Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 23, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:45

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #552

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast The Lotus Theatre for the 23rd of December 2022.
	I'm joined by Stelius.
	Hello everyone.
	And today we're going to be talking about the normal day in Scotland.
	Average conversation for them.
	The polyamorous people feeling blue.
	And the big nothing.
	Which I'm sure people will enjoy.
	The Nothing Burger of the Year.
	It will.
	We shall begin with a normal day in Scotland.
	It's another bright day.
	Well, not a bright day.
	No, that wouldn't be normal.
	Another grey day in Scotland in which nonsense is happening.
	And a cold one.
	Yeah, as normal.
	And the first thing I want to start off with is just a premium speech Carl gave at the Witten that we did.
	This is AA's conference, the second one around, in which he talked about the word in the Shire, which he just sort of sat and spoke about, like, look how much we've lost and listed the number of things, of institutions that the British right does not have.
	Not even English heritage belongs to the English people anymore, belongs to, like, American ideology, American leftist ideology, I should say.
	But the thing is, you can go to Scotland, and I kind of feel bad Frankly, for those people living up there at this point, because the insanity from top down is on another level.
	And their culture is being eroded.
	Absolutely.
	And if we go to the news on this, which is that the SMP decided to pass the Gender Recognition Reform Bill.
	This was to cries of shame on you from the public gallery, of course, because the government is run by the SMP, a bunch of leftist lunatics, and then backed up by the Labour Party and the Greens, which are basically the same thing, which, yeah, big shouk.
	So they can pass whatever the hell they want, no matter how insane it is.
	And the right side of history people, from the Lib Dems, from the example I'm going to give, gave their crappy speeches, get the next link here, in which some guys just like, it was a historic day for blah blah blah blah blah, Ukraine flag.
	I mean, I'm sorry to, like, wrap on about it.
	Again, I'm not trying to conflate issues.
	It's more the fact that people in the West, people like this specifically, don't seem to know anything.
	They just know current thing.
	It's entirely performative for many of those.
	They just won't say, okay, tell me when I'm supposed to applaud and when I'm supposed to go boo.
	And they will do it, as instructed.
	They'll do it very well.
	And this is just one guy there.
	But if you go to the next one here, we have the fact that a friend of mine sent me this image.
	He's currently in Russia with family, just holidaying.
	And he checks back.
	He looks back at the UK and he's just like...
	I've got six.
	You don't have to have that experience in Russia.
	You can have it most of these in Europe or anywhere outside of the West.
	But it's just funny.
	For people listening, we're looking at an image of some people applauding the bill here.
	I'm surprised I expected more colourful clothing.
	And usually we wear black when we mourn.
	Yeah, maybe some more dyed hair.
	I think there's a few dyed hairs there, but I know it's a meme, but the meme's real as well.
	There's just someone over there with a little fist up as if they're fighting the power.
	Bro, you are the government.
	What are you talking about?
	You're the dominant ideology of the entire civilization.
	It is the right side of history, so she must be thinking that she's fighting the bad guys.
	Yeah.
	Although the funniest thing was not these people.
	It was the TERFs that showed up, because of course the TERFs were against this.
	One of them decided to do this, which if you scroll down, it is censored, but...
	So some turf there got up and was like, you guys aren't being reasonable.
	This bill is horrific.
	And if you're not going to be reasonable, I'm not going to be reasonable.
	And just in the old Scottish way of the old men, I suppose, in their kilts, she pulled up her dress and there was nothing underneath to cover up what was below.
	So there you have it.
	I don't know what argument they can, how they can counter this argument.
	I mean, that's true.
	Can you click on the image?
	Just notice that woman on the right there who stood next to her.
	That face!
	What?
	What are you doing exactly?
	Terps are Terps, and quite a lot of Terps are very strange people.
	I remember the other day I started trending some crap about women's rights and the fact that it's being eroded by trans rights.
	If that means anything.
	Imagine that she's the sane one here.
	Yeah, that one is.
	Yeah.
	That's the absolute state of this.
	But this thing was trending.
	I remember Carl just reading out about how some turf was tweeting about how men are oppressing women, and this is all men's rights activism gone too far, and I'm just like...
	Whatever.
	Get off the internet, man, for five minutes.
	These aren't men's rights activists, these people doing it to you.
	But yeah, this was funny, to say the least.
	I also wanted to know a BBC headline I saw.
	What does that make you feel?
	It makes me feel that if alien came and visited Earth and Scotland right now, they would say maybe we should destroy this whole species.
	Because what are they doing?
	Exactly.
	What are they doing?
	They're debating.
	They have so many thousands and million years of history.
	They cannot even settle on simple matters like that.
	For people listening, it's a BBC article I found scrolling in my timeline, and it says the two sides of Scotland gender law debate.
	And then it's an image of a man looking reasonable, like he's having a conversation with a sign that says a man can't become a woman.
	And then there's a up-nose snooty pointing lady with trans rights now.
	With the obvious other thing here noted from some people I saw was that one of those signs is obviously mass manufactured and the other one is obviously brought from home.
	That dude's had to make it himself.
	It's kind of funny and tragic because, you know, it's as if there weren't any real issues.
	Well, there is.
	Which is, how do we help pedophiles?
	Which is the question here.
	Because that's the thing.
	It's not obviously that all people who have trans dysphoria are pedophiles or anything of the sort.
	Instead, it's the fact that, well, what's in the bill exactly?
	Because the thing is, if you go to the next one here, you can see quite a lot of crying people who were on the side of women's rights here who were obviously crying a lot because what has been passed is that you no longer have to have any real evidence or process to change your gender.
	So you can just insist, and then the process is nice and quick for you.
	All the evidence you need is just what you say you are.
	Your tears say more than real facts ever will.
	And, well, these ladies are crying.
	Carl was having quite a good time.
	Your tears create facts.
	Yeah, I mean, these ladies here are crying because they're upset about what's obviously going to happen in female refuges or female prisons or et cetera, et cetera.
	And I think they should be.
	They should be afraid of it.
	I mean, while the cases have already happened in England, we all know what's coming.
	So, normal day in Scotland, I guess.
	If you go to the next one here, there's also someone else giving a speech and someone making the point.
	Trans children, sex is non-binary.
	Like...
	I don't know about what it's like in Greece with the culture, but I like to pop off to somewhere that's a bit different.
	And I went to Russia and there's none of this, and then for two weeks you come back and you read that sentence again and you just think...
	Where am I? Yeah.
	I completely forgot about this crap, but no, it's back.
	It's normal, I suppose.
	Well, it is definitely stronger here.
	Yeah, it's also causing political divides, which I'm always happy to see.
	Here's the next one here.
	See the Labour Party's falling apart over this.
	Oh, they are criticizing J.K. Rowling again.
	Yeah, this is Stella Creasy, Labour MP. J.K. Rowling is wrong.
	A woman can have a penis.
	Hold on.
	You're a clown.
	Words mean nothing anymore.
	Yeah.
	I mean, just...
	I don't know if you can buy...
	You know you can buy makeup sets.
	Women have, like, you know, stuff you can buy.
	I want to buy a pre-made set that's a thing you get at someone for Christmas that is literally just clown makeup.
	It's in the shape of a clown's face, the little bits that you need to use.
	Just constantly deliver them to MPs' addresses like this, their offices, and be like, look, I got you a gift.
	Anyway, the thing in here is because, of course, a bunch of Labour MPs also voted for this, well, not MPs, MSPs, sorry, in Scotland to pass this in the Scottish Parliament, along with the SNP. So, let's simplify this.
	It crosses party lines.
	I don't care for the acronyms either.
	Leftists, non-leftists in Scottish Parliament, mostly leftists.
	And the red leftists are also there, wearing their red flags.
	And this has pissed off a lot of women, which is good news, because just voting data, women are more likely to vote for the left-wing parties in pretty much any Western society I've seen voting data for.
	And if they're losing women en masse because of this...
	This is a good thing.
	This is.
	We're looking at tectonic plates shifting in the political sphere.
	I mean, I did warn that this was going to become the case, and then they just kept pushing, and I'm like, okay, cool, let's go.
	And the hashtag being Labour losing women on this one.
	There is a statement from a Conservative, this in England, of course, which is from the UK Parliament, Kemi, just being like, you guys are retarded.
	What are you doing?
	Because I think she's still in charge of equalities.
	I don't remember.
	And the thing being that I've also seen just before we started, the UK government is just openly saying now they're just not going to ratify this.
	They're not going to give royal assent to the Scottish Parliament's bill because of the obvious safeguarding concerns.
	That's hopeful, but maybe they will change their minds in the long run.
	I don't think the Scottish leftist is going to change their minds.
	Like, look, this bill is a danger to women and children.
	Yes, but it's my ideology.
	Okay, but it's a danger to women and children, so no, no, you can't have this, which would be the right thing for the UK government to do.
	Scottish Parliament was a mistake, especially on this front.
	But let's go to the bill, because the bill is the funniest thing.
	Because we have, oh wait, no, sorry, first.
	We have a solution for any Scottish family at home who want to try and not have to deal with that with their kids.
	Local man wrote a green text on this 4chan.
	Anyway, I thought I'd just read it out because it's funny as hell.
	Daughter says she's trans, 9th grade, whatdo.jpg.
	Confess I'm trans too.
	She's confused.
	Dad, no you're not.
	Stop being a bigot, Charlotte.
	Let's do this together.
	Wear dresses and makeup the next morning.
	Daughter is angry.
	Tells me to stop faking.
	No, I'm trans, honey.
	Now get in the car and let's go to school.
	She's horrified.
	Asked me to be dropped off a block away.
	Nope.
	Walk her in.
	Wave at the front desk.
	She's fuming.
	Wife can't stop laughing.
	Pick up the daughter in a skirt and heels.
	Crappy makeup.
	Glitter on cheeks.
	Skip in front of her friends.
