they got their bank accounts frozen.
	PayPal's policy is reflective of Canadian government policy.
	Not surprising.
	I saw them using the clown from online, like the little Pepe the Clown with the clown nose.
	And literally them being like, yeah, this means Heil Hitler.
	And it's like, it's literally an online clown.
	It's literally a clown going honk honk.
	And you're like, there we go, Nazi.
	I know.
	Ross Diggle, I just wanted to mention this one.
	George Floyd was trying to use fake money.
	This increases inflation.
	Only the government is allowed to do this.
	That's right.
	Derek Chauvin was just an agent of the state.
	Lord Sverigy.
	We need to go Deathcom 3 on PayPal.
	Yeah, we need to get yay on this business.
	Who cancelled yay, guys?
	I tell you, he did nothing wrong, though, did he?
	No, he didn't.
	He didn't do any...
	He asked a simple question, and all of a sudden...
	Same one, Elon Musk, who controls the media?
	Kanye West, who created cancel culture?
	All these questions.
	Jokes aside, Free One makes a good point here, though.
	You hit it on the head, they want world domination using finance as one of the tools.
	Current governments are co-conspirators.
	Absolutely.
	Seems the way.
	But we're out of time there, folks.
	So if you want to see more of us, you can go to lowsees.com, sign up, support the podcast and support the show, keep everything going, and check out premium content.

▲