Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

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

01:30:32

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #545

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 14th of December 2022.
	I'm joined by Stelios.
	Hello again.
	And today we are going to be talking about how, yes, they are transitioning children, and you need to stop lying that they are not.
	What I think is just the antinatalist war on reproduction for the sake of the planet, and how neopronoun TikToks are, of course...
	Total cringe, and I thought we'd enjoy some of those together.
	But right, let's just get straight into it.
	So there's a line of thought on progressive internet, what shall we call it?
	Progressive Twitter, the general progressive sphere that, no, no, we're not transitioning children.
	But if we were, it would be a good thing.
	And we should continue doing it.
	And we can see this everywhere.
	And I'm just really sick and tired of it.
	Because we've got plenty of their own studies and their own materials and their own funding can be traced to show that in fact, yes, they are transitioning people who are not only under 18, but under 16.
	And I'm sorry, I just think this is totally morally wrong.
	And these people are setting the young people that they are Doing these surgeries on, up for a life of deep regret.
	Exactly.
	And there is plenty of new evidence about detransitioners that it seems to me that Biden and his progressive elite do not take into account.
	They don't want to even hear from them, do they?
	They're very happy to be paternalists against adults, but for some reason they're anti-paternalists against children.
	Yeah, it's weird, isn't it?
	I always say, oh, that's paternalistic.
	It's like, well, when it comes to, say, you know, children, maybe that would be a good thing.
	Yes.
	Anyway, before we start, we have a new book club on lotuses.com, which I do think you should check out.
	It's Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
	Have you read this?
	Yes, I have.
	It was some years ago.
	It's interesting.
	I was a libertarian some years ago.
	Yeah, Nozick's a libertarian for anyone, isn't he?
	But he does have very convincing arguments against state control, which I thought were good, and you should probably know.
	He's got a famous phrase, any capitalist act or something like that.
	An equal society has to prevent any kind of capitalist act or something like that.
	I can't remember the exact...
	I think the main idea was to present a Kantian defense of libertarianism and it's interesting because he did this at a time when John Rawls' A Theory of Justice was very prominent and this is considered to be one of the major responses to it.
	And that's good because John Rawls is full of S. Anyway, I'm not a fan of Rawls at all.
	He's just nonsense.
	Let's begin back in January 2021.
	Joe Biden takes office and he starts signing a flurry of executive orders.
	And one of the first ones that he literally signs on day one is an order that would allow subjective gender identity to take priority in schools.
	The administration said that children should not be concerned about being denied access to the restroom, locker room or school spots.
	So Biden implicitly says, yes, there are such a thing as trans children.
	I don't know if I agree.
	And the studies show that somewhere like 90% of trans children detransition upon going through puberty.
	Of course, this changes their body.
	Exactly.
	And he seems to buy into one side of the story, and he isn't very interested in to listen to the transitioners talking about their predicament.
	No, not even slightly.
	And he's not even concerned about the impact that this will have on women as a discrete biological category.
	As Abigail Schreier, in fact, if you scroll down to this, they've got one of her tweets in here.
	She says, on day one, Biden unilaterally eviscerates women's sports.
	Any educational institution that receives federal funding must admit biologically male athletes to women's teams, women's scholarships, etc.
	Yeah, that's totally true.
	It's radical.
	It's a really extreme position that Biden has here.
	And so moving on, he appointed Rachel Levine to be...
	I can't remember the exact position she had, but it's...
	I'm annoyed that I can't remember this.
	I should be able to just summon this.
	Is it a substantial position?
	Secretary for Health.
	That's it, yes.
	Secretary for Health.
	Sorry, I can't believe I escaped my mind for a moment there, right?
	The Assistant Secretary of Health.
	So it's just like, right, so he's put someone who...
	Now, I'm not saying Rachel Levine is, you know, there's anything wrong with this person.
	But what I am saying is this person has a deep personal investment in the concept of transgenderism and promoting that in order to validate their own worldview.
	So it's not someone you could ever say is neutral on the subject.
	No.
	And this gender-affirming care is very controversial, even by people who identify as trans.
	Yeah, it's about as controversial as lobotomizing.
	Yes.
	Because in many ways it's very analogous to it, in fact.
	But anyway, recently Rachel Levine delivered an impassioned call to action to an audience of doctors at the Pitt Pediatric Grand Rounds Lecture, calling on them to become ambassadors for science, ambassadors for compassion, and ambassadors for care.
	It's just caring to encourage children to go through gender-affirming treatments.
	And it's interesting because there's this idea of subjectivity and this focus on self-determination and self-identification, which is entirely subjective.
	And it's weird now to hear Biden saying that doctors should be objective and a focal point of information to children.
	How are they going to do it if they are placed into the position where they just have to accept whatever the patient says?
	There's no metric by which you can judge them to be right and wrong.
	It is just, I say, therefore, that is correct.
	And I'm sorry, but, like, as a father, I'm just telling you, children say a lot of things that are not correct about themselves, about the world, about everything.
	And I've come to the conclusion, actually, that, actually, children don't need more choices.
	Children need guidance.
	That's what they need.
	They don't need an unlimited array of options.
	What they need is, like, two or three options, just pick one and go.
	I think yes, it's a good idea to start habituating kids into choosing, but we shouldn't pretend that kids are adults.
	The whole idea of education is to raise children to the level of adults.
	And that's exactly the crux of the problem here, isn't it?
	They're treating actual children as if they are fully formed functional adults, which they're simply not, and this should be recognized.
	There's a weird egalitarianism behind it that focuses...
	Takes age off the equation, and we are suddenly called upon to treat every individual in the same way, regardless of age.
	Yeah, and it goes the other way as well, doesn't it?
	We're supposed to treat Biden as if he's compos mentis, which, sorry, you know, age has an effect on your cognitive abilities.
	If you're too young or you're too old, that is simply a fact of life, unfortunately.
	But it is weird, isn't it?
	isn't it?
	Because I do wonder, like, they do view it as a kind of conception about rational faculties.
	And they think, okay, as soon as someone can be shown to have some sort of rational faculty, then it's as if they are now part of a club, you know, this sort of Kantian kingdom of ends, where it's like, right, you're in the club now, and therefore, even if you're 13, but you're still quote-unquote rational, then fine, you're just as capable as every 35-year-old.
	Which is to underestimate experience.
	Massively.
	Because experience is not something that is equal irrespective of age.
	But also, like, the rational capacity of a 13-year-old technically seems quite adult until you realize that they still don't really have, like...
	control over themselves in the way that an adult does.
	Yes.
	And it's easy to think that we're infallible.
	Oh, yes.
	And one of the things that experience teaches us is how fallible we are.
	Yes.
	And it's difficult to get this message across to teenagers.
	Who think they know everything.
	Yes.
	And apparently Biden thinks they also know them.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That's exactly right, right?
	They think they know everything and Biden's like, hmm, that's a good point.
	Maybe you do.
	It's like, maybe they don't actually, Joe.
	But anyway, Rachel Levine carries on, right?
	She's like, these conversations don't have to be limited or restricted to a medical setting.
	Offer yourselves as informational resources, not just for youth, but for school teachers, principals, school boards, professional organizations, recreation centers, county commissioners, and others who would benefit from this information from your perspective.
	So go and propagandize.
	Be a preacher for this new religion everywhere you go.
	Please proactively seek opportunities to speak about what you know.
	Our task is to educate the public in as many forums as possible.
	We need to have these conversations that question the assumptions that are underlying today's attacks on trans people.
	Pushing back the veil of ignorance demands extra effort.
	It is weird because on the one hand this message is towards doctors.
	but they are told that they shouldn't act as doctors.
	Yeah, they're definitely being told.
	Because subjectivity triumphs biology.
	So they're just called upon to be mouthpieces of the central narrative and this ideology that Biden's elite wants to push forward.
	Yes.
	But more importantly, I think, is the presupposition of correctness here and the framing of...
	The laws that prevent doctors from interfering with the natural development of children are viewed as, quote, attacks on trans people.
	Yes.
	No.
	We have not come to an agreement that there are such things as trans children.
	And also, preventing someone from making a mistake or putting a restriction on them I mean, okay, when they're 18, 20, whatever it is, okay, well, if you want to start doing things to your own body, it's your body, you're an adult, you're free to do that, I suppose.
	But before you are able to give what we would call informed consent, if the left cares about such a thing anymore, that's not an attack on trans people.
	It is an easy way though to create enemies.
	It is, isn't it?
	Yes.
	To create the justification for their jihad.
	Exactly.
	And create enemies and create victims and try to foster this mentality of victimhood that is the exact opposite of the effort to foster a mentality of empowerment.
	Where we try to tell people that you have to raise your faculties in order to solve your own problems.
	We are basically faced with a narrative that tries to victimize people and tell them that the only way to get ahead in life is to find progressively more eloquent ways of describing their plight.