	Dad, stop.
	It's not funny.
	Demand she uses my pronouns.
	Call her a bigot.
	Next morning, she's done with the whole trans thing and begs me to stop.
	I'm not going to lie.
	I think it would work.
	Yes, I think so.
	And I wonder whether all this is fundamentally dependent on the feeling that many teenagers have that the world doesn't get them and they're so special.
	So now that this particular father acted this way, the daughter didn't like it so much.
	Yeah, I mean, he makes the point.
	It's the equivalent of being goth in the 90s.
	It's just like, if the parents get involved, suddenly it's uncool.
	I think that is actually a South Park episode as well.
	I don't know if you watched South Park.
	I have watched some episodes, but not all of it.
	There's one called Chimpokomon, where it turns out Pokemon is actually a big conspiracy by the Japs to organize the second Pearl Harbor bombing.
	Anyway, it's stopped because all the parents start loving Chimpokomon, and all the kids are like, I'm getting out of my zero.
	This isn't worth bombing Pearl Harbor for now.
	It's not cool.
	Anyway, getting back to it.
	Let's get the article.
	Because there you have it.
	Scotland's gender bill is a worry for the Labour Party.
	Good.
	Good news.
	But this guy has the details of the bill and what it does.
	and um the more i read like worse it gets scotland is henceforth a country in which the sense of sensibilities of some sex offenders are now uh trumping those of women this is not just an smp problem because it extends across the scottish parliament whose members are so desperate to be on the quote right side of history i wonder whether the labor party is less woke than the I don't know.
	I mean, Kemi's not.
	So that's one saving grace.
	They outsource their critical faculties to the government-funded third-sector organizations, who then petition the government in support of the government's own legislation proposals.
	That's a description of how this really works, because of course those MSPs don't have a brain.
	Any conversation with such leftists?
	And you'll quickly find that.
	So what happens is that a third body is told to tell us what's the right thing, and then they go away and come back and go, leftism, that's the right thing.
	Oh, good.
	It's a good thing the government's leftist.
	Beautiful system.
	Beautiful, beautiful system.
	Hitherow, obtaining a gender recognition certificate has required a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the profound mismatch between a person's biological reality and the conception of themselves.
	And two years living as their acquired gender, that's been the process.
	Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
	Takes a long time.
	Yeah.
	That's kind of the point, which is to ensure that this is not a mistake and we don't ruin someone's life.
	Yes.
	Their future.
	Yes.
	Sturgeon considers this degrading, intrusive, humiliating set of requirements.
	Yes, if you cannot self-identify as a gender and not be instantly that gender at that moment, it's very oppressive.
	Literally the Holocaust.
	That is actually what I compare it to sometimes.
	It's pure subjectivism.
	If people criticize you or say something about you, they are exercising violence against you.
	Well, because they're denying your reality, which is the equivalent of wanting to, like, mass murder you, which...
	Yeah, you have...
	Don't follow.
	Yeah, it's like, no, validate my reality, validate my reality.
	Yeah.
	He says in here it's a form of gatekeeping.
	Yes.
	That's the point.
	We want to make sure that the patient has the problem before we just give them drugs.
	We don't mind there's any other form of medicine, but no, in this particular avenue of medicine, all of a sudden, all medical treatment needs to just be happening.
	Her government is all but removing the gate.
	In most cases, a man may become a woman, or vice versa, with no greater difficulty than signing their name.
	Feelings trump biological reality.
	At the dark heart of the argument lies this straightforward, if difficult, question.
	What is the definition of trans?
	For Sturgeon and most MSPs, the answer is amazingly simple.
	Anyone who says they are.
	Since the government anticipates a tenfold increase in the number of people with such certificates, it seems obvious that the opportunity for mischief is correspondingly enhanced.
	So if I say I'm a helicopter, I'm a helicopter.
	Yes.
	And will that be part of my new gender ID? Yes, it should be.
	I mean, I know this has become such a meme, like, this was a joke 10 years ago, and then, haha, attack helicopter, funny meme from, you know, good people.
	Yeah, man, it follows.
	I know, but then it became, like, it's wormed around.
	Like, I see in trans online circles now, they keep finding, haha, the right only has one joke, attack helicopter, am I right?
	The thing is, you haven't resolved the conflict.
	Well, we could switch it to an unton of aircraft.
	Sure, but it's the same joke, right?
	And this is the leftist meme of the right only has one joke.
	But the thing is, that meme exists because the left has not resolved the conflict.
	We don't need a second one.
	It just follows from what they were saying.
	Once it stops working, the meme will stop.
	Anyway, much of the parliamentary process was quite rigid, quite rightly.
	The Holyrood Committee, considering the bill, heard plenty of transgender witnesses.
	Yeah, sure, why not?
	Mystifyingly, it refused to hear any oral evidence of female survivors of male violence.
	They're not important.
	No, their voice shouldn't matter.
	No.
	Why would they be important in this debate, in which we're going to put men in female spaces?
	No, don't worry about it.
	And I suspect they didn't have the transitioners there.
	No, I don't think they were invited either.
	Yeah, they don't fit the narrative.
	Sturgeon has spent years arguing there is no clash between the rights of trans people and those of women.
	Then define what a trans right is, exactly?
	Oh, the right to intrude on women's spaces.
	There's your clash, you idiot.
	Pretended with evidence, sorry, presented with evidence of precisely such a conflict, the First Minister denies its very existence, which is why these people weren't invited.
	The problem, Sturgeon says, is predatory men, not trans people.
	They could, though, pretend to be the opposite gender and go and be predators.
	Because remember, though, it's a trans woman, it's definitely not a man, so therefore it can't be a predatory man, even if we have many such a case.
	Which is precisely what her opponents also say.
	Why, then, would any government wish to make it easier for male predators to access women's spaces?
	Sensible question.
	The response is instructive.
	Bad actors would target women anyway, so arguing this legislation makes it easier for them to do so, in a broad sense, irrelevant.
	It's like, why bother trying to protect women?
	Because they get raped anyway, right?
	That's amazing.
	This is actually an argument from an SNP member.
	Let us not make it suspect that a man can walk into a woman's toilet.
	Yeah, just don't think about it.
	Look, some percentage of women are raped, so if that number increases, what does it matter?
	Thank you, SNP. Flawless logic.
	Kenny Gibson, one of the few SNP members to vote against the bill, asked a good question.
	If a fox said it was a chicken, would you put it in the hen house?
	For this, he was accused of borderline hate speech and threatened with the law.
	I wouldn't put it in a hen house, personally.
	Bafflingly, it is now possible for an individual to also be simultaneously male and female in Scotland.
	If they say they are?
	No, it's depending on which department you're in.
	This is actually brilliant.
	A trans woman, that is a biological male, may be considered a woman for the purposes of achieving gender balance in public sector boardrooms.
	Oh, that's magnificent.
	Sorry.
	I need to listen to what you have to say now.
	This is brilliant, because of course, if you want to keep your job, you are now a bisexual woman.
	Whilst also being recognised as a man if they seek access to single-sex spaces protected under the terms of the Equality Act.
	So, it is now perfectly legal in Scotland to be both genders at once, depending on which is politically advantageous.
	Yes.
	Love it.
	In that circumstance, says Shona Robinson, the minister responsible for this piece of crap, there you have it.
	When ministers talk of genuine trans women, they implicitly also talk about non-genuine trans women.
	And who are they?
	Sorry, just I've lost it.
	They're out of their minds.
	Who's a non-genuine trans person?
	Because you've just said there are genuine and non-genuine ones.
	Mrs.
	Minister.
	Well, it's the male rapist, isn't it?
	And the thing is, I don't know what it is with these people.
	To go with this, you have to believe nothing ever goes wrong.
	Society's just perfect.
	Nobody's a bad person.
	Everyone is good.
	Which maybe they do.
	Maybe they are all that brain dead.
	And it's a good thing nothing does ever go wrong then, isn't it?
	Yeah, very good.
	I'm about to read some stuff that's gone wrong.
	This ain't gonna be fun.
	So, this ain't great.
	Two survivors allege they were groomed, sexually exploited by staff at Scottish LGBT youth charity.
	Surprise, surprise.
	LGBT Youth Scotland, formerly known as the Stonewall Youth Project.
	Stonewall is a synonym for bad.
	It's a synonym for sus, and at this point there's a reason they changed that name, which is they didn't want to be associated, I suppose.
	It is known as Scotland's National Charity for LGBTI Young People.
	Why don't you stop or die?
	The organisation works with youth aged 13 to 25, don't know how 25 counts as youth, and delivers programmes to schools, organisations and businesses, which gives them plenty of access.
	If you say you're young at 25 and you count as youth, then you may be...
	The charity was founded in 1989 and renamed in 2003, the same year a notorious paedophile, Jamie Rene, became the chief executive officer.
	That's convenient.
	Cool.
	In 2009, Rene was found guilty and given a lifelong restriction orders after it was discovered he was operating what was described as Scotland's largest paedophile network.
	Other men arrested included John Murphy, a former journalist with the Gay Times, Pure coincidence.
	Neil Campbell, an after-school program instructor who was married with children but led a double life with a male lover, and Craig Both, who just applied to become a special constable with the police.
	Neil Stutchman, much younger boyfriend, Colin Slavin, was also amongst those arrested.
	Slavin had been a minor when Stutchman began a relationship with him.
	Bunch of nonces.
	The dude running the LGBT charity was big nonce in big nonce ring.
	Yeah.
	The details are bad.
	It's not like, I don't know, minor nonce ring.
	It's really bad.
	As well as disturbing child sexual abuse material, Renny will sexually abuse his godson over a four-year period, starting when the child was three months old.
	Yes.
	And I'm sure that this isn't news that hits the mainstream media.
	I imagine it wasn't spoken of.
	And this is the thing as well.
	These people were obviously presented at the time as, oh, look, they're just for love.
