All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:31:17
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #577
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*Music* Hello and welcome to the podcast Lotus Eaters episode 577 On the 27th of January 2023 I'm your host Harry, joined today by Stelios.
Hello.
We've not got Alex Stein in today, sad to break everybody's hearts out there.
But today we are going to be talking about some interesting subjects.
We're going to be going over Owen Jones destroying boomer truth.
We're going to be going over some more woke newspeak.
And then we're going to be asking the question, how communist is Gen Z? Because I think it is very important to understand where we're going in the future.
Before we get into any of that, we do have for the Gold Tiers members, we've got the 3.30 Gold Tiers Zoom call, which I think you'll be part of that today, won't you?
Yes, it's the first time I'm going to participate in a Gold Zoom.
Yeah, I reckon you should have some fun with that, because honestly, we do have some great members in the Gold Tier membership.
I'm looking forward to it.
And the ones who show up generally have good conversations, including people like Binary Surfer, so that should be really nice.
And with that, let's get into the news.
So...
Before I get into the main story, actually, what I should do is give this job advertisement, which is that we are advertising so that we can hire a new in-house web developer, somebody who's going to be able to help us do things with the website.
I know that we are currently still missing tools like a search function, and we also want to add a lot of other features to the website to make it more user-friendly.
And make it more accessible for people going on there the first time.
So if you do have the skills that you think are necessary to become an in-house web developer for us, please apply.
You can find the page on the website under careers.
Career Opportunity Software Engineer Web Developer.
So if you think you're appropriate, please apply.
Thank you very much for that.
And let's get into the story.
So, I decided to cover this because I think it's interesting, because it ties into some things that are going on today, which are that Scotland continues to make a fool of itself in front of the entire world by increasingly trying to put forward stupid and illogical trans self-ID gender affirmation bills that got BTF owed by the UK Parliament for now.
I know for a fact the Section 35 injunction that was put against it won't last for long because Scotland's just going to do what Scotland's going to do and Scotland is a very silly place.
And they also have the story where there's the Scottish rapist who was originally going to be going to a women's prison because after being caught for raping two women he decided that I'm a woman now.
Convenient how these things happen.
I have to say that the Scottish government should lower taxes on whiskey, because last time I went there, it was unbelievably expensive.
Have you ever had Bookfast?
No.
Bookfast is a favourite in Scotland, as far as I'm aware.
I've had it a bit before as well.
It's brewed by monks in Devon, and it's strong wine with a lot of caffeine in it, and it's mental.
You'll have a good night out.
Or you'll have a dangerous night out on it, actually.
Because instead of getting drunk and then sleepy, you get drunk and more and more awake.
But not woke, I suspect.
Yeah, not woke.
I don't think you can be woke on Bookfest, trust me, you're more just rowdy.
But anyway, so Scotland's had a lot of nonsense going on, as per usual, but the usual suspects came in to try and defend the sorts of situations that are going on with people like Owen Jones, for instance, and Owen Jones, in the process of defending what's going on in Scotland...
Relinked on Twitter to an old post of his, an old thread from last year where he discussed the gay rights movement from the 1970s and discussed how what he was saying was that it was viewed in, and I would say actually was, just as militant as a lot of the civil rights movements that we're just as militant as a lot of the civil rights movements that we're contending with now are, as was, and I would argue, as was the civil rights movement
They're just as militant as what we are experiencing now are, except it's just with the haze of time, the passage of time has led people to looking back on them with a kind of fondness that they don't deserve, just because ultimately the conclusion to those movements was something that you could say was positive, That would be, for instance, repealing Jim Crow laws in America, or preventing people's homosexuality from being illegal.
Just because you can support that doesn't mean you have to support the methods used to attain that.
Well, I think he wants to be the patron saint of the woke movement, and that's a tough job.
Oh, yeah.
But it's the fact that I think if you want to understand what these movements really were, you probably are better off looking to what the leftists say about them, because just foundationally, these were left-wing movements.
and the right in trying to, as we always do, grandfather in these movements and try and portray them as some kind of conservative win over people's rights being trampled on, we forget that what was going on back then was something that was very militant and in favour of a progressive agenda.
And as such, I thought I would advertise, I do, later on after the podcast is finished, at 3 o'clock my premium podcast I did with Connor talking about how MLK is not a conservative hero will be going live on the website.
And honestly, I think this was brilliant.
I know I'm the one who prepared it.
I did it.
I talked most of the way through it.
But I think I did a really good job here.
I think it's really important for conservatives and anybody on the right to look at this and understand these movements for what they were.
If you're watching on YouTube, this will already be live on the site, so please give that a watch.
And if you're not already subscribed, Subscribe so that you can watch it, because it is premium content, and I like to think that, yes, this time, it really is premium, because I put a lot of work into this.
But anyway, let's get on with the story.
So starting off with, just for those who weren't aware, the story that I alluded to at the beginning with the Scottish rapist has been developing, shall we say.
So this Daily Mail article points out here, Inside Notorious Scottish Prison, where trans double rapist is being held after move from women's jail, Isla Bryson...
Excuse me.
Will Sherwing with gangland killer, murderers, and two other male sex attackers who are both also trying to change their gender.
Funny how that's such a recurring theme nowadays.
Like, it's an actual incentive that people are putting forward, that people are being given.
That, hey, I can just change my gender and go to a women's prison?
I won't get beaten up by a load of men in prison.
That's tragic.
And the government should look into it.
So the guy's name was Adam Graham, and he raped two women, sadly, obviously a horrific thing.
We've got the image of the before on the right, the after on the left, after he was caught and arrested and charged.
so he only began transitioning after being charged with using his muscular that's how they put it in here frame to abuse the two women.
The former DJ's estranged wife Shona Graham even dismissed her husband's transition as a sham and told MailOnline that Bryson was BSing the authorities to avoid a men's prison.
I mean we all know it's true We all know that that's what's going on.
And it's the fact that the authorities, for the most part, refuse to acknowledge that, when even the people who are closest to him will tell the media, no, it's nonsense.
It's obviously what you're doing.
You've obviously set up a perverse incentive for men to do this.
And they just go past it anyway.
It's common sense.
He's trying to keep on doing what he did before.
Well, yeah.
But, thankfully, for the first time in Scotland in a long while, common sense has prevailed, because today the defendant is waking up in a male jail housing many of Scotland's most violent prisoners, including murderers and sex offenders.
Bryson is also in the same jail as two other sex offenders who say they want to be a woman.
Rapist Albert Caballero, 50, is now wishing to be known as Claire, And asked guards for lipstick and eye makeup to make him look more feminine.
Sure, that'll do a cracking job.
How do they combine this with the gender recognition bill?
Well, the gender recognition bill, I think, was going to make it so that instead of the system that they had in place before, where I think in the UK we have it so that you have to be 18, and you have to have been referred by a doctor, and you have to have lived as that other gender for two years to make sure that everything's above board.
It's still...
I don't think it's administered in such a way, and I still don't necessarily think that it's moral to just permit that whole thing anyway, but it's a hell of a lot better than what they were suggesting, which was no doctor's reference, you just fill out a government form and it takes six months, and then bam, you're the other gender all of a sudden.