	And like you say, it creates a cause for war, doesn't it?
	The people against us, well, they must be evil.
	They're attacking trans kids.
	Why would you attack trans kids?
	You're just evil.
	And it's like, well, no.
	We're actually trying to prevent you from getting at children and doing something to their minds, which in fact we'll cover in the third segment, that might not be good for them.
	But anyway, so just to keep building this up, Biden recently came out and attacked laws preventing doctors, progressive doctors, from interfering inappropriately with children and their development.
	Let's watch.
	When hospitals, libraries, and community centers are threatened and intimidated because they support LGBTQ children and families, we have to speak out.
	We must stop the hate and violence, like we just saw in Colorado Springs, where a place of acceptance and celebration was targeted for violence and terror.
	We need to challenge the hundreds of callous, cynical laws Introducing the states targeting transgender children, terrifying families, and criminalizing doctors who give children the care they need.
	We have to protect these children so they know they're loved, and we will stand up for them and say, I can seek for themselves.
	Isn't that remarkable?
	It is.
	These doctors, man, there's never been a doctor in history who's done the wrong thing acting on the science.
	And it shows, I think...
	Sorry, I had the blackout.
	That's alright.
	But the thing about this for me is just like...
	The way that Biden is framing all of this is exactly as you say.
	Basically, Biden is declaring war by his framing.
	He's saying, no, look, it's all good as on our side, all evil as on the other side.
	As Saul Alinsky would put out, this is exactly what the American revolutionaries did, stigmatizing the British Empire.
	Exactly, and it shows how...
	Anti-dialogue Democrats are.
	Oh, yeah.
	You cannot call yourself a Democrat while claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is evil.
	And this concept of democracy, but you're Satan, so what now?
	Exactly.
	This concept of love is really weird.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's...
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	Because, again, I have to speak from the position of a parent.
	Because I love my children, I'm not going to let them just do crazy things.
	Like, for example, my son, given the option, would play video games all day, every day, and he wouldn't think it was wrong, and...
	This would be his primary impulse if he's just sat around at home.
	And if I were to take Joe Biden's approach towards what he calls love, I'd be like, yeah, go ahead, son.
	And he'd be very happy and for a while anyway, but it would get him nowhere in life.
	He would be completely illiterate.
	He would be completely addicted to these things.
	He would have no experience of the outside world.
	It would not be good for him in his long-term true interests.
	The thing is we can learn from our mistakes, but the kind of parenthood you're describing, which I think is a healthy one, is also based on the premise that we can learn from the mistakes of others and experience and fallibility frequently go together.
	So this is a way in which we can actually teach our children about the mistakes we made and make them actually learn from our mistakes so they don't have to repeat at least all of them.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But that's the point, isn't it?
	Biden's view of love is basically just indulgence.
	You know, it's to spoil the kids.
	It's like, oh, give them all the sweets they want.
	Give them all the video games they want.
	Do whatever it is they think they immediately want.
	But through the judgment of a child.
	So, okay, but I have the judgment of 43 years of experience.
	And I'm telling you now that there are other consequences because I have been through various, you know, various interpretations of these consequences.
	I've seen it.
	You know, there are other reasons to not do these things.
	Exactly.
	That's what Biden is avoiding.
	Yes, exactly.
	And it's an easy way to be seen in a positive light.
	It seems to me that Biden works like those grandparents who want to spoil children.
	He is old and he seems to be the nation's grandparent.
	Yeah.
	And this, it's easy for him to appear this way, but...
	This only works within a family where parents are in control.
	Because I can see Biden's speech there.
	He's like, you know, we just need to give them the love and protection they need, and therefore we need to give them the sweets before bedtime.
	Exactly.
	And I, as the parent, said, okay, look, I know you're going to get all of this adoration from your grandchildren, but I then have to try and get them settled for bed.
	Exactly.
	So I'm not giving them sweets before bedtime.
	I'll be the bad guy here.
	I'm fine to be the bad guy here.
	But it's not in their own personal interest when their teeth are rotting out of their head to give them every sweet that they wanted.
	But it's not being a bad guy.
	I know.
	Exactly.
	It's just putting order.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's about establishing order.
	And the reason we establish order is for their long-term interests.
	Exactly.
	You would be annoyed at us if we didn't do this in 20 years' time if you don't have a single tooth left in your mouth.
	Exactly.
	So this is the main framing that is the problem.
	But what I'm showing you this to demonstrate is there's no lack of intention for these people.
	They absolutely want what they call trans kids to have access to gender-affirming surgery and care.
	They want them to have the hormone blockers.
	They want them to be able to get the surgeries.
	They want society to To treat them as if they are what they claim to be.
	And so the people are saying, oh, this isn't happening.
	Okay, why wouldn't it be if all of the people who are controlling these institutions and the processes that are involved in it are all totally in favor of it?
	Why wouldn't it be, right?
	And so that's just setting up, okay, who are we dealing with?
	We're dealing with a system that is staffed by people who want this to happen.
	And so going on, okay, well, do we have any evidence that they're actually doing it?
	And the answer is yes.
	Loads of it, right?
	This is from the National Library of Medicine, if that's a credible source for you.
	This is from 2017, right?
	They say, this study's called Age is Just a Number.
	WPATH-affiliated surgeons' experiences and attitudes towards vaginoplasty in transgender females under 18 years of age in the United States.
	It's not looking good, is it?
	Right?
	They say, a rising number of female-affirmed transgender adolescents are being treated with words I can't pronounce.
	Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs.
	Yeah, gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs and subsequently cross-sex hormones at early or mid-puberty.
	Early or mid-puberty?
	So that's like 12 or 13.
	This sounds wrong.
	Yeah, that's like 12 or 13, with vaginoplasty as the presumed final step in their physical transition.
	But despite their minimum age of 18 years defining eligibility to undergo this irreversible procedure, anecdotal reports have shown that vaginoplasties are being performed on minors by surgeons in the United States, thereby contravening the World Professional Association for Transgender Health stands of care.
	Right, so in 2017, they knew that this was happening, but they didn't know how much.
	And so let's fast forward to 2022, shall we?
	Because we have a single-centre case series of gender-affirming surgeries and the evolution of Speciality Anesthesia Team.
	This is a study about the Boston Children's Hospital.
	In 2022, this was released when they show us exactly how much, actually.
	So just a quick few things from this.
	The primary objective of this retrospective case series is to examine the perioperative characteristics and outcomes of patients with gender identity disorders who underwent chest reconstruction and genital surgery in a pediatric academic hospital.
	Boston's Children's Hospital is a pediatric academic hospital in the United States, running gender affirmation surgery to patients aged 15, to 35 years of age, including gender-affirming primary and multi-specialty care.
	Blah, blah.
	And so the important part is on page three, I think, where we get the results, and so we can see the numbers of how many Boston Children's Hospital has done.
	They say, over the three-year study period, a total of 204 gender affirmation surgical cases were identified, 177 were chest top, and 27 were genital bottom surgeries.
	Most cases were masculinizing chest reconstructions, which is 177 out of the 204, which is 86.8%, and with 65 out of 177, so 36.7% of those being less than 18 years of age.
	So there we go.
	Over a third of Boston Children's Hospital's gender-affirming care was done on people who are below the legal age of ability to consent to this.
	I'm going to ask you a rhetorical question.
	Why did this not hit the news?
	You are right, that is a rhetorical question.
	Because we all know the answer.
	We all know the answer why this isn't being publicised.
	It's madness, isn't it?
	And the thing is, the average age was 18 itself, so that's just wild, isn't it?
	Roughly, I'm guessing, I should have read more into this, but this seems to be the pertinent bit.
	So, if the average age is 18, and 30% of them are less than 18...
	And surely the maximum age must be something like 21, 22.
	It can't be very old.
	It's not going to be someone who's 60, you know, a bunch of 70-year-olds getting gender-affirming surgery.
	So even if we go, okay, well, you know, that is bad, but at least most of them were done on people who are 18 years old.
	It's like, okay...
	I still have major objections to this, because I still think that 18 years old is too young to make these kinds of decisions, really.
	But that wasn't the question or the point that was being denied.
	The fact that it's just 36.7% of these are less than 18 years of age.
	I mean, okay, deny now.
	Deny this is happening to children now.
	Interestingly, it's happening to young girls, mostly.
	Most of this is young women who are being put through this ringer.
	90.7% of them were, quote, trans men, as in young girls who were confused about their gender identity and therefore got chest surgery, which 86.8% of it was chest surgery.
	So lots of confused young women.
	Yes, and it's interesting to see the effect that TikTok has on young women.
	Which we'll get to in the third segment, in fact.
	Okay, okay.
	Let's get this for later.
	No, no, no, it's fine.
	You are absolutely right.
	I think a lot of this is being driven by a kind of...
	A kind of cultural unmooring for young women.
	Because in previous eras, there were at least cultural instructions the young women received from the broader culture that say, look, you should probably do these things to get the best result out of your life.