	They're just for LGBT acceptance.
	Nothing wrong will ever go wrong here.
	Yes, and everyone who dared to criticize that was immediately portrayed as a bad person.
	You're just a homophobe.
	It's like, no, I'm really suspect of this dude.
	Why does he want to hang around with kids all the time?
	Yeah, it tells me that was a very good reason for that.
	During the court proceedings, it was also discovered that Rene used his email handle, KPlover, standing for kiddieplover, let's put it that way, and communicated with sick predators in the Netherlands who described how he would like to rape, torture, and murder a child.
	That's disgusting.
	Yeah, I mean, just on every level, the worst possible human being you could possibly find.
	The trial was labelled the worst ever abuse case in Scotland by the media at the time, and whilst soliciting for sexual materials, this guy decided he specifically looked up, requesting Young Down Syndrome or Learning Difficulty Kids.
	The worst possible human being.
	They go on to talk about how he sodomized people while having HIV, etc, etc.
	Everything about it is utterly sick.
	And the thing that's important here, of course, is the fact that, well, once upon a time, he was the good guy on the right side of history.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And if you really think the world is that stupid of a place, but we just pick the right side of history and that's the side of good, I'm for good things.
	This whole idea of the right side of history seems to me nonsense.
	Progressive nonsense.
	You have to be completely illiterate to think such a thing.
	And they say in here, while secretly operating the paedophile network, René managed to become the CEO of LGBT Youth Scotland, a charity which gave him access to children as young as 13.
	René had also been a strong proponent of gay adoption, and under his leadership, LGBT Youth Scotland lobbied the government to allow same-sex couples to adopt children.
	In 2005, LGBT Youth Scotland received a Philip Lawrence Award for community safety, and René was welcomed into the Scottish Parliament.
	So he was pulling a Jimmy Savile kind of thing.
	I don't even know if it's Jimmy Savile.
	It's more, isn't this guy good?
	He's arguing for the good things.
	Bring him into Parliament.
	Isn't he our friend?
	Let's pass some bills.
	He's on our side politically, so we should basically try and not throw light on what he does.
	There's no suspicion at any point, because isn't he the good guy for good things?
	He says he's a good guy, so he must be.
	And the same thing with the tranche stuffer is like, oh, but isn't it for good things if we just let people identify?
	We don't want to be cruel now, do we?
	It's like, well, we have cases in England of rapists just identifying as women so they get access to female prisons, and guess what they do in the female prison?
	I think this is very endemic and virtue signaling.
	There is this mentality that I'm good because I'm saying I'm good, and I constantly say that I support good causes, therefore I must be good.
	These circles seem to be completely just disgusting as well, even before, like, ignore all the abuse stuff for a minute.
	Because the article that this is about is about two people who have come out from that charity who went to it and said they were groomed while they were there and abused.
	One of them says,"...I really didn't realise I was being groomed until a much later date." It started with being given cigarettes.
	It later progressed into being taken and given drinks and given alcohol.
	I was given a fake ID by a member of staff to gain entry to adult venues.
	I was given things that were considered special, Carl explains.
	A member of staff also made me show him my torso in a bathroom.
	Like, yeah, normal people.
	This guy recounts being taken by the charity to gay clubs in Edinburgh.
	As a child, he was 15.
	No, that's unacceptable.
	Yeah?
	They're giving him fake IDs to do it?
	To get away with it?
	He was exposed to much older groups of men who began offering him sex in exchange for money.
	Prostitution, yeah.
	Well, literal child prostitution.
	This whole thing leaves children unprotected.
	Yeah, and the thing is, in my mind, you've got this, and this obviously is just me making the point that, yeah, guess what?
	All the people you think of are good things, maybe it turns out some of them are scumbags.
	Life's like that sometimes, especially with people who are like, yeah, I want access to kids all the time.
	I'm like, yeah, I'm going to need some safeguarding guidelines, a background check.
	Yes, and they have the nerve to call people who are concerned about this genuinely bigots.
	Yeah, you're the bad guy.
	Yeah, you're the bad guy because you want to protect children.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, we'll just end this off with the fact of another thing that just got me mad about the absolute state of the country.
	It's not just Scotland, it's hell on earth.
	England as well.
	This is a lady, for some reason, I don't know why the Conservative Party did this, maybe because they're leftists.
	They passed a law saying that you're no longer allowed to protest outside of abortion clinics in the UK. Now, to an American, this is obviously, like, hideous, because...
	First Amendment, blah, blah, blah.
	But no, we don't have that.
	So people stopped protesting because they would be threatened with arrest.
	So this lady turned up and praying became a form of protest, apparently.
	So she turned up and prayed in her head.
	So that's the new craze now.
	We shouldn't allow people to pray.
	No, because you're harassing women.
	Yeah, because this is harm outside an abortion clinic.
	People see you there praying and their safe space is violated.
	This unironically was put in the lens, and the reason this was made case is because it was, you're hurting women.
	So a woman who goes down to an abortion clinic and prays in her head for the souls of the babies, as she would put it, for those being killed, that's a crime, and she was arrested for it.
	And as you can see here, this has already got three million views.
	It's a thought crime, yeah.
	Yeah, literal thought protest is not allowed.
	We are walking down a very dangerous road here.
	I don't think we're walking down over it.
	Yes, but every time we think that we've hit the bottom of the barrel and we see something worse, Yeah, it certainly does.
	But anyway, otherwise, a normal day in Scotland, folks.
	Let's move on.
	Let's go to the polyamory.
	So, hello.
	Before we begin with a second segment, why not check out Epochs number 85, The Battle of Kursk Part 1, where Carla and Beau are having an epic discussion about one of the greatest battles of all time, or one of the biggest battles of all time.
	Okay, so, surprise, surprise.
	New evidence shows that people in polyamorous relationships experience stigma.
	Are you surprised, Calum?
	Yeah, there's a bit of a stigma about that.
	Okay, so let's go and read this article that was published on the 19th of December, this Monday.
	So it says, it has the title, Yes, people in open relationships face stigma.
	Research shows.
	Okay, so even though roughly one in five Americans has been involved in an open relationship at some point in their lives, new research...
	Damn, that seems high.
	They say it's around 20%.
	I don't know.
	Maybe I'm out of touch with what American life is like, but whatever.
	Let's see.
	So, even though roughly one in five Americans has been involved in an open relationship at some point in their lives, new research cautions that many end up bearing the brunt of stigmatizing and stressful disapproval.
	Well...
	Could it be?
	Maybe.
	Because if you openly say that you want an open relationship, people will start being afraid that you want to sleep with their partners.
	I'm just asking, could that be a thing that people had in mind?
	The finding stems from a pair of fresh investigations.
	The first found that roughly 40% of men and women who participate in consensually non-monogamous relationships report being judged negatively or even threatened by others.
	Thank you.
	found that being on the receiving end of such stigma exacts a significant emotional toll, causing anxiety not only when disapproval is actually expressed, but also in anticipation of future negative encounters.
	So, it is interesting because they blame social perception, the perception of other people, But could it be that open relationships have negative effects on people?
	Why is the relationship stigmatized?
	It's not because of no reason.
	People are just bigoted.
	There are downsides to this.
	Even if it is a stereotype, it arises for some reason.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I don't understand why on earth you threaten someone.
	That doesn't make any sense to me.
	I'd love to know what figure that is.
	You meet someone and they're in a weird open relationship.
	Yeah, I'm not having that.
	What do I care?
	It's your thing.
	Do what you want.
	Maybe it wants to present them as victims.
	And when we will read more, we will see that this is precisely what it does.
	So, prior research has found that people tend to view consensually non-monogamous relationships more negatively than monogamous relationships, noted study author Elizabeth Maher.
	She is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.
	And in the latest study, we found that people in consensually non-monogamous relationships do indeed report experiencing stigmas in a variety of ways, Maher said.
	This is surprising.
	It's actually not.
	We are living in a society that, last time I checked, praises monogamy, so why should that be news?
	I'm pretty sure it's like the global standard as well.
	It is a global standard, but we have a tendency of trying to make reports and researches about the obvious.
	So that stigma can take many forms.
	Here is where you'll see where the threat comes into it.
	She added, ranging from disgust to social exclusion to worse service when out in public.
	And those experiences sting, undermining quality of life and a sense of well-being and among those who choose to engage in an open lifestyle, the study team noted.
	So having an open relationship is a tough job.
	20% of Americans and Canadians have at least tried an open relationship, Mahar said.
	In 2019, she and her team decided to dig deeper by conducting a stigma exposure survey among 372 men and women involved in an open relationship.
	About 70% of the participants were white, with an average age of just over 33 years.
	Roughly 40% said that they had been treated unfairly, discriminated against, devalued, diminished, and or threatened because of their relationship choice.
	On the upside, most of those surveyed, nearly 58% said that they had not experienced stigma, and about 8% said they had even had positive or curious reactions from others.
	I wonder why they had positive reactions from others?
	They want us to take part?
	I don't know.
	Maybe.
	It seems to me something like that was taking place.
	Okay, but among those who said they had no history of stigmatization, 7 in 10 pointed out that they made an effort to ensure that pretty much no one was aware of their open lifestyle.
	A follow-up survey was then conducted among the same group with an additional 11 participants to gauge the precise impact of stigmatization.
	In the end, the team concluded that being exposed to stigma due to an open lifestyle was linked to increased distress.
	And if we fast forward to the later, to the last paragraph, we'll see it says, but whatever the reason, sorry, Yeah, but whatever the reason, when you're getting messages from everyone and everywhere that what you're doing is wrong, that has a real cost, Moore's added.
	It leads to lower self-esteem, a lower sense of well-being, and sometimes very real economic costs, like not getting hired for a job or being discriminated against.
	So...
	What do you think of this?
	They try to say that open relationships are associated with stigma, which leads into feelings of lower self-worth and a lower sense of well-being and economic costs.