So what was going to go on was the incentive that that sets up is if you are a male rapist, if you are somebody who's done terrible things and you don't want to have a hard time in prison...
To fill in the government form six months from now, bing-bam-bosh, we'll get you in the other prison.
Brilliant!
Genius idea!
And serial rapist Jonathan Mallon, 40, also declared that he wanted to be called Charlene and told inmates that he hoped to be moved into a Scottish women's jail by Easter.
The predator was caged for life in 2014 after a 14-year reign of attacks on a string of vulnerable women.
Oh god, please don't get that image off screen, John.
Please, just get that off screen.
That's horrible.
HMP Edinburgh also has a separate wing for women, but Bryson was not allowed in there despite initially being placed in a women's jail by the Scottish Prison Service, which is what got this whole controversy started to begin with.
So that's all awful.
That's a horrible story from start to finish, and the only justice we've got in here is that we somehow managed to evade this person being put in a women's prison.
So the only justice we got is the system working as it should, where it could have just gone completely off the rails, which is going completely off the rails.
Everything's going completely off the rails.
We can see it.
We all feel it in our guts.
We can feel it in the air.
The world is changing.
The world is changing, and not in a good way.
I'll be very blunt about that, and not in a good way.
And people like Owen Jones were the ones who wanted to comment on it, and I've seen...
Owen Jones is somebody who has consistently been in favour of trans-lobbying, trans-rights.
He's a big activist.
He constantly calls anybody who doesn't want to be in support of trans-rights and such, he calls them a trans-phobe.
He makes all of these claims to the point where he's been accused of hating women.
Just because of the fact he supports trans rights so much in the face of women's rights instead.
And he's been posting about it, but as I was looking through, he posted this.
And it led me down a little bit of a rabbit hole, because I think this is very interesting, and this is something to take note of.
Which is that he clipped this tweet from a man called James Esses, who said the black rights movement in the 1950s and 60s, or the gay rights movement in the 70s and 80s, were based on respectful engagement and putting forward a positive case for change.
The trans right movement is seemingly based on silencing and slinging mud.
And Owen Jones had something to say in response to it, which is, And I think the important thing to note here is that actually...
Owen Jones is right.
Owen Jones is 100% correct here.
I think the only thing wrong with this is that from his framing and his perspective, he's going to say it was the media and the press saying that they were too militant and too violent and extreme, when in reality the media was probably accurately reporting in the same way that MLK had riots And then excuse those riots afterwards as part of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and then because we're so far away from it, most people swallowed the lie that it was just media attacking him.
Okay, question here, because it seems to me that Owen Jones is trying to put all the eggs in one basket, and maybe James Esses is.
Do you think that we could say that those movements were much more complex?
Yes, they absolutely were.
And both of them, they are actually trying to put all the eggs in one basket.
They're trying to say this movement...
Owen Jones wants to say that everything the movement did was good and can be excused no matter what.
James Essis is basically just trying to...
This is why I called it the boomer truth.
He's putting forward this boomer truth idea that they were completely peaceful, they were based on respectful engagement.
That's not true either.
So basically both are terribly unsophisticated in what they're saying.
Yes, but Owen Jones, in terms of relating to the actual facts, is much closer to the truth.
And he then responded to this, he quote-tweeted this particular tweet as well, and he said, Obviously he's got to keep reframing this in favour of trans rights and such.
Interesting way to, as far as I can tell, and this isn't me I'm not trying to slag him off or anything, but I would like to at least see you denounce the bombings that were done, because otherwise the implication that I'm getting is that bombing is fine as long as it's in favour of a movement that I support.
So, the Jeremy Corbyn take.
Yeah, this reminds me of an old communist logic that everything we are criticizing, we're going to do ourselves and we're just going to put an anti in front of it.
So if it's imperialism, we're just going to put anti-imperialism in front of it and this is going to do all the work.
If it's violence, we're just going to put an anti-violence in it.
So it's like he seems to think that the end justifies the means.
He's brainwashed enough to think that everyone who disagrees with him is I don't necessarily know if Owen Jones is brainwashed rather than just Machiavellian and kind of understands how things work to win things onto his side.
Everything he's going to be putting forward in the next thread that we're going to look at as well.
This is the one from 2022.
Is all from the perspective that you are supposed to just implicitly recognise that what the gay rights activists were doing was right, no matter what, just because the ends justify the means.
And this is the leftist perspective, the leftist perspective of, we will hold you to your standards so that you hoist yourselves up, so that you end up hanging yourselves by your own standards, and then when we're in power we won't stick to any of those at all.
But in response to that first tweet that I pointed to, he reposted this thread as basically receipts to explain why he's saying that actually the movements back in the day were considered very radical, they were considered violent, they were considered extreme, and a lot of the complaints put against them at the time...
We're similar to the arguments that we're putting forward against trans rights, or at least the trans activists that we're experiencing today.
And like I say, if you want to get the facts right, the likelihood is you're better off listening to the left than the right when it comes to these old civil rights movements, because they understand what they were, they understand what they were for, and they're not trying to bury it beneath layers of cope trying to explain how it's secretly a conservative movement.
MLK was on our side, boys!
No, nothing like that.
Nothing like that at all.
Just a reminder that the Stonewall riot, for instance, one of the big events in the 1960s that led to the gay rights movement of the 1960s, was literally a routine police sting because of illegal drug dealing and other illicit and immoral behaviour that was going on in the Stonewall riots.
Club that escalated to a riot because the patrons themselves started to combat the police, because they started throwing bricks at the police.
This is a common thing that happens, and then it just in time gets reframed into a fight for freedom, when oftentimes it was just drunken louts, shall we say.
But I'll just go through this thread, because I think it's very interesting.
Anyway...
Who rose to woke stardom.
Yeah, there you go.
History rarely repeats itself, but it often rhymes.
The parallels between the backlash against trans rights and gay rights are astonishing.
This is Anita Bryant, chart-topping singer, orange juice promoter, and the face of the anti-gay rights movement in the US in the 1970s.
Anita Bryant was very popular in her time.
She topped the good housekeeping magazine poll as most admired woman, In America, in 1978, 1979, and 1980.
And I think this is a good implication of what goes on as well.
Oftentimes these movements back in the day, the action against them, it wasn't just a bunch of fringe radicals like they're trying to say the anti-trans people are like.
Owen Jones actually posted a video talking about how he thinks that if you're anti-trans, you're in a cult.
You're literally in a cult.
What actually is always the case is the position against these changes, against these movements, was the mass populace.
They're not bottom-up movements.
What happens is they just get legislated from top-down.
Judges, activist judges, legislation from activist congressmen and other such people in America gets passed, and then we're forced to adapt to those changes because all of a sudden, if being against these things is made illegal, made illegal, you're either going to go to prison or you're just going to learn to keep your mouth shut and get on with it, as we see with a lot of anti-hate speech laws that get passed nowadays as well.