	Because this is how a woman functions in a society.
	And those have been completely removed by feminism.
	And so now it's like, okay, where are you?
	What are you?
	What is a woman?
	I'm not surprised.
	So many young women.
	We can't define what a woman is now.
	So they're like, okay, well, I'll become a man then.
	At least I know what that is.
	Evil.
	You know?
	At least I can identify that.
	And so I thought I'd just finally finish this one up by going through Jennifer Bilek's sub-stack.
	Jennifer Bilek is a writer who's featured in Tablet Magazine, Postmillennial, and First Things.
	And she has done quite an interesting little dive into who's funding all of this.
	She says, gender identity ideology is not politically separate from business.
	Business is no longer separate from politics.
	We in Western civilizations, Western cultures, are governed by billionaires in finance who drive free policy through our political institutions.
	A facade of democracy shrouds the oligarchy we live in, just like gender performances and gender ideology shroud the capitalist profiteering from the colonization of human sex.
	And I like that term, colonization of human sex, it's true.
	So, she says, The
	fourth is Greenleaf Trust, the financial management company Stryker left to create Arcus Foundation.
	Cumulatively, these investment houses own Stryker Medical and hold influence over its operations.
	So we know who's funding it.
	We know who's in favor of it.
	And we know that they're doing it.
	We should also look at ESG. And now that it is a thing, it is a way to virtue signal.
	Now, okay, that's not telling much, but the socially responsible investing bit of it seems to me like a very easy way to say, look, as a company, I have a very socially responsible...
	It's a financial incentive to get people to genuflect towards this new religion.
	Yes.
	That's what it is.
	And it keeps people in line.
	I mean, this is why Elon Musk just tweeted out, ESG is the devil.
	He's right.
	He's absolutely right.
	Anyway, so these companies all completely agree with this.
	I mean, BlackRock stated that LGBT diversity is in their DNA. And it's just...
	I mean, it's hundreds of millions of dollars as well.
	So Authentic Brands Group was on the receiving end of $875 million of investment by BlackRock in 2019, and they own 50 brands...
	I don't know what's wrong with my speech today...
	Including Sports Illustrated, which now features on its covers not one, but four men claiming womanhood for themselves.
	So you can see that this is a massive amount of thing.
	And so I just thought I'd end with another clip of Biden from the same speech, where he's talking about those people who oppose trans and kids.
	Let's watch this.
	Racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia, they're all connected.
	But the antidote to hate is love.
	This law and the love it defends strike a blow against hate in all its forms.
	And that's why this law matters to every single American, no matter who you are or who you love.
	This shouldn't be about conservative or liberal, red or blue.
	No, this is about realizing the promise of the Declaration of Independence, a promise rooted in a sacred and secular Right.
	You can see there that he's coming from the position of radical liberal ideology.
	He's taken one, actually quite, you know, brief mention of equality.
	I think it's the only one, in fact, in the Declaration of Independence.
	The liberal presumption that...
	Physically, we are all quote-unquote equal as a baby.
	We're all born in the same way, and so there's no particular difference between us, and so status of rank and hierarchy shouldn't be imposed by social norms, which is what the liberals were arguing against in the 17th century.
	Not the same as in the 21st century, but he's not arguing or even vaguely concerned about the practical consequences and the realities of what is being done.
	No, and it's actually an easy way to put all the eggs in one basket.
	Yes, these movements can be connected, but they also don't have to be.
	And apart from this, it's interesting to see that Biden is trying to say that anyone who disagrees with him...
	Belongs to all these categories.
	Yes.
	Which is clearly not how to have a debate.
	But there's also a kind of self-confession in this, because you can always reverse what he's saying.
	It's like, well, where do the accusations and the identification of things like transphobia, racism, or the categories of bigotry that Biden's coming from?
	Well, these are all manifestations of the attacks that liberal ideology is making on the established society.
	You know, his radical liberal ideology.
	And so you can identify the people who are in coalition and doing the attacking on wider society and on children who they believe are trans in the same way that he's like, well, everyone who falls into these categories is basically a conservative and is connected to the real world and is not part of our radical agenda.
	He's not technically wrong, but also I think it really is a confession.
	But it is radicalization, because he's presenting conservatives as enemies.
	Yes.
	By definition.
	Yes.
	And, I mean, he literally says that we contain the love, you contain the hate, and so we have to defeat you.
	Yes.
	And love is the only way.
	Yeah.
	But it's a weird kind of love.
	Exactly.
	It's the weird, indulgent kind of love that a grandparent...
	And even then, I mean, you know, my parents wouldn't be...
	Like, there'd be a lot more, but it's the kind of excessively doting grandparent form of love, which is not healthy were it to be given full reign over your entire life.
	Anyway.
	May I make a comment about the DNA as being part of the diversity?
	LGBT as being part of the DNA of the diversity.
	It's interesting, but I think that at some point the DNA helix will not have guanine, ketamine, theamine, and all this.
	It's going to have lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual.
	I'm surprised they haven't done that.
	I'm amazed they haven't actually memetically made that up.
	At some point they'll make it.
	Yeah, well they will now.
	Anyway, that's that.
	Okay.
	Now, on to the next point, the antinatalist war on reproduction.
	The next trend we are going to discuss stems largely from academic circles in the Western world.
	For a thoughtful article of the current state of academia, let us check the article by Hugo Heathlode, The Downfall of the Universities, which is available for members on our website.
	Okay, so in the last decade, a warring trend gains increasing popularity in academic circles and popular discussions about climate change.
	Sadly, more and more people think that it is immoral to give birth to children because it harms the environment.
	Let us indulge by clicking the first link.
	Science proves kids are bad for Earth.
	I just...
	It's the next line, though, that gets me most.
	Morality suggests we stop having them.
	I mean, before we even go on, how ridiculous is this framing?
	So just for anyone who's curious, this is from 2017, wasn't it?
	It's not a new thing, but it's just one of those things that keeps coming up, and it's constant, like, background noise in the progressive sphere where they essentially are continually giving themselves reasons to hate children.
	Yes, and it accuses us of bigotry if we want to have children.
	And it has this wonderful subtitle.
	We need to stop pretending kids don't have environmental and ethical consequences.
	Because usually these are the conversations we're having with our spouses.
	Yeah.
	Ethical consequences of having children.
	That's amazing.
	Okay, so before we begin, let's just pick up this headline, right?
	Science proves kids are bad for Earth.
	Well, as Josh keeps ranting and raving whenever he sees headlines like this, science doesn't prove things.
	It provides evidence to suggest things and then we draw conclusions that we think are appropriate, right?
	So that's not true.
	But kids are bad for Earth.
	It's not true.
	There are two things to point here.
	First is that there's this idea that science, there's a difference between scientists and science popularizers.
	Science.
	Yes.
	And usually natural scientists, they're very much in favor of understanding their own fallibility.
	Science popularizers have to sell books.
	That's true.
	And of course, so does NBC News have to get clicks.
	But this, again, is a bad for Earth.
	Okay, let's take that position.
	We are adopting the conservative position for the objective object that is the Earth.
	I'm not really bothered about the Earth, to be honest.
	I think the Earth is going to be just fine either way, right?
	I don't think that having children is going to destroy the Earth.
	And this reminds me of an argument that I heard a while ago from, again, these fundamentally anti-human people.
	They're like, oh, we shouldn't mine asteroids.
	Why?
	We should leave the universe intact in its pristine natural condition.
	For who?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Who's appreciating it?
	If there are no people there, to be like, oh, look at this pristine...
	Like, the universe isn't going to start there appreciating itself.
	So it kind of...
	But it kind of creates this kind of deification and anthropomorphization.
	Exactly.
	It presents the Earth as a person.
	Yeah.
	Towards who we owe obligations.
	Exactly.
	We have obligations.
	Exactly.
	Like, it's literally like some sort of ancient Greek spirit of the Earth.
	The world's soul.
	Yeah, the world soul.
	Yeah, that's exactly it.
	Neoplatonism.
	Yeah, it is, right?
	And so this is what I showed with the Michael Knowles segment that we did on Monday.
	It's just like, look, actually, there are religious convictions underpin this way of looking at the world.
	And then morality suggests we stop having them.
	It's like, hang on.
	Morality?
	Morality is, again, as if it's some platonic form that just exists eternally, that can give us imperatives out of the ether.
	There's mental.
	There's no such way of looking at it.
	I mean, any human morality surely begins within humans.
	It has to, because human morality has to be viewed from a human perspective.
	Sure.
	Trying to view life from a God's eye point of view.
	Yeah.
	Risks the loss of our humanity.
	And this makes for the substitution of abstract considerations of humanity as opposed to focusing, viewing life from a human perspective.
	But it's also total BS. Not one of the people writing this is capable of taking on a universe view of the universe.
	Like, you can't look at the universe from the perspective of the universe.