	This just reminds me of a dumbass meme where you've got the physicist who says, you know, I had a hypothesis, but reality doesn't match it, so I need to change my hypothesis.
	Whereas you've got the social scientist over here who's like, well, I have a hypothesis, reality doesn't match it, so I need to change reality.
	People don't like that people have open relationships.
	They're not very approving of that.
	Do you know what we need to do?
	Reform all of society.
	This is the evidence.
	That's how it is.
	And there's also an extra dimension into it.
	It's that saying that there is no problem in it.
	It has no effects on people.
	But don't sit there and expect everyone to love you for it.
	Exactly.
	Right now, you are supposed to applaud when we're talking about open relationships, and there is nothing bad that can come out of it, and everyone who criticizes it is a bigot.
	This is what we are told.
	And I was wondering whether there are.
	I think it's obvious, but just for the sake of discussion and brainstorming, It almost doesn't seem to cross their minds that having open relationships could itself lead to diminished feelings of self-worth and well-being.
	What do you think about this?
	I don't think that will ever be allowed.
	This is the thing, maybe I'm cynical, but just every one of these I read at this point, I'm just like, the researcher is clearly looking for an answer.
	Are they going to get that answer, whether they like it or not?
	It's got nothing to do with what reality is.
	So let's just try and think of some couples to see if this is a viable way to have a relationship.
	I was thinking a very prominent couple that practices an open relationship is Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith.
	Do you think Will Smith is a happy person?
	He's loving it, clearly.
	And a role model?
	He loves destroying his own image and career.
	It's gone so well.
	That was weird because it seems that in the Oscars he was clearly laughing with Chris Rock's joke and then Jada Pinkett Smith pursed him with her gaze and he went and smacked Chris Rock.
	So, I don't know, but generally speaking they don't seem to me to be the most stable couple.
	So I... I tried to find another couple to show you and I found Destiny and Melina and I want us to look at how Melina talks about their relationship and I want to see your reaction.
	One interesting aspect of your relationship is you're in an open relationship.
	What's that like?
	From a game theoretic simulation perspective, what went into that calculation?
	And how does that- Like how that started?
	Yeah, how did that start?
	Sure.
	The only relationships I've ever done has been open relationships since I was in high school, because I didn't really understand why wouldn't you be able to do other things with other people, but then just have your main partner, basically.
	So what is an open relationship, generally speaking?
	That means you have one main partner?
	Not a monogamous relationship.
	Like, you're somehow allowed, like, in different ways.
	You can see other people sexually.
	Sexually.
	But, like, there's one main station.
	It doesn't have to be there for some people.
	But, like, I think it's probably easier and we probably don't really have time or the energy for, like, more than, like, one person to, like, really, like...
	What about like emotional?
	It's really complicated.
	There's a lot of complicated stuff going on under the hood there.
	Yeah.
	That's the understatement of the year.
	I just can't get over how her answer was, I don't understand why.
	And then she just moves on and is like, well, why didn't you investigate why?
	Why is it that, you know, it is generally the norm that people like to have monogamous relationships sexually and not have you walk off and F other guys.
	So it's almost like there's feelings and stuff that that's wrong and a betrayal.
	But okay, she just doesn't investigate.
	She just goes, well, I'll just look like this.
	But as she says, she has never tried to be in a monogamous relationship.
	Society is so bad that she just couldn't be a conformist.
	She had to make a case, even from a very early age, that she doesn't conform to social norms.
	Again, I'm not very, like, judgmental of people's, like, private lives, like, do what you want, but I just don't understand it in slice.
	I've heard arguments like this before, as in, like, why this is a good thing, and I'm just not convinced.
	Well, okay, I'm not trying to pass a law against them, but I think that...
	I'm just saying I'm not convinced that this is actually healthy.
	Yes.
	No, I want to point your attention towards a claim she makes that Destiny is her main partner because they don't have the energy...
	And because it is convenient.
	It's an issue of time and energy.
	So they're talking about open relationships.
	And they say that some open relationships don't have a main partner.
	There isn't a main partner in some cases.
	But in their case, there is.
	Destiny is Melina's.
	Ah, right.
	So you've got like...
	It's like the difference...
	I think it's like open relationships and then polyamory.
	That...
	I think all of them are polyamorous relationships.
	But some people engage in polyamorous relationships without having a main partner.
	And Melina says Destiny is her main partner.
	And Destiny says also that Melina is his main partner.
	But because it's an issue of convenience and because it is very time and energy consuming to see more people.
	So it's not an issue of feeling.
	I don't buy that.
	I don't buy that either, but I'm trying to see how they're trying to make a sense out of it and how they try to virtue signal by saying that this is the correct way to be.
	This is the correct way to have a relationship.
	And, you know...
	They're trying to say that, honestly, how does this not contribute to diminished feelings of self-worth if your partner tells you that you're my main partner only because it's convenient for me and because it is very time and energy consuming for me to not have a main partner?
	So I think that this is enough to contribute to diminished feelings of self-worth and lower feelings of self-esteem.
	So it's not necessarily the social stigma.
	We could be doing criticism here.
	We could be engaging in criticism and try to tell Destiny and Melina, well, maybe what you're doing is bad for you.
	In your own framework.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So let us see how destiny evolves his line of thinking when it comes to his opinions on the manosphere.
	Let us watch.
	Alright, cool.
	So what are some ideas that they represent and what do you think about them?
	I think they do a good job at speaking to disaffected young men who feel like the rest of the world has kind of left them behind or isn't willing to speak to them.
	And they do identify some true and real problems.
	Feels like on the left we have a really hard time doing self-improvement.
	We're telling people how to better themselves.
	We focus too much on structural or systemic issues rather than what can an individual do to uplift or empower themselves.
	And it also feels like they do a good job at speaking to some of the positive aspects of masculinity, that it's okay to be strong and brave and a soldier and a warrior and provide for your family and blah, blah, blah.
	So I would say those are positive messages, like self-improvement and everything that come from the red pill community.
	What's the negative?
	I think the analysis on how men and women interact is way too transactional.
	All of the romanticism and love and chemistry is totally sucked out of it.
	Everything is very sex-based.
	How do you basically have sex with the most amount of women possible?
	And that's going to make you happy.
	So we have an advocate of polyamory accusing the manosphere of telling young men to go and find many partners.
	Yeah, it's pretty weird.
	I was about to say, I don't mind his analysis there at all.
	The only thing I'm a bit weirded out by is he's like, yeah, the left have a problem with understanding that men should be able to improve themselves.
	Yeah, why?
	Why?
	Come on, answer that question.
	Precisely.
	You're correct.
	Yes, he's correct.
	And this is surprising coming from a leftist because it is true.
	Well, Destiny doesn't say he's a leftist, to be fair to him.
	He always says, I'm a liberal.
	He doesn't want to be associated with Vosch and all the socialist types.
	Okay, then I was unfair and I'll admit this.
	But it's interesting because it's good to see that there is, at least it's good for people to be aware, even if they don't belong to the right wing of the political spectrum, it is a good thing for people to be aware that self-improvement is important and that the left doesn't address the issue.
	If I was going to have a stab at it, I'd say it's because feminists view the world through class war between men and women.
	Yes.
	Just nuts, but whatever.
	And then they've become hatched onto the left-wing movement, so as a result, the left has to buy into the fact that women and men are in class war, in which case women can be self-improved, but men can't, because then they might win the war, as if that means anything.
	Yes.
	What does winning the gender war look like?
	What are we talking about?
	Yeah.
	Left-way politics aside.
	It's as if, you know, we have segregated society into men and women and there has to be a battle that someone wins.
	We're in constant conflict and I'm going to get my group to dominate yours and then it'll be over and we win.
	What does that look like, ever?
	Why would you even do that?
	This leads to the total disintegration of society.
	Yes, and I think that this is a danger because when we talk about open relationships, there is the danger of families coming apart.
	And if we don't have families, we don't have society because families are an integral part of society.
	And I think that is why this is an issue and it must be addressed.
	It is important to show to people that it sounds cool, but it's dangerous.
	And it may sound bad, it may sound fear-baiting, but there are dangers in it.
	And I wanted to talk to you a bit about the transactional nature of relationships that Destiny talks about.
	There can be people who view relationships in a transactional manner.
	But my God, isn't an open relationship entirely transactional?
	I don't know what more it could be.
	Yes, it's just like saying, well, I won't...
	I mean, how can you develop the feelings of intimacy if you just say, well, whenever I want, whenever I feel like it, I just switch to another partner.
	This is an interesting...
	I don't get it.
	Yeah, I don't get it either.
	And the thing is that I don't know if Melina gets it either as well, because if we check the next link, we'll see Melina's claim about relationships.
	If you want my honest answer, I think a relationship is a contract.
	And if you break the rules, you cheat.
	No matter what it is.
	If you have agreed on something, you do the opposite.
	It's cheating.
	It depends on what the contract is, yeah.
	Okay.
	So, he accuses the manosphere of Prompting young men to find many partners and of spreading the idea that relationships are transactional.
	His girlfriend goes out in public next to him and says relationships are transactional.
	Maybe they have issues.
	I'm just saying.
	Do you think they have issues?
	I can't follow it.
	I certainly can't follow it.
	And there's an extra aspect into it which is fun because she says that relationships are transactional and If someone cheats and breaks the rules of the contract, you cheat.
	How can you cheat in an open relationship?
	If the whole relationship contract says...
	No, there is a way, actually, because Boris Johnson ran into this.
	So Boris Johnson used to have his wife.
	I don't know if they had kids, probably.
	And then they had an open relationship where either one could go and suck or blow off anyone.
	And they did that, and then the cheating was catching feelings.
	That's the definition in there, and that's why he ended up divorcing his wife and getting with his new current wife, because he caught feelings for that one.
	Okay, so it's not the cheating, it's the development of feelings.
	Yeah, it's not the sex, it's the feelings.