That's problematic because if we are for top-down changes as opposed to incremental bottom-up changes, there is no recognition going on?
We are institutionalized group think and group hatred.
Well, since the civil rights movement of the 1960s, that's pretty much how all of the changes that have gone on in society have worked.
Once again, I've been pointing to it a lot recently, but the book Age of Entitlement by Christopher Caldwell is brilliant at explaining this and explaining how those tactics used by the civil rights activists of the 1960s were then later on adopted by the gay rights movement, by the women's rights movement, all of these different things, not as a way to get public on by the women's rights movement, all of these different things, not as a way to get public on their side, but as a way to get legislators on their side and force the hands of people who, let's be honest,
I think Adam Smith had a good take on this, although he was living in the 18th century.
He was saying that he would say that all these problems are problems of recognition.
We have members of one group who seek the recognition of members of another group.
And he would say that the two fundamental virtues here are benevolence and self-control.
And he would say that the members of the group who require recognition They have to be self-controlled and self-restrained in the way they are explaining their situation.
And the members of the other group whose recognition is sought have to be, in a sense, benevolent and understand them.
But when someone comes and says, From the very beginning, you're a bigot.
If you disagree with me, that's not the way to go forward.
You're on the wrong side of history.
That's the argument.
And as we go through this, you'll see the terms that he uses, he doesn't qualify really why it is that this Anita Bryant woman is bad, other than just stating her positions that she held at the time.
She was a Christian, she was anti-gay, because she was trying to protect her children, because she saw the gay rights movement as something that was potentially coming for her children, because she understood that they would have to recruit...
From other people's children to be able to keep the movement going.
And he doesn't explain why any of that is wrong or bad.
You're just implicitly expected to agree with him.
But this is the woke way of talking.
Now you're supposed to go boo.
Yeah, there you go.
That's exactly it.
No reason whatsoever.
It's the opposite of the Jeb Bush now clap.
Now boo.
There you go.
And just to bolster what I just said there, a Gallup poll listed her in the top ten most popular women on earth.
That's pretty impressive.
I don't know what that Gallup poll, if they spoke to people from all over Earth or not, but interesting little tidbit anyway.
As you can see from the Time magazine in 1977, she was presented as the victim of a militant, violent male gay mob and of what is now called cancel culture.
But as we go further, she absolutely was.
She really was.
And it's a tacit admission of these things being common and recurring tactics.
After seeing the threats...
Aimed at JK Rowling, are we really expected to believe that the reporting that was going on back then about the threats that were given against her and what actually happened to her, am I expected to just believe that this was inaccurate?
These were just lies.
No.
No, it's obviously true.
Anita Bryant spoke at great length about how she was subjected to death threats, bomb threats, threats to kidnap her kids, and received hate mail with actual human feces and voodoo dolls in it regularly.
That's just awful.
That's vile.
And when family members become a target for political pull...
Yeah, when you start getting family members...
This means you are dealing with people who are not really nice.
Yeah, but if they've got the political establishment and legislators on their side, then sadly, they're not going to do anything about it, are they?
And this was used as evidence in the press that the gay rights movement was violent and dangerous.
Well, it certainly sounds like some of it was.
Judging by that, obviously, these people would not have all just been a complete monolith.
Gay people aren't a monolith.
This would not have been every single one of them.
But a significant enough portion of them were sending those threats.
Somebody was crazy enough to crap in a letter and send it to her.
So there were elements of the movement that were violent and dangerous.
Just as the same way that in the civil rights era.
And unhealthy.
Yeah, and very unhealthy.
That's a hygienic bomb.
Yeah, that's not a very good one, is it?
But also, I don't see Owen Jones denouncing such tactics in this.
He's just relaying the facts.
I mean, if I was posting this, I would say, obviously this was a terrible thing to happen.
He would say that this is a form of self-expression.
Just let these people express themselves.
This was just radical love in action.
And he posts some of these, if you scroll down a bit, he posts some screenshots of the sorts of things that were being said at the time in the press, and her relating her experiences.
She made it clear, some of these say...
By stating time and time again that her campaign was never about demonising homosexuals, but rather about protecting her children from them.
She said, I don't hate the homosexuals, but as a mother I must protect my children from their evil influence.
But by doing so, she exposed her children to a world of hatred and violence.
Bryant reported that she and her family endured daily death threats, bomb threats, received hate mail with human feces and voodoo dolls.
If her sole purpose in entertaining the political arena was to help repeal a law that she thought would endanger her children, how could she fail to comprehend that her battle against gay rights was not saving her children, but in fact subjecting them to perhaps a more direct kind of danger?
And this is an incredible admission, including this little clip from a news article here.
Because what that's saying is the exact same logic that I saw used by MLK when you read through things like the letter from Birmingham Jail, which is that if you defend yourself against the violence that you might see happening, then that's just a justification for the violence we will commit to you.
If you want to protect your children, great, you've just given us an excuse to threaten your children.
Because they think that what they're doing consists in anti-violence.
Yes.
In their mind, they have already...
They have already...
They've decided where the battle lines have been drawn.
And they've decided that if you're on the other side of the battle, you're not human.
We covered Schmidt the other day, which will be out relatively soon.
You should look forward to that.
It's pure friend-enemy.
If you're enemy, you're not human.
Anything goes.
That's how the left operates.
And these really awful people are doing things like that.
Anita Bryant did famously have a pie thrown at her face by the gay rights activist Tom L. Higgins.
That's rather familiar kind of tactics to what we've seen over the past five or six years, isn't it?
Very interesting.
Which led to the New York Times and some liberals at the time to leap to Bryant's defence arguing that she had the right to air her views without suffering abuse.
Putting that in air quotes right there.
What's implicit there is that she should only be able to express these ideas if she is abused.
What I'm seeing there, that's what I'm reading from it.
Now, Anita Bryant claimed that she was not motivated by homophobia or prejudice at all.
She declared, my son was not taken out of homophobia but for love of them.
I mean, she was a Christian, so that is generally the perspective that they take.
Instead, Anita Bryant claimed to be defending the rights of children.
Her coalition was called Save Our Children.
She believed that the gay rights movement discriminated against children's rights and that gay people saw to brainwash and recruit vulnerable children.
Obviously this is not the case for all of them, but in terms of the queer theory side of the gay rights movement that we're handling now, what you can see through libs of TikTok and all the sorts of videos that come up, she's absolutely been vindicated.
She's been vindicated that at the very least a certain portion of that sphere of people absolutely are after kids.
That's just undeniable at this point.
It is a portion, yeah.
Yeah.
Anita Bryant set up a charitable organisation which claimed to treat gay people, to detransition them, if you will, and to provide inspirational case studies of ex-gay people.
Now, of course, we call this conversion therapy.
Once again, you're expected now boo.
Now boo?
Except the problem is, once again, there's nothing to say that this was going to be mandatory or legislated by the government.
The outrage is just conversion therapy exists, whether voluntary or not.
Whereas my position is, as always, if it is voluntary...
If a gay guy is literally like, I would rather be able to just settle down with a woman and have children of my own, and he goes, I want to go to conversion therapy for that, I don't know necessarily if it's going to do anything for him, I don't know if you can be therapised out of being gay, but that's his decision.