	All they can do is look at the universe from the perspective of a human, because they are humans with eyes and senses, and that's how they get all their information, just like the rest of us, right?
	And so anyone who pretends that, oh, no, no, I'm taking the Earth's perspective on humanity, what they're really saying is, I'm taking my biases on what I think the Earth's perspective of humanity is.
	And so, no, I'm not...
	Like, this is just total nonsense.
	Before we go a step further...
	Are you sure you're not politically incorrect against the Earth?
	I'm definitely out.
	I think the Earth is here for us to exploit, thank you.
	What are its pronouns?
	Exactly, I don't know.
	Presumably she, her, but...
	But anyway, so I had to stop on that, because I just hate the framing of this entire thing.
	It shows you how just...
	It's such a bastardization of the way a person should think about the world, and suddenly they've arrived at the point where it's like, no, children have negative ethical consequences.
	It's like, no, they don't.
	You're sick.
	Let us see why the author says this.
	So I quote from the article.
	I'm not endorsing this.
	I'll just quote what I read from here.
	So don't tell me that I embrace these views.
	Okay.
	So, a startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics.
	According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change.
	The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.
	Okay.
	Childless academics They don't want to perform the physical and emotional labour of continuing their own species because it would simply be easier not to.
	And this is a post-hoc rationalisation of why it's okay that they are losers and childless in their old age.
	That's what I'm taking away from this.
	And you might be like, that's a strong statement, but I've met many of them.
	Because I used to work in the research councils.
	I can't disagree much.
	I mean, I was eight years in a university, I met many good people, but I also think that the profile you were describing is to an extent accurate.
	And the thing is, I hate to leap into Burke already, but again, if you were some highly intellectual academic who's like, well, listen, we need to talk about Women's unpaid labour.
	But what about the unpaid labour of the people you expect to produce the human beings you think you're going to pay for using your pension to take care of you in your old age?
	I realise that it seems strong for me to be like, look, I actually think you have a moral obligation to have children and continue your own civilisation.
	Because there are a lot of millennial feminists who are like, are you saying that I've done the wrong thing?
	Yes, I'm saying you've done the wrong thing.
	I'm not saying it's your fault, I'm saying that you were sucked into this, but you expect someone to be there to take care of you, and so you're relying on a certain kind of labour, the raising of children, that other people had to do, but you find yourself to be, in some way, exempt from.
	And I'm sorry, I just don't agree.
	So I'm actually taking quite a hard line stance on this these days.
	Sorry, that was radical.
	Go on.
	Let me continue the quote.
	And here is where it gets sad.
	Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well established.
	Oh, is it?
	Apparently.
	Oh, okay.
	Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world's wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment.
	Close quote.
	Too bad for the environment.
	Yeah, but if you're wealthy, and I'm willing to bet that they are going to add, if you come from the West.
	That's what they mean by wealthy.
	Because they're going to be like, well, your carbon footprint, it's three times higher than someone in Africa.
	Now, let's move on to the next link, because here is where ecology meets feminism.
	Oh, yeah.
	Again, I quote from the text.
	There's plenty of talk these days about forgoing children for the sake of the environment.
	But are people really opting out of the reproduction route?
	Reducing the amount of meat we consume, avoiding air travel.
	These are just some of the individual measures people can take to help reduce their carbon footprint and fight climate change.
	But of all the behavior changes people can make, one of the most effective, according to researchers at Lund University in Sweden and the University of British Columbia in Canada, Canada had to be in it.
	Is to have fewer children.
	Or just kill yourself when you get sick.
	To put it into perspective, a baby produces roughly 58 tons of CO2 per year.
	It's like an SUV or...
	I love it.
	I love it.
	In contrast, the combination of a vegetarian-only diet, minus 0.8 tonnes, stopping air travel, minus 1.6 tonnes, and cutting car use, minus 2.4 tonnes, saves approximately 4.8 tonnes per year.
	How the hell do they come to those conclusions?
	Those numbers?
	Cutting car use?
	Well, how much am I cutting my car use?
	Never using a car.
	But what if I use the car twice as much as a normal person?
	So now I'm saving 4.8 tons.
	Sorry, these are totally arbitrary numbers.
	But it's interesting to look at the difference because it shows that Baby production of CO2 is 10 times.
	I just don't believe that.
	It's more than 10 times.
	Yeah.
	But also it gives them an excuse to be saintly, doesn't it?
	It's like, look, I am not going to do the labor of continuing our civilization.
	I am just going to be saintly.
	I'm going to have my vegetarian diet.
	I'm going to reduce my air travel and car use.
	And then I can sit on my own and feel like I'm connected to the earth.
	I hate it.
	It's totally anti-human.
	Yeah.
	It's...
	Well, there isn't much to say.
	No.
	These people are lunatics.
	Let me continue with a quote.
	And while not having children, or only having one, to save the planet may seem a bit of a drastic recourse, it's an idea that seems to resonate with a growing portion of environmentally conscious young people.
	Whether they would actually...
	Put the idea into practice is another question.
	It's also difficult to quantify the impact of the discourse, but it's clearly an idea that is out there and that young people are taking seriously.
	I love the...
	Close quote.
	In the United States, these young people even have a catchy name, Ginks, short for green inclination, no kids.
	It's short for people who want to be kept in a permanent state of arrested development, because one of the reasons that you have children is so you can fully mature into being an adult.
	And they have a nice excuse for it.
	They do.
	I don't ever need to...
	I don't participate in the business of...
	Being a human.
	Being a human being and I invent this justification.
	And it's so obviously self-serving as well.
	It's like, oh, I don't want to have to have children because I'm just sat at home smoking weed and playing video games and doing all that.
	It's like, okay, yeah, sure.
	And what happens when everyone does that?
	Well, the civilization collapses and you don't get health care when you're old because there's literally no one to take care of you.
	Well, they could reach a state of epiphany with weed.
	Maybe.
	And maybe they'll change their minds.
	No, I'm actually on the South Park train when it comes to weed.
	It's not evil.
	It just makes you be okay with being bored.
	That's a great way of describing it.
	And I think it messes up with your brain cells.
	Oh, it probably does, but any drug does.
	But it's not intrinsically evil or anything.
	It just gives you a lack of motivation.
	An interesting thing to notice about this is that this kind of rhetoric is weaponized by the left.
	It is spread in universities, and it's interesting to raise some questions about it.
	So the message is, give birth to fewer children.
	But we can ask...
	Who is the messenger?
	Who is the recipient of the message?
	And what is the broader cultural context in which this message is spread?
	So the messenger is an environmentalist, let's say.
	Messengers are environmentalists.
	But they're also people in positions of academic importance, often.
	Here's a study we have done.
	Here is the data.
	Here's the science.
	So actually, you can filter this down to the person who's like, yeah, no, I don't want kids and I shouldn't have kids.
	Oh, it's for the Earth.
	And the ESG could be behind it because there's the environmental investing.
	We are actually contributing to fewer children being born.
	As if that's a good thing.
	It's crazy.
	So the recipient of the message is Western audiences, particularly students.
	And lately, and this is where the link between ecology and feminism comes into it, women occupy more places in academia than men.
	And the broader cultural context in which this message is...
	Communicated is the Western sphere.
	It is the sphere of countries that face dire demographic problems and are threatened with population collapse.
	This kind of rhetoric actually tries to justify and tell us that it is a good thing.
	That there is less of us.
	There are less of us.
	And also, you're going to be...
	Now it's majority women in universities.
	Okay, so if my assessment earlier that it's childless academics, post hoc rationalizing why they're going to be dying alone, and why they haven't done their duty to their own civilization...
	There are going to be a bunch of women now who are incredibly well credentialed, who are earning very nicely, but are also alone and are currently feeling a great emptiness inside of them that is the maternal instinct that they have been suppressing this whole time.
	And this gives them a framework to say, no, that is just me being selfish.
	That is just me being anti-environmental.
	That's me hurting Mother Earth.
	There's a profound insight into this because on the one hand, they glorify the earth.
	The earth is pristine and should be protected.
	But on the other hand, they are criticizing nature.
	They say human nature has placed us under the yoke of the tyranny of reproduction.
	Yeah.
	So that's a contradiction.
	That's a great point.
	We should protect nature which places under tyranny.
	Yeah.
	Also, if you think about it as well, there's nothing more natural than a woman giving birth to a child.
	And what's unnatural here is the stigmatization of children.
	That's just never happened before.
	Everyone everywhere loves their children and loves to have children because children, they genuinely do make your life better.
	And richer.
	And so, like you say, they're now stigmatizing nature in order to protect the earth, as if that's not nature itself.
	That's a great contradiction.
	I hadn't even seen it.
	Good spot.
	I hate to say it, but we're running out of time on this one.
	Okay.
	So, let us talk about...
	A case, let us end with a positive note.
	It's good to remind environmentalists of their glorious past, especially when they put their minds to work and they actually gave a solution to a problem.