	But how do you divorce those two?
	Because I've seen footage, and we've mentioned it many times, there's this Louis Theroux documentary about porn stars, and he goes to a porn shoot, and this guy and this girl are going to do this scene, and they do it, and then afterwards they're chatting, and Louis just says, would you not feel like there's something special between you two now, after what you've shared?
	And you would think, oh no, it's just transactional.
	No, there obviously is between them two.
	And they're like giggling about it.
	And it's like, yeah, come on.
	You can't divorce sex from feelings, I don't think, entirely.
	I agree with you.
	And this is why many people who engage in open relationships, they say that at some point they do develop feelings for another person.
	Surprise, surprise.
	Why did Boris Johnson break up with his wife?
	This is an interesting issue, though, because you mentioned, I think, a really interesting word, the word feelings.
	And feelings are involuntary.
	Don't choose to feel something for a person.
	It just happens.
	And I think that this is an interesting aspect of relationships.
	And by presenting it as a contract, they present relationships as a choice.
	And feelings aren't voluntary.
	So I think they try to present the involuntary as voluntary.
	I think that this is a weird issue.
	This is something that doesn't get captured by the whole open relationship thing.
	I'm not so convinced of this idea that they say that you don't develop feelings or if you see other people.
	Just saying.
	Okay, should we move to the next one?
	Oh, the next segment?
	Yep.
	Okay, sure, sure.
	I didn't know if you were finished.
	Well, this is going to be good fun.
	It's just a big nothing burger, really.
	So, the big nothing, literally nothing, which is January 6th committee have finished their report.
	Ooh, what's going to be in it?
	Oh, we already know because the whole thing, the whole thing was obvious from the start, which is I don't like Trump.
	Is it a chicken or a beef burger or a vegetarian burger?
	It's a nothing burger, as CNN would tell us.
	First things first, though, if you actually want to find out something you might not know, and some details in which they're just neutrally presented, go over to LoanSeries.com, and we have the article there, Capital Building Takeover Timeline, from Josh and Hugo back in the day.
	And they did a fantastic job of just, here's the timeline, this happened at this time, and then this happened at this time, and then this happened at this time, there you are.
	You want to go read what happened?
	There you are.
	No, no, and then the capital was stormed.
	And four billion people died in the worst event since Pearl Harbor, I tell you!
	Yeah, none of that.
	So you can go just actually read some news for once.
	So do go and check that out.
	Otherwise, we'll get to the media, the legacy media's version of events, which is not this happened and this happened and, you know, make up your own mind.
	No, instead it's let me tell you about how this is the Holocaust 2 boogaloo.
	And we have here from the Financial Times, January 6th committee declares Donald Trump's central cause of the Capitol attack.
	Well, duh.
	What do you mean?
	Like, if Donald Trump didn't exist, yeah, okay, it wouldn't have happened.
	There wouldn't be Trump flags, like, blah, blah, blah.
	He kind of has to be involved for the chain of process to happen, which is he has to run for candidate and then believe that something happened.
	And then, I can't say what, because this is a fair and neutral platform.
	Thank you, YouTube.
	And then contest that something, and then something like this might take place, of course.
	But the point is, by the right, which is correct, did he tell these people to do that?
	No.
	We literally have the quote, peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
	At no point did he say, yeah, how about you go in and just smash up the windows?
	Walk within the ropes, though.
	Don't do anything bad.
	Didn't happen.
	We've got the next one here.
	We can see more of that.
	We have Al Jazeera, who popped in with January 6th, panel unveils report, describes Trump's conspiracy.
	If anyone really thinks there was a plan behind any of this, you're smoking a lot of crack.
	There's definitely no plan behind any of that.
	The next one here is January 6th panel issues final reports placing blame for Capitol riot on one man from the New York Times.
	Yeah, we get it.
	You hate Trump.
	I think that committee was entirely symbolic.
	It was therapy.
	It was a pure therapy session.
	I don't know what was in their minds.
	What do they think they achieved?
	Well, you could see it for just the people who were in it, and it's like, okay, this is the anti-Trump coalition.
	It's like bipartisan.
	Well, everyone on here hates Trump, so there's not...
	Yeah, and it was bipartisan, but it had seven Democrats and two Republicans.
	And the two Republicans hate Trump, so it's just like, well, this isn't really bipartisan.
	This is all people who agree.
	And what have they agreed on?
	We don't like Trump.
	All right, now we're going to start our investigation.
	All right, a million years later, I don't like Trump.
	Oof!
	Hard work!
	And they just made their recommendation for the Justice Department to criminally charge Trump on four rounds.
	That was just a recommendation.
	They've done a bit more than that.
	If we go to the next one here, there's How to Save Democracy, an 11-point plan or whatever.
	Oh, crap.
	Sorry, we've still got political to go here.
	Telling us extremists at the vanguard of a siege, January 6th, panel's the last word.
	Yeah, there's a million flowery ways to say I don't like Trump.
	Also, it's just that imagery.
	It's funny to me.
	All these people clamoring around for essentially a tea and biscuit session.
	Yeah.
	Because this is all this is, just every day.
	Just, how about we hear some more crap?
	And there's just this towering image of Trump over all of them being like, I'm doing work.
	Answering the phone.
	Anyway.
	We'll go to the 11-point plan to save democracy, which I'm sure will totally save it from, I don't know, China.
	How about ending wokeness?
	That's not an idea.
	The main point of policy on the table is putting forth the panel's aims to bar Trump from holding public office ever again.
	Yeah, that'll lower the temperature.
	Good.
	Good job.
	I don't like him.
	So what are you going to do?
	I'm just going to ban him from running.
	Like, if you want Caesar, that's how you get Caesar.
	Which is just, you're not going to run for console.
	Well, um, okay then.
	Well, see you in Rome.
	Yeah, they show fear on their part.
	They think they have lost the people.
	Yeah, also much democracy.
	Like, what if we just ban our opponents?
	Yeah.
	So that's the toppest tier of democracy I've ever heard.
	Yes, you can't have democracy without dialogue.
	And they really portray everyone who disagrees with them as a tyrant.
	And I cannot think of a more tyrannical thing than this.
	Well, no, real democracy is when there is one party, and we win, and everyone agrees.
	And then we just move forward.
	You're making sense.
	We go to The Guardian, and this is the outlet that most caught my eye in relation to the big nothing burger, which is that The Guardian seemed to have, like, I don't know, got rabies or something?
	They've wrote, like, ten articles about this?
	I couldn't care to read one, but you know, that's...
	Had to for work, but let's go through them.
	Because we have this one here, which is January 6th panel accuses Trump of multi-part conspiracy in Final Report, which again, I just...
	It's so dumb.
	The idea that we're going to do this, and then we're going to have the BLM riots, and then we're going to raise the tensions, and then we're going to have postal voting, and then something will happen.
	We don't know what.
	It's just...
	Yeah, no, there's no thinking about this.
	That'd be silly.
	Come on.
	This is a chain of events that happened after each other, not because they're planned.
	Unless you're talking about fortification.
	The central cause of January 6th is of one man, former President Donald Trump, who many others followed.
	The document's executive summary says it means nothing.
	None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him.
	Yeah, no S. Sherlock.
	I mean, again, did you know that Obama wouldn't have won the White House if it wasn't for Obama?
	Oh, I didn't know that.
	Are you sure?
	Pure alternative history hub right there.
	But I want to add something here that, of course, this is obvious.
	But there's another issue here that by trying to play the orange man bad rhetoric, Democrats have tried to basically spread the idea that history started in January 2017.
	There were many people who felt alienated from Obama's economic policies.
	And Trump expressed them.
	So in many ways, Trump gave voice to people who already had problems due to the Obama administration.
	It's not they're trying to portray it as if Trump is behind everything.
	Yeah, his history begins with the last Hitler.
	I mean, I don't know if you've seen it.
	Someone's done a great job.
	Can't remember who it is.
	They just put an image of every single Republican candidate for presidency ever.
	And there's just one sign at some point in the Democratic campaign in which whoever it is, this guy's Hitler.
	Like, they'll have them with a little mustache.
	Like, Mitt Romney was Hitler once upon a time.
	And you just look at that and think, okay, right here, George, you know, Bush, Hitler.
	I suspect his status as Hitler was suspended when he went to the BLM. Now he's good Hitler, which, unlike bad Hitler...
	He's supposed to be a good guy.
	Let's put it this way.
	Yeah, the left are like, I'm Kanye West on this issue now.
	We're all children of God, aren't we?
	Anyway, they write, in comments posted on his Truth Social Network after the report's release, Trump called the whole thing highly partisan and a witch hunt.
	Yeah, because it is.
	He said it failed to study the reason for the January 6th protest, which I'm going to say is blank, because I can't read that.
	Anyway, Trump falsely claimed the report didn't include his statement, saying that the supporters should be peacefully and patriotically making their voices heard.
	Okay, if it's in there somewhere buried, no one cares.
	No one's reading the 800-word report on why you don't like Orange Man.
	So, I could not give a crap, frankly.
	It's precisely a way to make people not read it.
	Yeah.
	Also, the thing, like, he assumes that you didn't put it in there.
	Well, I mean, when you tried to impeach him, you did cut that out.
	I don't know if you remember seeing that footage, but the Dems played a tape.
	This was, like, their prosecution in the hearing, right?
	And then there's just, like, Trump's speech, Trump's speech, and then it just cuts to random B-roll for a minute, and then goes back to him speaking.
	And it's just because they needed to cut out him saying, peacefully and patriotically, make your voice heard.
	They just didn't want it in there.
	I was like, okay, you're utterly corrupt in the highest way.
	Anyway, we've got the next article here, because there's more from The Guardian.
	You have it there.
	Jan 6 panel, release transcript of key witnesses ahead of the 800-page report.
	So this is on top of the 800 pages.
	This is 34 transcripts from 1,000 interviews.