It seems to me it's biological, but maybe I'm wrong.
Yeah, but that's his decision to do such a thing.
I don't know myself, personally.
But anyway, now today, Anita Bryant is not seen as a victim of the militant, violent gay rights movement, but as a villain who made life considerably harder for a marginalised and besieged minority.
And that completely justifies everything horrible that happened to her back then.
That justifies her career being ruined, her friends and family life breaking down around her.
That excuses the pie...
That excuses everything.
How is this supposed to excuse threats to her children?
Also, how is this supposed to excuse what's going on now with the current trans rights movement?
I mean, honestly.
But that's just an excellent example of how time and perspective shifts with the propagandising that we get over time.
Anita Bryant is still alive today and has lived long enough to watch the anti-gay laws she championed be overturned and US public opinion toward gay people dramatically change for the better.
Her granddaughter is gay.
And once again, this is just another case...
Surely by her own perspective, she was vindicated again.
Well, it looks like they turned my granddaughter gay.
This isn't a way to try and convince anybody.
This isn't discussion.
This isn't the liberal process of debate and the better idea coming out on top.
This is a case of legislation and violence and militant tactics being used to force people into this position.
And then when they win, when they ruin your life, and when they have captured your children, they will laugh about it.
I'm getting some evil vibes.
I've done a vibe check here, and it's getting pretty evil, is what I'm saying.
I think especially when we engage in group thinking, this is usually an attempt to just demonize a group.
Absolutely.
Every time I listen to it, I'm instantly apprehensive.
Yeah, and he ends it off with saying there's a lack of appreciation today of how bitterly controversial gay rights was once deemed to be, and that is true.
How the gay rights movement was portrayed as a really dangerous, abusive, and militant and violent rabble.
This is exactly how trans rights is being portrayed today.
So, we can see him wrap it all back around to his initial point, but as far as I'm concerned, this doesn't prove anything other than Oh, okay.
I guess the current trans rights activists are just doing the same things that happened back in the 1970s, which, once again, doesn't justify it just because 40 years has passed and we now consider it immoral to punish people just for the sake of their sexuality, which is not something that I want to do either.
But it's very interesting, and if we want an example of the sorts of people in the movement at the time that might have given Anita some fears, for instance, we can look no further than Peter Tatchell, who has been part of the gay rights movement since the 1970s, and has done a number of pretty sus things...
And has done a lot to really justify the claims that children were in danger, especially sexually, because Peter Tatchell, despite being invited onto GB News and all these other platforms, has said some pretty disgusting things.
So, for instance, in regards to the story we started off with about, let me just remind myself of his name, Adam Graham, the trans rapist, he had this to say on the subject, which was, Trans women guilty of raping two women is a threat to women.
She...
Using correct pronouns, because of course we want to be polite here, should be held in a female prison, but in a segregation unit and not allowed to mix with other women prisoners without strict and constant supervision by prison staff.
Protect women from rapists.
Okay.
Alright, but why not just put him in a male prison then?
This seems like a lot of effort to go through to keep him away from women, when you could just have him in a male prison, which thankfully we have now.
It sounds as if they're not terribly busy and they have to invent weird stuff, but I'm pretty sure that they should be busy.
Yeah, but this did not get great responses from some people who shared some videos of some pretty sus things that he's said in the past, including this, if we just play this clip.
The famous filmmaker, Derek Jarman, who sadly has died, he told me when he was about 50 that he had had sex with a young man when he was nine years old.
He said it was his choice.
He said he wasn't pressured or manipulated.
He said he had no regrets about that sexual experience.
So my view is that's what he's saying.
It's his personal view as an adult mature man looking back on his childhood.
If he says that, who am I or you to dispute it?
Now, I accept that most sex involving young people is abusive and wrong.
His view is perhaps exceptional, but it's not a view that should be dismissed and denied.
If an adult person looks back on an early sexual experience and says they consented to it, they were not pressured, they were not harmed, they have no regrets or complaint, I think we should do the honest thing and accept their viewpoint.
Okay.
Why?
Especially given that he actually qualified that sex involving a child is wrong with most That's interesting.
I mean, how can a nine-year-old consent to have sexual intercourse?
I mean, surely a 50-year-old looking back on that is probably just trying to rationalize what happened to him.
It's awful.
And then he said this recently as well.
Well, somebody shared this particular screenshot as well.
From July of 2020, when somebody said, was talking about sexually abused children, trauma, and stuff like that, and then he just responds with, how do you know he was traumatized?
Projecting and patronizing?
My article questioned and challenged his views.
But what if the child consents, though, is what this is all coming down to, from Mr.
Tatchell.
Once again, this man was at the forefront of gay rights in the UK in the 1980s, so it's very interesting to think, hmm...
Perhaps a few of those people fighting against that movement, whether justified against everybody who is gay or not, had some reasons for worrying that these kinds of people and these kinds of perspectives were being put at the forefront of the movement.
Especially because this is not the first time he's said anything like this.
It goes back to the 80s, but it goes back to the 90s as well.
Where he had to apologise for potentially advocating paedophilia after a 1997 letter about Papua New Guinea tribe's emergence.
And this was him justifying the practice in a Papua New Guinea tribe you might have heard of where the young children are forced to give fellatio to the older men as part of a rite of passage in becoming men.
Which is obviously immoral, obviously awful, obviously disgusting.
And what he said to say about this was...
Young boys have sex with old warriors as part of their initiation into manhood in the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea.
He also mentioned the positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships not confined to non-Western cultures, explaining that his friends had sex with adults from the ages of 9 to 13.
I'm not listening.
Yeah, it's pretty awful.
He did try and justify it later on by saying, well, I did also say that not all adults should have sex with all children.
It's like, okay, but you've already said the quiet part out loud.
The sad thing is that he thinks now that he can say it.
Back in 1997, he felt the need to somehow cloud his...
Try and excuse it.
Yeah, excuse it.
Now he seems to be really open about it.
He was writing for a book which was accused of being a paedophilia handbook.
So that's very interesting as well.
And then we can just look at some of the other developments that are just going on nowadays.
Here you can go.
Leo shared this post the other day saying that Australians aged 15 to 24, 32% of them identify as some part of the alphabet mafia, which is a very interesting development when once again one of the arguments made in the past was we need to safeguard children because children are really easy and susceptible to this kind of stuff.
And it seems that's been completely vindicated.
And I just want to give everybody a reminder as well, because a lot of these people identify very broadly on the left, would probably classify themselves as communists, such as Owen Jones is an open-out communist.
Just this one.
This is a tweet I found.
It goes around every so often.
It's from Mystery Grove Publishing Co.
I could only find a screenshot from a post on Reddit, so that's why the name has been blurred out.
It's just a nice reminder for everyone that communism is when ugly, deformed Freaks make it illegal to be normal and then rob and or kill all successful people out of petty resentment and cruelty.
The ideology is all just window dressing.
So all of the rationalizing, all the excuses, they are just that.