	Let us remember the classic case of cow farts.
	Go on.
	Very high-minded.
	Yes.
	Let me quote from...
	Let us play the next video.
	I think the video can introduce this far better than I can do.
	Scientists are working hard to make cows, sheep, and goat farts less harmful to the planet.
	In 2015, agricultural researchers fed sheep seaweed.
	And as a result, their farts and belches contained 70% less methane.
	In 2016, another group gave garlic to cows and found a 50% reduction in methane.
	There are one and a half billion cows in the world, chewing, belching, farting and pooping, and each cow can produce up to 500 liters of methane per day.
	That's comparable to the amount of methane from an average car.
	Once in the atmosphere, methane helps keep the planet warm, making it one of the major culprits behind climate change.
	Reducing methane can drastically affect global warming.
	Exactly.
	So it is easy to get carried away by the fun of it, but there is an interesting thing to be noted here, that that was a problem, a perceived problem, and they put their minds to work, and they came up with a solution.
	The same thing happened with a person, I do not remember the name, but it's with cleaning plastic from the ocean.
	Oh yeah, yeah, I remember that.
	Yeah, he put his mind to work and he came up with a solution.
	So I think that rather than telling people that they shouldn't have children, we should put our minds to work and come up with a solution again.
	Rather than twisting ourselves to be evil husks of what a human being used to be, stigmatizing children.
	Have you ever seen the film Maleficent?
	Ah, no.
	It's a feminist retelling of the evil stepmother in Snow White, I think it is.
	But the point is, you can see that there's a kind of anti-child streak of cruelty in this film, and I just can't stand it.
	The idea that it should be a message that's promoted and just encouraged in any way is just totally awful to me.
	Yeah.
	I can't take it.
	It's important to end this by setting the record straight.
	The idea is that we are not going to forego parenthood in order to save the environment.
	The idea is that we should improve the environment that sustains us in order to live the kinds of lives that we consider meaningful.
	And for the overwhelming majority of us A meaningful life is a life with children.
	Yeah, it's a family life.
	Yeah, so I think it's important to set this straight.
	Oh, I think so.
	The family life is the victory of the average man.
	Yeah.
	So, speaking of people who never can have family lives...
	Let's talk about neo-pronoun TikToks, which seems to be quite a large cultural thing on a platform that I wouldn't use if you paid me.
	I did have a TikTok account, actually.
	Then I realized what TikTok was, and then I just uninstalled it.
	So, yeah, gross.
	Anyway, before we begin, if you want to support us, you can go to merch.lotuses.com and buy one of our shirts.
	I'm really proud of these.
	They're really good.
	We're going to have new shirts coming soon, or probably in the new year at this point, actually, just because of the way things work.
	But, of course, this is a good way of supporting us, and you get our wonderful merch.
	So, anyway, let's begin with people teaching us what neopronouns are.
	Who knows what neopronouns are?
	Well, let's be instructed.
	Today I'm going to be teaching you how to use Prince, Princess pronouns and sentences.
	Today I'm going to be teaching you how to use Shark, Shark's pronouns and sentences.
	Today I'm going to be teaching you how to use Flower, Flower's pronouns and sentences.
	Today I'm going to be teaching you how to use Paint, Paint's pronouns and sentences.
	Today I'm going to be teaching you how to use That, That's pronouns and sentences.
	Today I'm going to be teaching you how to use the verb, viz pronouns.
	Today I'm going to be teaching you how to use thon, thon's pronouns and sentences.
	Today I'm going to be teaching you how to use zay, zem pronouns and sentences.
	Today I'm going to be teaching you how to use shroom, shroom's pronouns.
	I'll let that go on.
	I wasn't going to play that as much as that was.
	But I let that go on, because these people are incredibly annoying.
	They are, and it's boring.
	Not just boring, it's bloody ridiculous.
	But it's just, this is what, like, notice in every video, she's got literal clown makeup on.
	And she's excessively happy.
	You would never approach anyone...
	Stop it.
	You know, stop it.
	Just talk to me normally, for the love of God.
	But that's the point, isn't it?
	They can't talk to you normally.
	They have to talk to you like clowns.
	I'm not even joking about the clown thing, but we'll get to that in a minute, right?
	It is as if they're addressing themselves to children.
	Yes.
	They treat their audience as children.
	As we were saying in the previous one, they treat each other like children.
	It's this arrested development they're trapped in.
	But again, we have another clown that is literally wearing clown makeup to teach us about the clown words that they intend to use.
	Let's watch.
	Welcome back, you little snack.
	This is part two of learning about A, Air, Air's neopronouns.
	To hear about the history and origin of these neopronouns, head back to my account.
	Now, we're going to practice.
	A is from Baltimore originally, then A moved to New York City for a few years.
	Now, A lives in LA with Air 2 cats.
	Have you seen Air artwork yet?
	A loves working with pouring paints and watercolors.
	A has made all of these Air self.
	In fact, you can support Air by purchasing A hopes this practice helps.
	A knows that learning new words is difficult already, let alone how hard it is to unlearn how we operate and how we think about ourselves and those around us.
	But A is so grateful you stayed so long to practice with A, and A hopes you come back for more pronoun lessons with Bukalu Katuka.
	No, it's the miming in the background as well.
	I think that would make a good flight attendant in airlines.
	This is how they show how the seatbelt is fastened.
	They do all these mannerisms.
	But no, it's the miming behind.
	So it is all a big performance art.
	Whereas she's wearing the clown makeup, and it's like, okay, what am I... But this is weirdly influential, apparently.
	Apparently there are millions of views on these videos, and who knows how many young women.
	Notice it's all women as well.
	Uh, who are doing this?
	It's like, okay, this is not right.
	And as John pointed out before we started, they don't see these videos in China, right?
	The filter bubble that China imposes on TikTok shows a certain kind of video to Western audiences and a different kind of video to Eastern audiences.
	But, um, but the, I suppose that the main crux of it from that last one is why should I put in so much effort for people I don't really like?
	I don't know.
	I mean, this whole thing gets to me.
	It seems to me that it's a power play.
	It's absolutely a power play.
	It's a way to put us into a permanent position of apologizing because you can't remember that.
	Yeah.
	You can't remember if everyone goes around saying, well, there aren't just two genders, there are 1,387, and all of them have different pronouns.
	Imagine how small your social circle would become if you could only talk to people while remembering a certain set, not just their name, which I have enough problems with anyway, remembering people's names.
	Not just one word for them, but like half a dozen words for each individual person.
	It's deliberately designed to make things difficult for you.
	It's a power play.
	It almost seems like a title.
	They are introducing a form of nobility and they have this hierarchy.
	No, that's exactly it.
	This is a form of title.
	But it's a hierarchy where everyone is equal.
	But some people, of course, are more equal than others.
	Well, those who have been more misgendered are probably more important in the hierarchy.
	So anyway, let's watch them in action.
	As I'm on the topic of neopronums, let's use some in a sentence to show that it's absolutely possible if you do not have a good reason to not use them.
	Zay and I are going to Five Below later today.
	I hope they don't forget ZerWallet again.
	Faye went to go get a drink from the water fountain.
	Faye will be back soon.
	Oh, that's Sir's cat.
	I wonder how they got out of Sis' house again.
	Don't you think that pup looks beautiful in pup's self-outfit today?
	Where did you hear that from?
	No, Bug told me Bug's self that Bug's seen it before.
	I just heard back from A. A felt sick this morning, so M couldn't come.
	Please let me know what other neo-pronouns you want me to use in a sentence, because I'm pretty passionate about how f***ing valid you are.
	That's so cringe.
	It's uber cringe.
	And they corrupt language, and they corrupt it in at least two ways.
	In many ways, but two are very important.
	The thing is, I've seen some people saying that I want to be called by pronouns it.
	And this is the final stage of dehumanization.
	Yes, it's to treat human being as objects, which is the exact opposite from what morality is about, in the name of morality.
	Yes.
	It's remarkable.
	The thing that really bothers me is when they say things like, well, there are black bodies that are in danger here.
	Black bodies, as if they're corpses.
	I mean, corpse is a humanizing term, so not even corpses.
	Just the literal, physical object.
	And I don't understand why they have to describe them as neo-pronouns.
	We could have them post-neo-pronouns, meta-post-neo-pronouns.
	Why don't we just call them pronouns?
	Yeah, that's a good point, actually.
	If they're so valid, why aren't they just pronouns like the rest of them?
	This actually shows that at the bottom of this is a misunderstanding of language.
	Yes.
	Big time misunderstanding.
	It's not just misunderstanding.
	And also, it just seems very narcissistic, doesn't it?
	It does.
	It's like, no, no, no, you have to genuflect towards my particular feelings on this day, because of course, your neopreneurs could change at any time, which is just pathetic.
	But anyway...
	They fluctuate, like stocks.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But you have to understand, right?