	That's also amended there.
	It's a lot of reading.
	In case you hate your family during Christmas and just, I don't know, want to just kill yourself with boredom, I don't know.
	This is a leftist present to your family for Christmas.
	And they're going to say happy holidays.
	Read this.
	Lodge, you've got a couple of days.
	All right.
	Anyone who's going to Christmas and their uncle or whoever else is a big old Joe Biden supporter and just loves that sort of stuff, if you've got a lot of money, go down to your library, get 800 pages printed, wrap it up.
	There you are, my friend.
	I'm sure you'll love it.
	I'm not certain that this is ecologically conscious, though.
	Maybe they'll give it on a PDF version.
	But it's the thing of, like, this isn't the 9-11 audio logs.
	No one's going to be looking back at this for 10 years, like, oh, this is important.
	No one gives a crap.
	Beyond the next one here, we also have an article from The Guardian, which is really weird.
	From Liz Cheney to Donald Trump, winners and losers from the January 6th hearing?
	I mean, I feel like Liz Cheney lost, because she lost her seat.
	I think that's enough.
	And she isn't terribly popular in the Republican circles.
	No, but she literally can't run again because she lost her seat to a Trump supporter.
	Okay, so presumably she's a loser in this list, right?
	No!
	Scroll down.
	We have Liz Cheney.
	Winner or loser?
	Winner!
	She doesn't have a seat anymore, but she won!
	Yeah, the reason given.
	Once the committee was in session, Cheney emerged as its star prosecutor.
	Witheringly focused, she rose, losing her own seat in Congress to a Trump-backed challenger in August to keep her eyes on the prize, establishing Trump's culpability for January 6th and stopping him from ever returning to power.
	How does that make her a winner, though?
	She loses her seat, makes some suggestions, and they're not enforced.
	She won the heart of woke politicians, though.
	I think that's what she won.
	That's what it's all about.
	Yes.
	That's the best feeling you could ever have.
	And woke people, not just politicians.
	You know, the people who really matter, the whole 6% of the country who are insane.
	I mean, if you want that, I don't know, just start talking about lizards, I guess.
	The paper goes on.
	You can see, basically, anyone who opposes Trump, winner.
	Anyone who likes Trump, loser.
	That's all this article is.
	If you scroll through it, John, it really is just that sad.
	Just name.
	Oppose Trump, winner.
	Support Trump, loser.
	Much journalism.
	Journalism of the highest order.
	We get the idea, yeah.
	And you go to the next one here, there's more of this crap.
	January 6th committee is right, it's time to prosecute the Kingpin Trump.
	Go on then, Lawrence Stewart.
	You won't.
	You've got no power.
	It doesn't mean anything.
	You know it doesn't.
	This is all, again, I don't know how many people are sitting around having a therapy session over this.
	There's too many, for sure.
	The next one here, there's another Guardian article about the same goddamn thing.
	The Guardian's view on the January 6th committee.
	Oh, what do you think?
	Trump bad.
	Trump terrible, in fact.
	The Guardian has a history in this.
	Yeah.
	I don't know who's even trying.
	What do you think the Guardian's opinion is on Donald Trump?
	I think it might be bad.
	Let's check in.
	They've written 1,000 articles by this time, and all of them say the same thing.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the derangement syndrome has not gone away.
	The next one here is the same goddamn thing again, which is the release of the January 6th thing.
	More pressure on Trump.
	Yep.
	It's not doing anything, though.
	Funnily enough in here, they do actually have, because it's like one of those live tickers.
	You know, this thing happened, then this thing happened.
	And it's at the end.
	So it says, The Guardian has a separate global Ukraine live blog going, where you can go and follow the press conference of the White House and Vladimir Selensky.
	It's just funny to see in real time, like, here's the next current thing.
	Yeah.
	Like, literally.
	It's like an absolute conveyor belt of, now believe this.
	No sincerity in this is worth your time, or this is interesting, or this is something that's taking place that's funny or anything else.
	No, just, well, now believe this.
	Corporate sludge.
	We'll end up with the last things here, which is just some good fun.
	I did see Marjorie Taylor Greene having some fun with this, which is, um, here's the real reason why the J6 Communist Committee is making criminal references in the DOJ for Trump, and it's just polling showing that, well, if Trump was to run again, a lot of Republicans are very much happy about that.
	They kind of hate Joe Biden.
	Who would have thought?
	I don't know how viable this polling is, because I did check out the general polling.
	I think it's from 538 or whatever, and they have just a whole list of polls.
	They're not rated very well, but it's all over the place for sure.
	This is just the primaries in the Republican Party.
	I mean, look at that spread.
	One of them is plus 23 for Trump, the next one plus 22 for DeSantis.
	It's very soon to say.
	Yeah.
	I don't think anyone can say.
	No.
	Yeah.
	What's that name?
	Big Village?
	Whatever.
	The thing is, I don't think anyone can have an opinion on that, but I know we can damn well have an opinion on one thing, which is the therapy session.
	And I just love how they've done all of this.
	And I think when they started out, they did genuinely want this to be a big thing.
	Like, oh, everyone's going to be interested.
	This will be the takedown of the century.
	Watergate and Mar time.
	And what's the reality?
	What's everyone's response?
	Next image, please.
	So what?
	I love that meme so much.
	I mean, you would think that publishing an 845-page report meant that they were going into details.
	That mattered, maybe.
	Yeah, but most of them is just, you know, evaluations of Trump's character.
	I do not like the man.
	Oh boy.
	I've never heard that one before.
	Indeed, orange man bad.
	Anyway, that's the big nothing.
	It's like in The Shining, where, you know, you have Jack Nicholson writing the same sentence.
	I don't remember.
	All work makes Jack a dull boy.
	Yeah, yeah.
	They have 847 pages of orange man bad, orange man bad, orange man bad.
	And if you want a Christmas gift to someone you hate, there it is.
	Otherwise, let's go to the video comments.
	Happy Yaldar, meaning solstice, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Christmas.
	Every few years I'm asked to put out a message for the protesters in Iran.
	This year I saw all the signs of a deep and widespread revolution, not just against the Islamic Republic, but within Islam itself.
	Any interested lotus eaters should check out my Substack page, Extended Essays, for my message for the women of Iran.
	Just search for Extended Essays on Substack.com.
	Well, you can check it out if you're interested.
	One of the things that really excites me about the Iran stuff is, maybe I'm deludedly optimist about this, but if you take Iran out of the Islamic theocracy state of government and make it a nice, honest dictatorship again, something like that, you at least take the proxy war between them and Saudi Arabia in Islamist fundamentalism out of the Middle East.
	I don't know, but I think before 1979 they were a bit more humane as a society.
	Yeah, good honest dictatorships.
	Much better.
	Maybe they have a reason to hope and be optimistic.
	I'll check the essays.
	I'm just excited about the idea of everyone funding ISIS to stop for five minutes in the Middle East.
	And I know that a lot of that crap is formed by just the stupid-ass Cold War between Saudi and Iran.
	Defunding that would be good.
	Otherwise, we'll go to the written comments on the side, I suppose.
	Andrew Narok says, Merry Christmas to all the Lotus Eaters.
	Very thankful for the work you do.
	Thank you very much.
	Dr.
	Ziggy says, I'll be posting the same comment every time Callum is on the show until he finishes watching the final season of Breaking Bad.
	No, I'm not doing it.
	Go to hell.
	If you don't know, I watched...
	I don't know what season it is.
	Was it four?
	Yeah, I got to season four.
	Oh, you've watched Breaking Bad on that?
	Yes.
	Right.
	So you know the point where...
	Gus gets blown up.
	And Walter White has killed everyone.
	Everything's wrapped up in a neat bow.
	And the only thing that's a bit of a loose end is Mike is still out there somewhere.
	And then he's just like, well, I won.
	And then he rolls the credits and plays some busted music or something.
	I can't remember.
	But that's where I'm leaving it.
	I'm perfectly happy with that ending.
	And that was the moment when you realize that you don't want to continue watching it.
	No, I don't want anything else to mess it up.
	Okay, okay.
	Also because I really did not stand some of the seasons where it was just...
	I understand.
	That makes sense.
	What's your opinion on the Fly episode?
	I liked it.
	How?
	I don't get it.
	I have a messed up view on some episodes and works of art.
	I have a kind of love and hate relationship with some.
	You're not alone.
	Me and Harry had a big argument about a fly episode.
	I'm just like, it's boring.
	I don't like it.
	And it's not only with Breaking Bad, it's also with, you know, sometimes, you know, literature.
	For instance, The Dark Tower by Stephen King.
	I had a very love and hate relationship with the ending.
	I haven't watched it.
	Yeah, it's the book.
	The movie went out and it wasn't very good.
	But, you know, I had a love and hate relationship with the whole series, especially at the end.
	Alright, so on to the normal day in Scotland.
	So, Trent C says, nothing shows that you are the oppressed underdog than having the ruling party government completely agreeing with you and trying to keep you happy.
	Even keeping your thoughts happy, whilst criminalising the thoughts of your enemies.
	I'm sorry, I can't stick on it.
	She prayed in her head and was arrested.
	This thought crime, yeah.
	Yeah, but I know we've had people visited for posting memes or liking limericks, but just the idea that someone would be arrested for...
	Literally, just, I'm thinking about praying.
	Yeah, but that's the issue with Woke now.
	They have become mind readers.
	How do they know that she was praying in her mind?
	Oh, she said she might have been.
	The officer said, are you praying?
	And she said, I might be.
	Yeah.
	In her mind?
	And they concluded that she did.
	Yeah.
	That's why they prosecuted her.
	Yeah.
	So, they're mind readers.
	I just can't get away from you.
	Remember, there were some people who went out to the Kremlin when the special operation began, and they had bits of white paper.
	And the joke is, it's an old Soviet joke, I don't know if you know it, which is about the fact that, you know, you don't have to write anything on it.