It's rationalizing and excuses.
This is the ultimate goal.
They want it to be illegal for you to live a good and normal life.
Anyway.
The ultimate goal is chaos and control.
Yeah.
So, ladies and gentlemen, it is official.
Everything we say now is harmful.
Good.
There is literally nothing we can say that woke ideologues cannot use against us, and the presumption of innocence has turned into a presumption of guilt.
No matter what we do, we are guilty by default, and woke ideologues are really happy about this.
Now, before we say more about this, why not visit our website, lotusfeeders.com, and subscribe for only £5 a month, In order to have access to our wonderful content, such as the video on Celtic mythology, religion and philosophy, which is the latest installment of Joshua's Contemplation series.
Now, back to our topic.
I think woke people really like inducing chaos in the way we speak.
And I think the goal is to create a state where we literally cannot trust our thinking.
Because when we think, we think in terms of language.
We think in terms of sentences that we use.
And they are really interested in messing up how we think.
And that's not just authoritarian.
That is totalitarian.
They are going after mind control.
Let us look at the next video.
I think as well, just to add to that, it's also a sign of allegiance.
If you can keep up with the nonsense terms and apply them correctly, it's a sign of allegiance.
It's clown world as uniform, as Auron McIntyre has said in the past.
So let us look at this video.
Hey, y'all.
So, recently walking to and fro from my job...
I am now starting to get identified as them presenting to the point where people call me ma'am or people call me like miss or things like that and it's still wrong because I'm non-binary but there's like a real fun like chaotic part of that where I can respond in a way that makes them go what Because I'll intentionally,
like, lower my voice and they'll be like, excuse me ma'am, can you help me out with this?
I'm like, yeah, what's up?
And I think my gender is the emotions of straight people being utterly confused.
Like, I just want to instill chaos and, like, That's my pronouns.
That's my gender.
That's my identity.
That's my sexuality.
It gives me all the euphoria to cause fuckery.
So, yeah, I just wanted to say that.
You are bang on the money, mate.
Because he just said it outright.
I mean, he is feminine, I just want to say, in the same way that Jo Brand is feminine, if you've ever seen her.
But yeah, you just right on the money.
Have you watched Anger Management with Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler?
No, I haven't.
There's an excellent scene with Woody Harrelson who is playing Galaxia the cross-dresser who enters a car and he's flirting with Adam Sandler and he isn't having it.
He speaks in a very feminine voice and at some point Adam Sandler says no, no, I don't want and he says you guys are freaks.
I do like Woody Harrelson as well because he's a very manly looking man.
Now, apart from this, this person seems to me like a dude.
He said, my gender is the emotions of straight people being utterly confused.
If that doesn't just show, scream that it's spite, then what doesn't?
What does this sentence mean?
Now, okay, it's not a secret.
English is my second language.
It's not my native language.
But I think that this sentence does not make sense.
Please enlighten me.
The sentence, my gender is the emotions of straight people being utterly confused.
I think it makes perfect sense if you view it from the perspective of these people are spite-filled demons and everything they do is just to irritate and annoy other people.
Okay, but if this person utters this sentence, what does it mean to say I'm non-binary?
Well, it doesn't mean anything.
It means look at me.
I'm different.
Okay, so that was intentional.
Some other kids, though, are not necessarily buying into this, but maybe they're confused and critical race theorist teachers are teaching them that the term American citizen is a racialized term.
Let us watch the next video.
I just got out of a lecture and my professor said something that really struck me that I feel like should have been super obvious that I just had not, like, connected the dots on before.
And that is the fact that the term American citizen is, like, a racialized term.
It's associated with whiteness, whether we want it to or not.
Because of the way that white supremacy is so, like, intricately bound with the foundation of the country that we call America, that when you hear the word American citizen, the first thing that comes to mind is a white person.
And what's crazy is I have this super vivid memory when I was only, like, maybe, like, five or six years old.
My mom was just about to get her citizenship, and she was like, yeah, yeah, I'm gonna be an American citizen.
And I was like...
Freaking out because I fully thought that my mother was going to turn into a white woman.
And obviously she didn't, but it's just crazy to me how at such a young age I already was conditioned to think that American citizen meant white by default.
It's really nice that she felt the need to add this.
Obviously, she didn't just in case.
And then she did!
It was amazing!
That's just some poor retarded woman.
The thing is, though, that she heard this in a university, so this lady is in a university.
She entered into a university.
I don't know how.
Listen, standards have been falling for a long time.
Yeah.
The thing is though that CRT is taking over universities, critical race theories, and the Goldwater Institute published a report.
Now if we click the link, and I'll read from it.
Arizona universities demand applicants allegiance to progressive politics.
Arizona's public universities may be stacking the deck against conservative students and staff, as documented in a just-released Goldwater Institute report.
The New Loyalty Oaths How Arizona's public universities compel job applicants to endorse progressive politics.
Indeed, joining a herd of colleges across the nation, Arizona's three public universities have all begun forcing faculty, job applicants, to provide mandatory diversity statements as a condition for hiring.
The statements, which ostensibly function to promote innocuous-sounding concepts, such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion are increasingly used across academia as a political screening to enforce intellectual and political conformity in support of left-wing concepts aligned with critical race theory.
Key findings include up to 80% of faculty job openings at Arizona's public universities now similarly push applicants to pledge support for DEI. As of fall 2022, diversity statements are mandated in over a quarter of job postings at the University of Arizona,
28%, nearly three-quarters, 73%, of job postings at Northern Arizona University, and in more than four of five, 81%, job postings at Arizona State University.
Diversity statement practices in Arizona's public universities include replacing the traditional cover letter with a DEI statement, forcing candidates to provide up to two full pages detailing their activism or commitment to the DEI regime, and calling on applicants to endorse CRT-based concepts such as intersectional personal identities.
At the University of California system, such diversity statements have been used to eliminate more than 75% of applicants from consideration due to their failure to endorse progressive racialized notion of DEI, regardless of the candidate's academic caliber.
They are forcing, in a sense, they're making it mandatory for people to write DEI statements.
And unfortunately, this is not just in universities.
I hear a lot from people who are now searching for jobs and they constantly see as a job, in the job description or the requirements for the job, provide a statement where you say how you are supporting DEI, how you are supporting inclusivity.
I'm gonna be honest, sadly as evil as this is, obviously outright evil because they're gatekeeping in a manner to force people to either submit or go away, submit or you don't get in, this is kind of genius level gatekeeping and I think that conservative and right-wing institutions Should probably mandate something similar for anybody trying to enter into the ranks.
In the old Robert Conquest, you need to have an institution be explicitly right-wing if you don't want it to get turned left-wing eventually.
If I were to start something like this, I would make it so you need to write a page on traditionalism for me.
Instead of a cover letter, write me your explanation of, I don't know, read some James Burnham and tell me what you thought of him.
Something like that.
Okay, I'll continue.
As explored in the new Goldwater Report, up to 80% of faculty job openings at Arizona's public universities now similarly push applicants to pledge support for DEI. At Northern Arizona University, candidates are even explicitly encouraged to infuse CRT-based terminology, such as intersectional personal identities, in their required responses.