	Now, you might be thinking, well, this is a new invention that these young ladies who are dressed as clowns have invented.
	But no, neopronouns are actually an ancient tradition in Western civilization.
	Let's watch.
	Hello, I am Blue of Trans Education, and I'm here to talk about neopronouns.
	I apologize for any background noise.
	My brother is currently playing bass.
	If you've been on TikTok recently, you've probably seen a lot of discourse surrounding neopronouns.
	I am here to explain the history behind neopronouns and why they are used.
	Let's start by defining them.
	Neopronouns is a word used to refer to pronouns developed from the 19th century to now, although there are some, like ow and ha, that have been used since the 13th century.
	There are also noun-self pronouns, which have been debated whether or not they actually count as neopronouns.
	Noun-self pronouns are pronouns like rot and rot-self, Confused young women.
	Imagine referring to yourself as rot.
	Yeah.
	It's like it.
	Yeah.
	It's worse than it.
	At least it is quite neutral.
	Okay, well, you know, it's a cracker on the table.
	Okay, great.
	That doesn't offend me at all.
	But there's a rot in the office.
	Well, we need to get rid of that then, don't we?
	You know, like rot is actively negative.
	We need to get rid of it.
	Yeah.
	You know, let's return to it.
	It being morally neutral.
	But anyway, so that's the ancient tradition of neopronouns, but have you ever heard of a xenopronoun?
	No.
	Let's learn.
	Reminder that neopronouns are super valid, and neopronoun users are welcomed and supported on this page.
	We have people in our system that use neopronouns, and we also have people in our system that use xenopronouns, which are a type of neopronouns.
	So we are right there with you.
	Great, but that didn't explain what a xenopronoun was at all.
	So I went to pronoun.fandom.com, which tells us what xenopronons are.
	This is a pronoun wiki, apparently.
	Xenopronons are a type of hypothetical neopronons that cannot be understood by humans or expressed through human language.
	Yeah.
	In what sort of language do they express them?
	Great question.
	We don't know because none of them exist yet, you see.
	Theoretical examples of xenopronouns would include pronouns that involve concepts that humans don't have words for.
	Very useful.
	Pronouns whose meanings cannot be translated into any human language.
	Even less useful, because at least in the first one we could coin a word that describe the concept that we're trying to speak about.
	Pronouns that include sounds that it would be impossible for humans to make if spoken.
	It's like physical elements that we haven't discovered yet.
	It is, yeah, the end of Periodic Table, isn't it?
	Pronouns that include movements that would be impossible for humans to do and pronouns expressed through a form of communications that humans can't use.
	Love it.
	No specific examples of xenopronous could be provided because of their nature.
	It would be impossible to express through human language.
	For those that do use xenopronous, how?
	How could they?
	How could...
	Why is anyone taking any of this pronoun nonsense seriously?
	Anyway, let's...
	What is a hypothetical pronoun?
	That's a great question that I don't have an answer to.
	And also, what if someone wants to use a new pronoun?
	What, a xenopronoun do you mean?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	What happens with self-identification there?
	Well, actually, they do say.
	They've got an answer for this.
	For those that do use xenopronouns, for communication in human language, they may use auxiliary alternate pronouns or wish to be treated as nullpromenal.
	I should have clicked the link on nullpromenal.
	I don't even know what that means.
	In fact, John, can you quickly click the link on nullpromenal?
	I'm curious about that.
	Known as non-pronomial, unpronomial, blah, blah, blah, is the act of not using third-person pronouns of any kind.
	So I'm so important, you can't even refer to me in the third person, even if I'm not there.
	Which is when you'd normally refer to me in the third place.
	Sounds bad for business.
	It sounds embarrassing.
	If I were to be like, you know, Callum's not here, but Callum, Callum, Callum, Callum, you'd be like, why don't you say he?
	It's weird.
	But anyway, the point is, this is stupid, pathetic, and yet another expression of clown world, which is not a joke.
	Let's talk about clown, clown self pronouns.
	This is Cypress, and Clown mentioned not having people use clown or clownself pronouns for clown, and so in this situation, I would make sure that I exclusively use clown pronouns to talk about Cypress, so Cypress knows that I see clownself for who clown is, and I want clown to be hearing those pronouns more than the other ones out of my mouth.
	Has there been a remake of The Exorcist that I have missed?
	No, I think we're just in the clown world.
	I mean, this is literally lots of confused young women who actually look and sound like clowns.
	Face paint, nonsense noises, literal clowns.
	The only thing they're missing are the squeaky noses.
	Yes, but it's interesting to view up the formulation.
	Cyprus knows that I see clown self for who clown is, and I want clown to be hearing those pronouns more than the other ones out of my mouth.
	It is honestly as if there's possession going on.
	It is, yes.
	Cyprus is inside, and she knows.
	Yeah.
	So you're speaking...
	And I'm speaking from the first and third person simultaneously.
	Yeah.
	Speaking from her perspective through your mouth, which is weird and presumptuous, isn't it?
	But like I put on Twitter, I put this up on Twitter because I think this is relevant.
	We can get to the last one, John.
	If you can get that image up quickly.
	This person says, you don't hate pronouns, you hate the people who are using them.
	Well, okay, fine, that's totally true.
	You either respect how people are asking you to know and name them, or you don't, but stop pretending it's about language, because that's really what this is about, isn't it?
	This isn't really about language.
	What this is, is about them taking control of your perceptive faculties and your personal judgment.
	For example, if I say to John, oh, Stelius will be here in a minute, he's got a cup of tea, that's me making a judgment about your objective physical attributes.
	He.
	You're a man, and therefore I'll use the pronoun he to inform John who we're talking about.
	But this is them saying, no, this isn't really about language, it's about making sure that you do what I say.
	Exactly, but we should make it again about language, because at the end of the day, it's about self-conception.
	Hmm.
	We all have a conception of ourselves and we use language to formulate it.
	So we really cannot opt out of language and linguistic rules.
	But also it's about them imposing unreasonable Dictats on you as well, because they say, well, look, my self-conception doesn't line up with my physical appearance.
	It's like, okay, but that's not my problem, frankly.
	Your self-conception is as a clown, and okay, maybe I'll call you a clown, but you're going to make up particular words for me to refer to you on your behalf.
	But isn't your personal appearance part of yourself?
	Well, that's the question, isn't it?
	And this is why I've come to the conclusion that this is essentially about trying to free the mind from the body.
	But, you know, it's interesting because there is, of course, a long intellectual history in this.
	And many dualists, they think the soul is genderless.
	I don't know how dualism can help this cause.
	Oh no, it's obvious nonsense.
	There are lots of good arguments against Cartesian dualism, by the way, which are often embedded in the language we use.
	If your soul is not part of your body, how did you identify it as your soul, for example?
	It's obvious nonsense.
	And the thing is, it requires a series of metaphysical commitments that are frankly religious in nature and we don't have to agree with because we don't follow their religion.
	It's nonsense.
	These people are clowns.
	It's total cringe, just so you know.
	Millions of young women are watching this.
	And note, it's young women doing this.
	For some reason they're deeply confused.
	Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	Hello.
	I would like to present my ongoing project, Champions of the Ice.
	I've spent what little spare time and money I've had in the past decade developing the characters, story, and world it takes place in.
	Full video, artwork, and stories can be found in the link in the description.
	Thank you for your time, and may the sages of gunpowder and steel watch over you. and may the sages of gunpowder and steel watch over You'd see a pretty girl at a restaurant chewing with her mouth wide open.
	Sitting with a girl in a Taipei hotel restaurant for breakfast one morning, we sat in silence listening to a man slurping at his congee and making very loud smacking sounds as she and I looked at each other in disgust.
	The Chinese are lovely, but their eating habits are feral.
	The worst for me was breakfast in a Guangzhou hotel where a somewhat elderly man came in, sat down not too far from me, and proceeded to vomit up on the floor as the staff roundly ignored him.
	Gross.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Personally, I think Meghan Markle is what you end up getting when your precious little princess gets everything she wants.
	She became an actual princess, realized that it wasn't like how she imagined it would be, and then the wokeness took over and she had to destroy the whole family, so...
	Too bad for her!
	I love that Meghan Markle's a feminist.
	I really love it.
	She achieved the feminist dream of marrying a prince.
	And manipulating the prince.
	Yes, but she's literally following the story of a Disney film.
	It's like, oh, I grew up and then I married a prince.
	That's the most traditional view of womanhood ever.
	And she's like, I'm a feminist.
	I mean, if that's what feminism was, I probably wouldn't be so against it.
	Have we got another video coming?
	If you were offered the chance to become the dictator of the United Kingdom for three years in order to save the West, the catch being, if you fail, you are executed, would you take the offer?
	Oh, yeah.
	If yes, what would you do?
	If no, who would you choose to take your place?
	I mean, I would take the offer and the terms and conditions of the services we use prevent me from telling you what I would do.