	Everyone already knows the message.
	Okay.
	So, don't bother, just take a bit of blank paper.
	Okay.
	And they got arrested for that, and everyone was like, haha, you know, how ridiculous.
	And they were just like, yeah, but we're arresting people for thinking.
	I just don't think we're in the position everyone thinks we're in, when they're like, haha, aren't we better?
	No, really not, sometimes.
	Baron Von Warhawk says, I find it extremely humorous that feminism has completely destroyed what it means to be a woman.
	Yeah, I do know a lot of good misogynists are loving that.
	I know Carl was looking at all the tears and was just like, hmm.
	Yeah, I mean, clearly the bill is insane, but also he's not over his hatred of feminism.
	Captain Charlie the Beagle, which I don't think he should be, Regardless of the Gender Recognition Act, it's nice to see Leo's girlfriend being recognized for the woman she really is, even with her punt gun.
	I think Leo is the tranny in that circumstance, isn't he?
	I don't know.
	Transgender person?
	Leo identifies as a woman depending on the circumstance, which he legally now can do.
	If it's convenient, yeah.
	Lord Nervar says, Yeah.
	The more I think about Carl's book on representation as well, the more I just write.
	The idea, I don't know if you heard his spiel about this.
	Alright, so his point is that representation is meant to be a re-presentation of the public.
	That's the concept.
	So like the parliament is a re-presentation of the public.
	Yes.
	And obviously it's not on many, many levels.
	It isn't, yeah.
	This is one of the mad ones.
	This is the ideal.
	It's supposed to be.
	Yeah, at which point it is accurate and true to say that the United Kingdom, for example, does not have a representative democracy.
	It has a democracy.
	It is unrepresentative democracy.
	We have a group of weird ideological elites running things, and that's it.
	I wonder whether this is the case, because democratically people voted for Brexit, and Brexit had a lot of requirements in it that people voted for.
	And I don't think that the Tory government...
	You know, the Tory administrations, let's say, have lived up to their promise.
	But at least that vote is an actual representation of the people, like as a representation of their views, because it's a direct referendum.
	But, like, you've got the public in there booing them, and they're just going ahead.
	Well, this isn't representative in the slightest.
	Colin P. says, validate my reality, but what if it invalidates my reality?
	Someone online says, a sexual charity aimed at children was full of nonsense.
	Once again, truly shocked.
	Shaker Silver says, Scotland deserves the government they voted for.
	At least Englanders have to have their votes subverted by an unaccountable party politic.
	Yeah.
	That is a bit...
	I don't know how closely you follow the Scottish elections.
	Not very closely, but I have an idea.
	Whenever you represent Scottish people with what the SNP are doing, they always find it horrifying, but then the majority of them keep voting SNP. But I get that it's the one-party issue of Scottish independence.
	It's the representation you mentioned before.
	Yeah, but it's just so weird.
	People hate it, but it doesn't represent them, but they vote for it.
	Yeah, but it's more the thing of, like, they're voting for it assuming, oh, they're just the independence guys, right?
	They don't seem to think or know, or increasingly, as they know, they're stopping to vote for it, which is nice.
	The insane crap that comes with that, with the SMP. Yeah.
	The people of Scotland have voted overwhelmingly for the SNP despite the gay Nazi party doing everything possible to screw Scotland over at every opportunity.
	Not only do they continue to vote for these insane people in power again and again, they also take every opportunity to insult the English people, destroy the UK and slander us as bigots if you want to help the kids.
	As far as I'm concerned, the Scottish people are getting what they deserve.
	There is that viewpoint, which I'm not entirely unsynthetic to, frankly.
	I mean, people have responsibility when they vote.
	It's very easy to say, okay, it's just the government's fault and it's not people's fault always.
	Sometimes people should be responsible for what they vote.
	Did the chap mention it earlier?
	No, he didn't.
	Okay.
	The phrase goes, people get the governments they deserve.
	And the weirdest place I ever saw that mentioned, there's a big old book about North Korea and it's just facts about North Korea.
	Okay.
	This couple did a fantastic book.
	They've been working on North Korea for like 50 years.
	I'm really interested in that book.
	Yeah, so they listed all this stuff and they go through it.
	And then there's like their judgments finally at the end.
	And their judgment at the end was basically people get the government they deserve.
	And they were like, even in North Korea?
	Yeah, okay.
	There is a vote.
	There are multiple parties.
	I will have to read this.
	I'm genuinely intrigued.
	I'll send you it, but it's like, yeah, it's what it is.
	But at the same time, they were like, but the North Korean elite uphold this, regardless of your thoughts, they actually do.
	There's no way of saying these people don't, and in which case, what do you want exactly?
	And I'm like, ah, crap.
	Even in a society like that, the argument is true.
	I'm not wording it as well as they did.
	And then you look back at a society like Scotland, and it's like, eh, that's also true.
	Maybe they were even less excused.
	Honestly, I don't think that people deserve communist regimes.
	They keep upholding it, though.
	They keep...
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, that's a big discussion.
	Yeah.
	We could have it at some other time.
	Yeah.
	I have to go back to their argument.
	It was beautifully put.
	It's after they lay out, like, every horror possible.
	And even there, like...
	Hmm.
	It's...
	Yeah, very much like a Baron of Warhawk earlier.
	Kevin Fox says, one of the things about the Scottish bill that...
	Sorry, I don't know why that made me laugh.
	The Scottish bill that gives sex offenders a loophole as being on the sex offender register no longer prevents you from transitioning.
	So now registered sex offenders only have to wait six months maximum to read gender and get a new passport and a name and gender they are able to apply for jobs they would normally be barred from.
	That's horrific.
	Thank you, Kevin.
	Colin P says, how is it that the left think they're on the right side of history?
	Delusion.
	And he also says, validate my reality, but if it invalidates my reality.
	Yeah, that's that.
	Let's move on to the polyamory, if you want to read these ones.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So, small L libertarian.
	Destiny isn't banging anyone else.
	He loves her and it's sad.
	Look at the Vietnam stare he has going as she was explaining it.
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	But the question is, even if he doesn't, because it seems to me that he says he does, even if he doesn't, what's the reason?
	Is it because it's time consuming and he doesn't have the energy?
	That was what Melina was saying.
	Yeah, it's the worst possible reason to give.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I really don't know about Destiny's sex life or his dating life, but let's see.
	Okay.
	I mean, the only thing I really know about him is I've spoken to him twice and most times he's just been incredibly rude to me.
	So I'm just like, I'm no friend of hers, but at the same time, I don't want to make judgments.
	Maybe you weren't interested in Melina.
	That's cruel.
	Yeah.
	Oh, Callum isn't interested in Melina.
	This is just an insult.
	I should be rude to him.
	Yeah.
	Oh.
	JC, if you are in an open relationship, there is no relationship.
	You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
	I totally agree with you.
	And I think this is also insightful in that many leftists want to have their cake and eat it too.
	You will say now, okay, and I respect this, that destiny is not a leftist.
	But I think that there is this mentality in woke ideology, generally speaking, Let us have our cake and eat it too.
	He has some weird views, to say the least.
	I'm not an ideological comrade of his.
	Okay, rue the day.
	The 20% open relationship stat seems to me like cope from those who were cheated on and then stayed.
	As a former empowered female, it is adorable to see these two innocent souls not getting sometimes there's no energy point.
	It's not the issue of energy but self-worth.
	The catch, though, is that riding every horse in town does not actually raise your self-worth, nor does it raise your perceived value.
	Work on yourselves before you entered any form of relationship.
	Ruth Aday, I agree with you.
	Again, I think it is an issue of self-worth.
	The first thing to have a genuine relationship is to not be afraid of being yourself.
	Work on yourself, I think.
	That's the way I view it.
	Work on yourself and then let dating and your relationship be a celebration instead of an attempt to feel emotional holes that you may have.
	I think that's an entirely fair point.
	I thought we were going to have an opinion on that.
	Okay.
	Sophie Lev Pedersen.
	Yeah, my sister who got married this summer.
	It turned out she had been in an open relationship for one year prior to the marriage meeting.
	She had gotten some side sausage and called it an open relationship.
	Sorry, that was a brilliant comment.
	That was brilliantly put.
	We just didn't know about it.
	And of course the marriage fell apart three weeks after and she is now not married anymore.
	Well, we're up.
	Well, what can I say?
	At least Destiny and Melina are open about it with each other.
	Yeah, I mean, if you're not open about it, then there's...
	How is it even an open relationship?
	Does that even make sense?
	It's an open secret relationship.
	That doesn't...
	No.
	Or maybe it's an...
	It's a side sausage.
	That's what it is.
	It's, as Melina said, it is a contract that you can have other people, but you cannot violate it.
	But if you violate it, someone else will cheat.
	It's...
	Again, it brings us back to the Boris Johnson thing you said about feeling before.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Sir, all me.
	We call it some via-vost on the site.
	Okay, so people sleeping around, debasing themselves and treating others as means to an end, fail to find meaning in life and end up miserable and unfulfilled.
	Who could possibly have foreseen this?
	Yes, again, this is stating the obvious, and it's good to hear other people agreeing with this, because sometimes we lose our minds when we are exposed to things like that.
	Someone online.
	Exclusivity is what gives a romantic relationship meaning, gravitas, and trust.
	Again, I think that this is uncontroversial.
	This is a way to allow room for those feelings to develop.
	And if the relationship isn't exclusive, there doesn't seem to be plenty of room for this.
	Someone online continues.
	Yes, people who cheat should be shunned.
	Well, I mean, I will put it this way.
	I think that there should be moral criticism, and sometimes moral criticism does affect people's idea of self-worth.
	Sorry, I'm just laughing at the chat.
	Just more puns about how to say side sausage.
	Weekend wiener worst.
	I don't know, I mean, yeah, I mean, cheating's bad.