As the Association of the American Law Schools has noted, CRT scholar Professor Kimberly Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality and developed the framework for critical race theory.
Unfortunately, such ideological screens are being deployed across the entire institutions with Arizona's DEI administrators successfully amending university-wide policies to call for the infusion of diversity statements in all faculty and administrative hires.
Such policies now demand diversity statements, even from scholars pursuing such incredibly technical, specialized research areas as ultra-bright, nanostructured, photoemission electron studies.
I mean, if there is one discipline where DEI is pertinent, that's it.
Yeah.
Such diversity statements have been widely condemned by both left and right-leaning academic and legal scholars for promoting an ideological agenda, compelling speech, chilling dissent, and exacerbating the already extreme partisan imbalance of higher education, where already at least five times more left-leaning faculty have been hired than conservative scholars.
At the University of Arizona, Faculty registered as Democrats now outnumber Republicans by more than 7 to 1.
At Arizona State University, Democrats outnumber Republican faculty more than 12 to 1.
And that's all the point as well.
And I love the excuse.
Have you ever spoken to somebody who's left-wing about this and they say, well, that's just because left-wing people are smarter, obviously.
I hate it.
I must say, I have talked to many of them, but I haven't heard anyone telling me this.
I've seen it a few times.
But it seems to me that they don't want to say this, that it's because they're smart.
They want to say that we're not doing this on grounds of merit.
We're doing this on grounds of...
Well, I suppose perhaps I had those conversations a while ago, so they were founded in the idea that merit is good, whereas now merit is white supremacy.
This sounds a lot like a champagne socialist.
Oh yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, you've worked in a university, you're constantly surrounded by champagne socialists.
Yeah, but the thing is that most of them, they were talking about, not talking about smart people, they were talking about helping groups.
Okay, so they were just being very open in what they were doing.
They were just like, we're not doing this because these people have earned it, we're doing it because we think they're marginalized.
I think so.
So, as Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Butcher writes in the report's preface, DEI programs and statements do not produce free expression, nor more diversity of thought, equal opportunities, and a culture that includes everyone in school activities, because DEI's guiding principles are rooted in the racially discriminatory worldview known as critical race theory.
Apart from the push to adopt terms that are involved in critical race theory, such as intersectional personal identities, the woke project of creating Newspeak takes a further form.
Do you know of Stanford University's Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative?
No, I don't.
Let's click.
We'll have some fun here.
Okay.
Page one.
The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford.
In IT? Okay.
Yeah, but I have the impression that they want to use it...
Isn't there something like master and slave programming language?
They're probably going to get rid of that.
You'll see.
Just wait.
Just to remember that this is supposed to be a multi-phase and multi-year project.
Oh, I'm sure.
So if we read down, it says, Content warning.
This website contains language that is offensive or harmful.
Please engage with this website at your own pace.
Okay, for viewers, if you need to take a little break, you should start hyperventilating as we go through this.
We don't blame you.
Or you could say enjoy responsibly.
Okay, now, page 2 of 13.
Now, it says, instead of addicted, consider using hooked or devoted.
I'm just devoted to heroin, man.
Yeah, I'm a crack devotee.
And I think that they are going to ask for changing Robert Palmer's song, Addicted to Love, to Devoted to Love.
Devoted to Love, yeah, yeah.
Now, and the reason they give is that it trivializes the experience of people who deal with substance abuse issues.
How?
How?
Well, addicted is just a...
It's a purely descriptive term.
I mean, you could use hooked and devoted in the same way.
And also, the weird thing is that devoted can also have religious connotations.
Yeah.
So they don't care about this.
Well, this is just a permanent revolution.
We need to get to the most neutral language, and then after five years of having the most neutral language, it's suddenly got all of these loaded connotations to it.
So we're going to need even more neutral language.
We're going to be reduced to grey blobs.
Now, underneath it says, instead of basket case, consider using nervous.
No.
Saying basket case is fun.
They just want to take the fun out of language.
But the thing is, and this is weird, and this is a kind of newspaper that tries to mess up with how we think.
There are many people who are nervous without...
Yeah, actually, you're right.
They're not even necessarily synonyms to one another, are they?
Basket case, I think of someone mental, not nervous.
Also...
Instead of using committed suicide, consider using died by suicide.
This is actually the opposite of what suicide prevention suggests, because if you say died by suicide, it's taking the personal action out of the equation, making it seem like an impersonal thing.
You need to remind people that it was a choice that was made, because otherwise you can accidentally, at least this is what the suicide prevention guidelines suggest, otherwise you can make it seem so impersonal that people end up committing it more.
This is one of the big things that 13 Reasons Why got in trouble for.
This is crazy.
Now, if we scroll down a bit on the same page, I just use the word crazy.
Pardon me.
It says, instead of crazy, consider using surprising.
Or wild.
No.
I'll use whatever word I want, thank you.
I mean, if we switch crazy to surprising, we will be led to confuse surprising with crazy.
A surprise is something that is unexpected.
Crazy is...
If I know someone's crazy, I expect them to be crazy, so it's not going to surprise me.
Okay, so instead of OCD, consider using detail-oriented.
I feel like that's a particularly personal one for whoever wrote this document, because they've probably got some OCD. Now, the thing is, though, that if they're doing this, I mean, I know plenty of people who are detail-oriented, but they're not obsessively compulsive.
No.
So isn't this fusing...
Yeah, they're fusing a lot of terms and connotations together.
Yeah.
Now, I think one of the weirdest things on the beginning of page 3...
Now, okay, I must say I don't like this word.
I don't use it because I think it's a bit bullish.
But I will say it here because I want to show you what these people think we should say.
Instead of using the word retard, they say, consider using person with a cognitive disability or person with autism.
Now, I know plenty of people who have autism.
You work in an office full of them.
But they are not in any way.
Retarded.
Yeah.
No, they're very smart people.
Obviously they can have social impediments as a result if they become too analytic and unable to understand social encounters, but they're not dumb.
Now we go page three underneath.
I want to share another one and see what you're saying.
It says, instead of tone deaf, consider using unenlightened.
Really, as if unenlightened is not associated with stupid, or with lack of light, which is also a trivialising of blind people, according to that logic.
I'm just going to see how it rolls off the tongue.
Are we a bit liberal with drug consumption, are we?
I'm just going to see how it rolls off the tongue.
I just want to test this.
Instead of, you tone-deaf retard, you say, you unenlightened person with autism.
Soon it'll be person of autism.
Just watch it.
Okay, so page 4 of 13, and instead of guru, consider using expert.
Why?
Because in the Buddhist and Hindu tradition, the word is a sign of respect.
Using it casually negates its original value.
Why shouldn't expert be a matter of a sign of respect?
And why should experts or But that's interesting because it says using it casually negates its original value.
But on the other hand, it's expert, primary leader, teacher or guide is not supposed to have original value.
They're expected to make sense.
And page 7 or 13.
Instead of thug, consider using suspect or criminal.
So thug life compilations have to be Rename into suspicious life.