	I'm joking, of course.
	I think you're kind of morally obligated to at least try, even if you get exiled or executed at the end of it.
	What do you reckon?
	I think so, because, I mean, politics is sort of like an inner drive for people.
	I think people who want to engage in it can't resist it.
	So if you're...
	To give an ultimate power.
	If your goal is to have a voice in society and act according to your beliefs, I don't think you have much choice over the matter.
	Hammurabi says, I appreciate Carl taking the time to personally blackpill the new employee into oblivion.
	I don't think there were too many black pills on this one.
	I'm trying to take a more positive aspect towards the podcast because it is difficult when you say, oh god, there's just nothing but bad news.
	I'm trying to be more positive about these things.
	Grant says, good call on Stelios.
	I'm really liking him as a presenter.
	Sharp mind, pleasant to listen to.
	Keep it up, Stelios.
	Thank you.
	Sophie says, seriously, it is wild that everyone knows that there's something inherently wrong about women injecting fat into their butts to get bigger butts.
	They put plastic bags in their breasts to get bigger boobs, put silicone in their lips and men who fill their muscles with oil to get them bigger.
	We all know instinctively that this is weird, bizarre and messed up.
	But the moment it's about presenting the other gender, then it's stunning and brave and must be protected.
	That is fascinating, isn't it?
	It is.
	But the body positivity movement should have a lot to say about transgenderism.
	I never understood that movement.
	Again, it's this idea that science is secondary.
	We had some surveys that say obviously that obesity is bad.
	Do you need a study for that?
	Usually in universities they do studies that confirm common sense.
	I suppose so, but like, again, I don't need a scientist to tell me that obesity is bad.
	So it's just one of those things.
	But now you see it on billboards, isn't it?
	I saw a meme the other day that was like, you know, I can't remember the name of the brand, but it's some underwear brand from the 90s.
	And it's these two incredibly attractive people.
	And now it's just two obese transgender people.
	It's like, okay, you know, I'm not buying your brand.
	Ewan says, when I was three I wanted to be a duck.
	Luckily I was born in the 90s or I might be a mutant now.
	Omar says, it's telling them they call on doctors to be activists instead of professionals because if gender ideology mapped to reality it would be a natural function of their job.
	I love Omar's comments.
	That's a great point, isn't it?
	The reason you have to be an activist is because you want something to be true that's not true.
	If you were just being a professional who's representing reality, you wouldn't need to have to artificially insert this into the job description.
	There's no valid science behind it, so they need to manufacture consensus and whip in line any dissent.
	Which is, of course, why they do any of it.
	But great, great observation, Omar, honestly.
	S.H. Silver says, The people who want open transitioning to children are usually those who also want to lower the voting age.
	I wonder if there are any other adult activities they want the age for lowered.
	Well, I mean, if you're Yol Roth, then maybe there are...
	But it was like we were saying earlier, this assumption that because they can do like a mathematical equation at 13 or something, that they think that makes them capable of making rational decisions for the rest of their lives as if they're full adults.
	I mean, I don't even agree that adults are particularly rational, frankly.
	No, we usually are not.
	No, it's just that we've reached a certain age where we can't be controlled by a greater authority.
	Yeah.
	Free Will says, the drive to give children equal rights to their parents is part of the drive to weaken parental control of their children and parental bonds with their children, and by extension, substitute the state as a new de facto parent.
	Yeah, I really find myself hating the concept of the social contract these days.
	I hate social contract societies, I hate the concept behind it, and when people are like, well what's the alternative?
	The alternative is obviously a sentimental society.
	Where it's bonds of affection and love and sentiment that tie everything together.
	I like the place in which I live.
	I like my neighbours.
	I like the people in charge.
	I like these things.
	And you'll notice that everything about left-wing activism is designed to make you dislike those things.
	I think one of the most pernicious aspects of this ideology is...
	Is the idea that we can effect change, top-down change really fast.
	So we can actually, just by voting, we can just give people the authority to change the entire structure of society instantly.
	And this is a rationalist fallacy.
	Oh, yeah.
	And it's easy to think this, but this actually shows lack of sensitivity to our fallibility and And it threatens to disintegrate the aspect of existing in a community.
	That's the point.
	Yes, that's...
	That's the point.
	I know you will like this, but I believe in this.
	I'm not saying it for another reason.
	Oh, no, no.
	But that's what they're trying to do.
	Yeah, because the whole idea is to make a society that is humane.
	A humane society cannot not respect...
	It cannot disrespect...
	Natural human partiality.
	You would think so.
	Such as the partiality of parents towards their children.
	Yeah.
	So, it's interesting to see that these ideologues, at the end of the day, they're preaching for a worldview that does not view things from a human perspective.
	I honestly think that Rousseau had them bang to rights in The Social Contract, where he's describing that the purpose of The Social Contract and A Social Contract Society is to make sure, and he literally says, to put as few, ideally, it'll be zero dependency on one another and total dependency on the state in order to make sure that the individual will of each person can remain as free as it hypothetically would have been if he was alone wandering around in the woods.
	I think that this is an interesting and complex discussion.
	It is.
	We probably don't have time for now.
	Yes, but I want to say one thing that it's It's important to see that in Rousseau's formulation there is no focus on distinctions that are natural, such as distinctions of age and also distinctions of parental roles or family roles.
	No bonds of sentiment.
	It is to treat human beings as abstractly human by, in a weird sense, abstracting social roles.
	That's literally what the thought experiment of the savage is.
	And he even says, almost word for word, this is what a hypothetical human living outside of society would be like.
	But that's a universalised view of what a human is, but it's also incredibly false.
	You know, it's not true.
	And so you can't, I mean, he builds then this giant thought experiment that is the social contract.
	And now the left are busy trying to impose on us.
	Because they want to keep this idea that people who are not, who do not live in society are pristine.
	They're good by nature.
	And it is society that corrupts.
	Yes.
	And that is why Rousseau talks about the social passions.
	Yeah.
	And they're corruptive.
	Yeah.
	But also, the idea, it's the total liberation of the will from social constraints.
	He's saying, I should be free to do whatever I want at any time, for any reason.
	And the only way to make that happen is to destroy the bonds of obligation we have to one another.
	Because, of course, I don't do certain things because I am obliged to other people.
	Ironically, I don't think that this is exactly the issue with this, because Rousseau has this idea of the general will, and he doesn't say that anyone should have the right to say this, but he seems to want to be an enlightened despot.
	That is how he sets himself across.
	He does.
	You are right that this is a contradiction in his thought.
	He initially frames it that everyone should be as free to be able to do whatever they could do in the state of nature with the entire force of the community all at once.
	And this is why the general will becomes an important factor in his thought, because of course the general will is what's going to protect this state of affairs from anything that could damage it.
	We should probably carry them in the comments, but we will discuss this at some point because I do think Rousseau is basically the problem that the left has and that we are suffering under.
	But we will discuss it at some point because I really enjoy this.
	We should.
	Anyway, Robert says, protect the children by removing their organs and fundamentally ruining their biology and making them dependent on lifelong pharmaceutical treatment and destroying almost any chance of living a normal adult life and having a family of their own.
	Yeah.
	Well, you've literally sterilized them.
	You've made them medical dependents.
	It's just such an awful and evil thing to do.
	Nicholas says, we need to protect these children by allowing mutilation?
	How long before the UK follows Biden's lead and incorporates this into law as well?
	Actually, it's currently going through the courts at the moment, so we'll find out how long.
	Given that I read this morning that Cambridge Dictionary have updated the definition of woman to the trans-approved response, not very long.
	I'll talk about that.
	I've been following it, and they've got two definitions of women, actually.
	So I will talk about it, but like you were saying about language, it's very interesting the way that they're trying to frame this, because it's very difficult to get a definition of woman that can include a man, frankly.
	Anyway, Charlie says, all this trans surgery will go down in 40 years like the lobotomy surgeries.
	We'll all ask how could they do it, and how did they get away with it?
	Yeah, I really think so, man.
	This is just insane.
	Someone online says, age is just a number.
	It's supposed to be what you say when grandma thinks she's too old to pick up a new hobby, not when a teen wants to chop off her breasts.
	Yes.
	That's exactly the right.
	That's the same thing where they're like, oh, boys will be boys is a way of excusing rape.
	It's like, no.
	It's a way of excusing them why they've got a bruise on their head or a scraped knee.
	You know?
	It is very sad to see, to watch.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's...
	Robert Longshaw says, I wouldn't let a 15-year-old fry an effing egg.
	Why am I letting them decide whether to chop off their willies?
	Well, actually, frying an egg is something they have to learn to do.
	So if they burn themselves a few times, that's fine, but you should definitely supervise.
	My 13-year-old daughter has recently learned how to fry eggs.
	It's just a weird thing.
	Anyway, Colin says, if we don't have kids, who are we saving the planet for?
	Exactly.
	That was exactly the thing about the asteroids.