	I don't think that's controversial, is it?
	Yeah.
	It's not.
	Do we have any good comment about the side sausage analogy?
	To be honest, I think Weekend Wiener Worst is probably my favorite, but anyway.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Small L Libertarian.
	Threats of violence.
	Explanation for a column.
	Lady 1.
	We are in an open relationship.
	Lady 2.
	Interesting.
	Flirt with my husband, I'll kill you.
	Nicholas Valentine is where they expect to be beating people off with a stick and their partners will be at home waiting for them, but instead end up the ones waiting on their partner to come home.
	Then it's not what they wanted and their partner is a no-good cheat.
	Fair point.
	Rick Archer.
	Ah, yes.
	People feeling shame when they do something that's not good for them.
	And how that is not their fault.
	I love clan world Ethan Figueroa Cackles should be shamed and made legal second-class citizens.
	Making them wear armbands.
	Cacks get off on...
	What would be the symbol on the armband?
	Maybe the wiener.
	It's just a massive cock on his arm.
	Or, you know, some sausages and maybe some mustard and ketchup.
	Okay, whatever.
	Okay.
	Cucks get off on being conquered so you can't trust them.
	Sophie Liv Pedersen.
	Open relationship is just another word for free pass to be a cheating whore.
	Yeah, tell us how you really feel, love.
	Guys, if your partner, as much as suggest open relationship, run.
	Colin P. Wait, is Callum suggesting that those in a monogamous relationship are in the global majority?
	I think that's for you to answer.
	Yeah, I believe so.
	I think we are the global majority once again, lads.
	I hope so.
	Part of the Global North.
	Damn Global North strikes again.
	Global conformists.
	You know about the Global North, Global South meme?
	So there's this stupid leftist nonsense of the Global North and the Global South, and it's basically just the white race plus South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand.
	It's very North and South for the Global North.
	So it's something like Western...
	Includes Israel, but not the West Bank and Gaza.
	Okay, okay.
	It's basically just like, here's all the successful places in that regard, right?
	And then it's like, the Global South is everyone else.
	And the narrative goes, the Global North has oppressed the Global South because of empire or slavery or whatever other bollocks you want to argue, right?
	Yeah.
	Even China, the Global South oppressed nobody.
	So there was no...
	I suspect that this is a way of saying that only Westerners...
	Yeah, it's just a very simple two-pixel way of demonizing the West, right?
	It's useful for that purpose.
	So where would the Mongolian Empire be?
	They're in the Global South.
	Okay.
	Yeah, it don't make sense.
	They're trying to make it make sense.
	The point is that basically it became like shorthand for like our noble barbarians and you oppressive empire builders.
	But when you bring that to the right-wing space, it's like, hmm, I can veto this.
	And then it's like, yeah, the Global South strikes again.
	There was another machete attack in London.
	Hmm, interesting.
	The Global North.
	Well, what have they done?
	Another space program.
	Hmm, interesting.
	So anyway, let's go on with the big nothing, shall we?
	So Free Will 2112 says, if January 6th was an insurrection, why aren't all protester invasions or any other political riots that are of a much greater magnitude than January 6th capital riots treated as an insurrection?
	The reason?
	Because these rioters dared to invade the halls of the elite themselves.
	Usually it is the neighbourhoods of ordinary people who suffer during these events, but the elites don't like it.
	Up them, so to speak, so they've reacted with fury.
	I think this is a very accurate comment by Free Will 2112 because I think that Democrats have a double standard when it comes to criticizing riots.
	So the BLM riots involved arsenic.
	And the destruction of small-sized and medium-sized businesses.
	And they were portrayed as if they were not a big thing.
	There were shouts to defund the police.
	I don't see this as terribly constructive.
	Yeah, I mean, there's obviously the double sound of like, everyone dies, no problem.
	You tipped over Nazi police's desk, big problem.
	But that was portrayed as if it were part of the right side of history.
	Sure, sure.
	But it's that thing of like, you remember all the immigrants flying into Texas, no problem.
	Two of them trying to break into Kamala Harris's compound, big problem.
	You've got that aspect.
	But there's also, there are other protests that have broken into halls of power, like the Kavanaugh ones people have mentioned, all the protests have broken into the state capitol or whatever the hell it was.
	And the thing there is that obviously it's controlled.
	Like the January 6th people were not controlled in any meaning of that word.
	So that's the other thing that makes them so pissed off.
	What do you mean the plebs also can do this?
	Shaker Silver says that the entire purpose of the committee was to actually bring a charge to arrest Trump, but, sorry, was not to do that, but to hold this over Trump's campaign as baggage that will make the Republican primaries messy.
	For a side that says Trump is finished and has no chance of winning, they sure do like to keep going after him.
	That's a good point.
	Propaganda wouldn't be necessary if we...
	So the comment is that they were trying to divide the Republican Party.
	Okay, yeah.
	No, this makes sense.
	I'm sure there's a hell of a lot of dirty games going on there, because there always is.
	Kevin Fox says the January 6th report is typical Democrat tactics.
	Sorry, Demo Pratt tactics.
	Make sure the report is so long that no one can be bothered to read it and find all BS in it.
	Just look at the $1.7 trillion government funding bill.
	They released 4,155 page bill at 2am on the day of the vote.
	That doesn't include the thousands of pages and add-ons.
	Speed reading should be a thing now.
	I don't know if you can insist that every bill becomes with an audio log, so you can listen to it while you're out and about.
	Binary Surfer says, again, re-portraying the opponents as tyrants, Stelios.
	They are.
	it's always always always projection when the left goes ad hominem yep Lord Nervar says the whole January 6th thing smacks of a desperate ploy to head off the opposition to the deep state's agenda it was the furthest extension of their opponent's hand so far assuming of course it was genuine and so they have to make a crude example of it
	but in reality it's only showing the world that the American establishment is weak and has to rely on singular events to keep their polls from completely collapsing it is almost hilarious how the American elite the things they pick to try and promote are so cringe and ineffective that it's weird I saw a comment recently which was...
	Yeah, a bit cruel, and it was kind of funny and kind of true.
	It was Carl Rittenhouse with some lady, and she was wearing some shirt, and the shirt was kind of cringe.
	It didn't make sense or something, right?
	And someone commented, you know, the problem with mainstream conservatism is it takes interesting things, like the pop star industry, and just destroys them with making it cringe.
	That's kind of true, but at the same time, you look at the stuff that the American elite promotes to try and make people interested.
	Like this meeting with Vladimir Selensky in the White House, and she's like, who gives a...
	Who gives a grilling?
	I mean, you're going to give him more money, are you?
	Yeah.
	Well, I didn't see that one coming.
	That's new.
	That's a big shock to American politics.
	It's just so dull.
	It was symbolic.
	Yeah.
	X, Y, and Z says...
	And you saw how Zelensky was dressed.
	Yeah, his typical uniform.
	A lot of people keep saying I look like him, so I'm going to have to talk about that.
	Like a gym instructor.
	Yeah, I saw Tucker Carlson kept calling him a strip club manager.
	I don't know if it's just a different culture in Ukraine.
	I've not been there, but I remember...
	I don't think so.
	Well, there was that guy, the guy running in Italy, Lega, what was his name?
	Salvini?
	Matteo Salvini.
	Yeah, Salvini did a thing for a while.
	I don't know if he kept doing it, but in the early days at least, they wouldn't wear ties on purpose.
	They'd wear a blazer and a shirt.
	And this was explained at one point.
	It was like, why don't you do that?
	Because I want to look like a working class man.
	And in Italy, if you wore a tie and all that, it looked too professional.
	It was too much.
	It's part of the establishment.
	Yeah, so he was a politician without a tie, which made him look...
	I think we had this weird fashion in Greece at some point, but now we learn better.
	Did Verifakis ever do something like that?
	Yeah.
	XYZ says, The result is to have some kind of optic for low information and easily led voters who will hear that it was cough, indicted cough for reasons.
	The results, yeah, same thing.
	The honourable mentions.
	Marawad says, I think this episode can be summed up by, If you have to tell everyone you're a king, you're not a king.
	If you say you're a woman, if you say you're happy with your partner sleeping around, if you say...
	If you have to say it was free and fair...
	Not King.
	Not King S. Yeah, that's some good Lannister quote.
	It speaks for itself.
	The ultimate protest sign is going to be a mirror.
	Well, that's an interesting thought, Omar.
	Like, screw the blank piece of paper.
	Does that work?
	I don't know.
	Maybe we'll see that soon.
	Just a bunch of lads with some mirrors.
	Look at yourselves.
	Clowns.
	Kevin Fox says cucks don't...
	Oh no, that's really cruel actually.
	I just realised.
	Go to a trans rights protest with mirrors.
	Yeah.
	That's devious.
	That's devious and extreme.
	Kevin Fox says cucks don't need armbands.
	They need a tattoo.
	I suggest the thumbprint in the middle of their forehead.
	That's cruel.
	I don't get that reference if that's a reference.
	Just like that.
	Anyway.
	Bleach Demon says...
	Eh, that's kind of true.
	And Kyle Titterson Barry says...
	Not my wheelhouse.
	What is Deus Ex Franchise?
	It's a franchise.
	I believe it's of video games and some stories.
	I don't know it.
	But I could check.
	Since I'm doing the philosophy bit, I will check into it.
	Kevin Fox just says, I feel the same way about Game of Thrones that Calum does about Breaking Bad.
	Stop watching around Season 7.
	Thank God.
	I never got around to watching that much of Game of Thrones, so I don't know if that was a good decision.
	Presumably, yes.
	I watched it till the end.
	Should we pity you?
	No, it's okay.
	I mean, I wanted to watch it to have an opinion.
	Okay.
	Yeah, it was interesting.
	On that note, we're out of time, so if you'd like more from us, lessears.com, of course.
	Otherwise, back Monday, 1 o'clock.
	Thank you and goodbye.

▲