Yeah, sus life.
Sus life compilations, yeah.
So what do you make of all this?
Well, I think it's completely tone deaf and retarded, personally.
The thing, though, is that, okay, this is meant to be for an IT department, but it seems to me that it starts with IT departments and it ends with pronouns and communism.
That's how it always goes.
That's where we always end up.
Yes, but the thing is that, okay, I think that this is a really...
Bad way of thinking about things.
It's not a way of thinking.
Actually, that's the problem.
It's not a way of thinking about things.
It's a way of distorting language to such an extent that it is specifically designed to create obsequious people who are parts of departments who have a constant double-think.
And they cannot think anymore what they are saying, and they cannot think, basically they cannot think anymore.
And this breeds the habit of, let's say, obsequiousness.
Because if you are in a department that tries to change language and mandate language in such a ridiculous extent, you will need a permission to speak.
In all likelihood, you'll have to get permission to speak from your students because the students are going to be the ones who are younger.
They're more up to date with all of this sort of stuff.
You always get told, oh, you need to listen to the youth.
You need to learn from younger people.
So it will end up being the teachers being told what to think by the students.
Exactly.
And because student satisfaction indexes are a thing, and many people think that they have to placate the audience, This leads into education being seen as a customer is always right kind of thing.
Okay, this is obvious.
It's more complex than that, but this is a problem especially in disciplines like the humanities where you have to talk about an objective reality that is negotiated and we are talking about it instead of just...
Disintegrating into a subjectivism of subjective feelings of harm.
I mean, there was the incredibly famous woman now from the Evergreen situation who was screaming at, I think it was Brett Weinstein or one of those people around there, who just screamed, it's not about creating an educational space, it's about creating a home.
No, it's not.
It's about the educational space.
And unfortunately, some people are really happy about it.
And like you mentioned, Pete Tatchell, I also have to show someone.
Oh, I've seen this.
Yeah, Billboard, Chris, Who Walks the Earth encountered this person.
Let us see.
Yes.
So, say your question again.
Do I think 12-year-olds having sex is a good idea?
That's not what I said.
Do you think a 12-year-old can consent to sex with an adult?
Yes.
So, well, how about we first talk about a 17-year-old and then maybe work our way down.
So, well...
I don't need to do that.
I mean, you said you think a 12-year-old can consent to sex with an adult.
Okay, my whole thing is, like, why are we coupling age with consent?
Do you know what a child is?
No, I don't.
Tell me.
Come on.
Please, enlighten me.
Is it by age that we define children?
I mean, yes.
I don't even want to have this conversation.
Okay, so...
My man.
Yes?
Do you remember what it is to be 10, 11, 12?
Did you even know what sex was?
Again, different people mature at different rates.
I don't even know why I'm humoring you.
No.
No 12-year-old can possibly consent to sex with an adult.
That's called pedophilia.
I think there are exceptions.
Okay, well...
I think exceptional 12-year-olds understand what consent is.
I think that's pure you.
I think consent is, uh...
How do you define consent?
And I think you're probably not safe in society.
That's what I think.
Why does he have to be wearing the anime jumper?
I actually quite like Death Note as well.
Honestly, this man is just trying to rationalize his own immoral degeneracy.
That's all I hear when I hear people talking like that.
But the thing though is that this kind of rhetoric would not be heard some years ago.
So what has happened?
This is a big question.
What has happened?
And we have people who think that it is okay to say this.
Well, the Overton window has just been shifted so, so far in one direction that all of a sudden people are able to come out and advocate for positions like this without just a mob of people going around them.
Because I think we all know where the civil rights movement is going next.
It is going to be...
Consent-based questions about child sexuality.
That's what it's going to be.
They're going to frame it from that perspective of consent, because it doesn't matter if it's immoral, it doesn't matter if the child is in any position of wisdom or maturity, they're going to make the argument, well, some kids, well, some kids, well, some...
This guy literally asked, why are we coupling age with consent?
And he was playing smart, and he was saying, is it by age that we determine children?
Yes.
And you can tell by his facial expressions, he knows what he's doing.
Yeah.
So I think that this is a way in which the woke ideology is trying to mess up with language, it tries to mess up with our thoughts, and it tries to normalize people who say crazy things like that.
Not surprising, crazy.
So, that's all.
Alright, well, thank you for that, and hopefully for a slightly lighter topic now, we're going to be asking the question, how communist is Gen Z? And this is important because I think we all have a particular idea of how woke and how lefty a lot of people in the younger generations are.
I know some people think the idea of the generational divides is a bit arbitrary, and I can understand when I was born in, what, 96?
So I'm kind of on the cusp between millennial and zoomer, so the idea of putting me into one category or the other seems very arbitrary.
But between people who've got like maybe 20 years separating the periods in which they grew up in, you can definitely see differences in how they think about the world and how they were socialised.
And similarly, we have a premium hangout from a few months ago that Carl did, where he was talking about the difference between Generation X, which is Carl's generation, and Generation Z, the current generation.
Well, I think it's...
I think we've got the alpha generation or something now.
Those are the new babies who are being...
I've lost counting because every...
I think that...
They start to get stupider and stupider names.
Yeah, and we have...
Really fast changes of what generations are.
So I mean, at some point...
Yeah, cultural acceleration has been speeding up massively.
But he's talking about the differences.
So I thought that would be an interesting one to check out if you want to understand from the perspective of somebody old.
And I mean old, like Carl, as opposed to somebody's perspective like myself, who is still young and vital in the world.
Then this would be a good video to watch.
But moving on.
So...
Like I say, this relates to what will happen in the future once we're all gone.
What world are we leaving to our children?
And what world is being formed?
What opinions does everybody have in the greater world around us?
So, personally, I want to be honest.
I don't want to cope about this situation because I don't think it's looking good.
Personally, I've had this discussion with a few people who say that articles like this that I'm going to refer to R.Cope and sent me some other articles, but that other article that I've been sent that we're going to look at in a moment also reads a little bit like Cope.
So what's your experience?
I have to say that, okay, things don't look good, but we have to be optimistic.
I know it's a lot to ask.
These are difficult times, but I think we have to be optimistic.
And what's your experience?
Because obviously you've had some experiences in universities, speaking to younger people who are going to university.
What's your experience been with them?
Obviously you were talking politics.
I have to say, yeah, I mean, this is one of the reasons why I'm optimistic because most students are pretty based.
Really?
Yeah.
Okay, how so?
Could you give us an example?
Yeah, because the thing is most students are really interested in talking about things, but the problem is that they feel that they cannot Now, if they see that you are someone who invites dialogue, they will come and talk to you.
And you will have a really interesting discussion.
And I very rarely encounter students who were happy with the situation of not talking about things.
The problem is, as you said before, it's precisely a top-down discussion.
Imposition of a situation where people don't speak in a university.
So I would say that I do see students who have a more conservative leanings.
Now, I cannot make a comparative judgment because I wasn't alive.
I was born in 1990.
I don't know how it was before.
But I want to say that the thing is that we have a silent majority.