	It's like, we need to preserve the pristine state of the universe.
	For who?
	Why?
	That is why the Earth is being personified for many in this discussion.
	Yeah.
	And it's not the idea that we are sustaining an environment in order to live and survive as a species.
	It's the idea that, no, we have obligations towards nature.
	Exactly.
	Now it's the, like you say, neoplatonic sort of embodied divination of the universe that we have to worship and protect.
	It's like, no, sorry, I think this is awful and I want to get those resources.
	I don't think the universe is going to miss it if we mine a few asteroids.
	Lord Nerevar says, Sure, but they're indoctrinating your children every single day in the universities.
	And this afternoon, Connor and I are doing the C.S. Lewis Abolition of Man.
	And actually, C.S. Lewis does a great point of explaining, look, it's in the framing in which these things are approached, that all of the assumptions are made.
	And so your children find themselves six years down the line having been indoctrinated into the idea that actually they shouldn't do anything for themselves, anything for their future, anything for their parents or grandparents, all of these things.
	It's terrible.
	It's really terrible.
	Rue the Day says, children bad say the people who will pay money for that Balenciaga horror show we saw last week.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Doesn't even better thinking about it, does it?
	But what was I going to say?
	I was going to say something about the antinatalists there.
	It's interesting to see something about the distinction between what they preach and how they act.
	Because...
	They say it's better not to have been born.
	And it's better not to exist.
	For who?
	For Mother Universe.
	For Gaia.
	With most academic positions, there are gradations.
	But let's take the extreme antenatalist position.
	The idea that it's better not to have been born.
	This Nietzschean idea of the Dionysian element.
	That it's better not to have been born.
	Yeah.
	There is a crucial distinction between words and actions.
	So why are you, if you really believe this, why are you here?
	And why do you want others to stop giving birth to children and others to opt out?
	Why haven't you taken the Canadian option yet?
	I'm just going to kill yourselves.
	It saddens me, honestly.
	It saddens me very much to see what kinds of ideas become prevalent.
	I know I'm making light of it, but it is awful.
	It just strikes me as a kind of sickness in these people.
	Imagine how they must feel watching a happy family going along.
	There's got to be a combination of disgust and resentment in there.
	Like, okay, I can't have that, and you're disgusting for having it.
	Envy is one of the most powerful sentiments.
	Yeah.
	I remember what I was going to say.
	This is the thing.
	The plot of the film Idiocracy is based on the idea that the rich people don't have the children, and therefore they don't pass on intelligent genes, and of course the stupid people just carry on because they don't care, and so the human race becomes progressively more stupid because in 100 years the sheer proportion of intelligent people will be so low that they just can't be in charge of anything.
	I remember they were trying to water the plants with Coca-Cola.
	Yeah, Gatorade or something like that.
	Brondo, sorry.
	But the thing is, there is a point there, isn't there?
	The general gradual decline, if actually that is the case, just this reduction in the average IQ of our civilizations...
	It's probably not desirable.
	No, it's not.
	You would think as an intelligent academic, instead of post-op rationalizing why you shouldn't have to do any hard work, you should be like, no, I have a duty, an obligation to the future of mankind and the planet to produce intelligent children who will consume responsibly and help fix the problems, as you were saying, that we've created instead of just simply finishing off our species.
	Yeah.
	I think they have worked up for a counterpoint to this.
	I'm not convinced.
	They would say something like human beings are really good in instrumental reasoning, but they're not really good in moral reasoning.
	And that is why they want to use their position to be something like the moral teachers of people.
	The moral teachers from whose perspective?
	And what are they communicating?
	What do they tell us to do?
	Yeah.
	To disappear.
	Again, the moral reasoning from whose perspective?
	Whose morality is this?
	I don't agree.
	There seems to me to be Western guilt.
	Oh, totally.
	Totally.
	Yeah.
	I mean, they don't preach this in other countries, do they?
	Casey, in fact, points out, I notice all the death cultists preaching against children aren't lining up for the Canadian suicide booths themselves.
	Yeah, and they probably should be.
	Kevin says, these climate-conscious pseudoscientists get their figures from the same place they talk, their ass.
	Good comment.
	Going off the pronouns, Eric says, thanks, Carl.
	I just felt my brain rot away from seeing that TikTok.
	Man, I know it's cheap to be like, look at this crazy, but there are literally millions of young women who are having their brains poisoned by this nonsense.
	Yes.
	And attention upon how language is used is the only way out of it.
	Yeah.
	And also, I mean, there is another way out of it.
	There's the kind of patriarchal response to feminine narcissism, which is to put them in burkas.
	No one needs to know your pronouns if you can't see your face.
	Obviously, I'm joking, but all I'm saying is that the Muslims are having children.
	They're not confused about what the role of men and women are in society.
	They're proliferating themselves, and...
	I'm not above converting to Islam.
	Fane Scotty of Swindon says, Is she getting more skimpy per video?
	Jeez, it's like watching slow motion stripping.
	If the stripper was my sleep paralysis demon.
	Speaking of the first one.
	That's good.
	Baystate says, Have you ever noticed the pronoun examples all contain little compliments you're supposed to give them?
	That's a good observation, man.
	I haven't noticed.
	I must say.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I'll look out for that.
	Is that what this is all about?
	Like affirmations, isn't it?
	You know, like...
	That's interesting.
	Are you trying to trick me to give you a compliment?
	My name is Base Ape and I use oo-a-pronouns.
	Oo is our best gold tier member, and you should subscribe to R's YouTube channel.
	Also, why are you teaching me how to use pronouns?
	Everyone knows how to use pronouns.
	Little children know how to use pronouns, you condescending clown.
	That's a great point.
	But yeah, that's a good point.
	The sort of weird Californian affirmation culture is snuck in there as well, like they're talking to children.
	But how can it be affirmation if they're basically saying that, you know, I'm not what other people say?
	I think it's about specialness and uniqueness, right?
	Because there's not really anything special or unique about those girls.
	If you were to wipe off the makeup and just tell them, go and get a husband, they'd be like, oh, how?
	How do I, you know, they don't know anything.
	Because they've never been taught how to be a woman, really.
	But this now, I mean, look at that, you know, the first one, especially the clown makeup, in fact, they all were wearing clown makeup, basically.
	And now I've got a special name, and so now I'm totally different to other people.
	So don't forget to use my Xeno pronoun.
	Fuzzy Toaster says, We've all played Make-Believe before, but this is ridiculous.
	For crying out loud, they're declaring themselves Xenos.
	Where's my flamer?
	Yeah, I know.
	I've got an inbuilt response to what we should do to that.
	Sam says, I gave up alcohol to prevent my cognitive decline.
	He subject me to these neopronoun and xenopronoun retards.
	I can feel my neurons committing seppuku as a defensive reflex.
	Matt says, how dare you not call me by my unpronounceable thought in my head pronouns?
	Disgusting bigot.
	I kind of want to push the concept of xenopronons now.
	Okay, don't tell me neopronons.
	That's a bit 2021, isn't it?
	It's nearly 2023.
	What are your xenopronons?
	I really want to respect you.
	I really want to bring out the most unique and best form of you possible.
	You can do so using human language.
	I know.
	Hopefully that means they'll shut the F up.
	But it's – something could be taken out of this because they may – they will focus on other ways of showing recognition.
	And there actually could be a threat into it.
	Go on.
	It could evolve into a threat.
	If we say that, you know, it's not about how you use language, but it's about something else.
	It's about how you look at me, how you are...
	Yeah, the kind of progressive equivalent of fighting words, right?
	Yes.
	Because, you know, as a man, you can accept that there are certain ways of addressing each other that are provocative.
	Yeah.
	And so this is the progressive equivalent.
	He misgendered me in a certain way, therefore the gloves are off.
	Omar says, I imagine a great many of these TikTok girls aren't confused at all, but they know it's popular and none of them are going to be the first to call it out while the grift is good.
	Another great point by Omar.
	Omar, you're my favourite commentator.
	Would be interesting to see how many of them flip on a dime the moment they sense the winds change.
	Yeah, and that's another thing.
	There's this kind of smile that they all have on their faces, where it's like, haha, I know I'm doing something that's crazy and is going to provoke people into telling me that I'm nonsense.
	So it's essentially a shit test.
	Essentially, I'm daring you to tell me to shut up.
	It's like, okay, well...
	It's a way of pointing attention towards you.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And very safely pushing boundaries.
	Tristan says, Zeo pronouns.
	Experimental linguists have begun loading standard gaze into the Large Hadron Collider to discover exotic high-energy forms of homosexuality, which were only theorized up until now.
	Why not, you know?
	Why not?
	But yeah, I knew you guys wouldn't know what a Xeno pronoun was, so I thought I'd introduce you to the concept.
	Anyway, that's about all for us today.
	If you want more, you can follow us on social media, go sign up to losius.com, and we will be back tomorrow.

▲