And a really loud minority that is backed up by a progressively increasing number of woke staff.
And they incentivize students to just say, you know...
Did you encounter any students while you were at university who were actively and very dogmatically woke?
Or would it be a bit of a thing that they would put over themselves?
A few.
But most of them were not woke.
Okay, well that's good to hear.
Honestly, that's not what I was expecting.
I mean, I did, when I was in university, a media degree, so that will have definitely skewed my perspective on what people are like, but I did encounter that most people were, especially because they were looking for careers within the media, they were more than happy to go along with any media narrative that was put forward toward them.
And the thing is, I think that if students were woke, we wouldn't see such crazy attempts, over-the-top attempts, to make students more woke.
It is because most students, we have a silent majority of sensible people and a really loud minority of non-sensible people.
Yeah, I think that's the point of the top down, is that you're hoping that those students who go in and are more conservative to start off with will either be convinced or just forced into a position where they feel isolated and alone so they go along with it anyway.
But even if we don't say that they are conservative, they are really open to discussion.
And they're really open to learn and read.
That's honestly very encouraging to him.
Yes.
And that is what I think is the most important thing.
Because woke people, in my mind, they cannot enter into a discussion.
They claim to be Democrats, but they are not.
And I'm not willing to give them this term.
And I'm not willing to give them the term liberals or progressive.
I know that this is...
We customarily refer to them as such, but I think that this is a problem.
They are trying to...
To mess our relation with the idea of progress, liberty and democracy.
So I'm not willing to grant these terms to them.
Fair play.
I mean, that's an interesting distinction between you and I, is that I wouldn't consider myself in favor of democracy, progressivism, or anything like that.
But that is still...
But that's the difference.
I still recognize that people who would consider themselves classically liberal would still be much, much closer to what I believe in, and also much more amenable to having interesting discussions.
I agree, but I just want to point out, because I think that it's important.
There's a difference between progress and progressivism.
Incremental progress.
Slow, bottom-up progress.
It is the progressivism that tries to have a top-down implementation of and fast implementation of politics.
That is the problem.
That is why I'm not willing to give them the term progress.
They're completely regressive.
They want society to disintegrate into a jungle.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
They want that.
I just want order.
I just want there to be some peace and stability.
That's all I'm after.
I just want to be able to afford a house.
That'd be nice.
Afford a house so I can raise my kids in peace and just have a happy life with the wife and stuff like that.
That's all I'm after.
But anyway, we saw this come out right at the end of 2022.
It's an article from The Independent, which I do think, honestly, is a little bit cope.
Because the headline says, Millennials are becoming less conservative as they age according to new data.
And this new data was given by the Financial Times.
The Independent, for those not in England, is a very lefty, socialistic kind of website and newspaper in the first place.
So they're going to want to skew things in favour of the worldview that their readers want to see.
So this was a man called John...
Burn Murdoch looked at a series of US and UK election surveys conducted from 1964 up to 2022.
After looking at the data, he discovered how different generations' political perspectives have changed over the years, including the views of millennials who are people born between 1981 and 1996.
I often see a lot of conflicting about when it ends, but either way.
Byrne Murdoch found that millennials in the US are taking much further to the left on economics than previous generations due to the fact that they are reaching political maturity in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.
It could also be why they're in favour of greater wealth distribution from rich to the poor.
And that's one thing that you can say, maybe they are going a bit more left-wing economically, and that probably would be because of the fact they see the economic and financial system as it exists right now, and see that it's basically failing everybody, but really rich people who are already in great positions to do whatever they want.
So, I mean, that's...
I don't have to become a socialist to recognize that, but a lot of people see that and they see, okay, the only answer then is socialist economics, because that's the only alternative they're presented.
But I ask the question, what about socially?
Where are they socially?
Because you can be left-wing economically, like somebody like, I think, Peter Hitchens is more left-wing economically, whilst being very, very socially right-wing, like Peter Hitchens is himself.
So they don't answer that question.
There are other causal factors, you can say, including universities themselves annually having twice as many students as they did in the early 90s, for instance, after, in the UK... In the UK we had Tony Blair make it so that they wanted at least 50% of all secondary school graduates to go to university.
All that sort of stuff.
And the universities themselves can be very liberal and will affect the views of people that are going to them, like we were just discussing then, because it's all top-down.
There's lots of different factors that you can look into with that.
But one of the ways that they were trying to justify this, if you go to the next article, they were referring to this article, which has this graph, which is where they're getting the information from.
And what's missing here?
So I'll read out.
Millennial voters in the UK and US are not following the typical pattern of growing more conservative as they age.
But what is the metric they are measuring that by?
On the left side we've got the UK. Conservative vote share by age within each generation relative to national average.
And on the right, US Republican vote share by age within each generation relative to national average.
Now I have immediately noticed a big problem with how they're scoring this metric and using it as a As a measure of general conservatism.
Can you also spot what that is?
Well, I mean...
Does it have to do with the millennial one?
Well, no, it's more just the fact that just because you're not voting conservative doesn't mean you're not a conservative.
I hate the conservatives!
And I think a lot of people have lost faith in the Republicans in America, apart from in certain states like Florida as well, where you actually have effective leadership.
But just because you're voting for the nominally conservative party...
Doesn't mean that they're doing conservative things, and people recognise that.
Everybody knows over the past 12 years in the UK, the Conservatives have been pants.
They have not done conservative things.
They have not done anything that they said they would.
They have increased immigration.
They have done all these things.
So it's more likely that Conservative people are just dropping off from voting for them and maybe voting for third parties.
So this is cope, as far as I'm concerned, from the Independent at least.
I think the Financial Times have just got it wrong because this is a really bad metric.
This is rather encouraging if you want to see the Conservative Party in the UK crash and burn because nobody's going to be voting for them soon enough.
But this doesn't necessarily prove that Gen Z or Millennials are more left-wing necessarily.
I mean, to say something good about it, I would have to check how they understand conservative because frequently, I mean, you don't know how they understand the term.
Yeah, I think most of the mainstream just equates Conservative with a particular party that they view as right-wing.
But then they always ignore the fact that the Overton window always pulls to leftwards.
Cthulhu swims left.
So the right-wing party, like the Conservatives in the UK, they're about as right-wing as Tony Blair in the 1990s.
In fact, actually, they're far more left-wing than Tony Blair was in the 1990s.
It's been pointed out again and again in 2008, for the Democrats, Barack Obama...
Unequivocally said he did not support legislating gay marriage.
That's not because he didn't support it in reality.
It's because he knew that he wouldn't win as many votes doing that.
It was a tactical move.
Yeah, it was an absolutely tactical move.
Then there was this next article, also from The Independent, talking about how Gen Z was...
Twice as likely to identify as LGBT as any previous generation, and this was information taken from the census data.
I think we've covered it before, but it's important to go back over, because I don't think that what this proves is that they're necessarily automatically more leftist.
Just that there are incentives in place, social incentives, set by the top-down nature of it, but then reinforced by your peers, to identify in such a way.
Exactly.
And if we bear in mind that people nowadays can get instantly marginalized by just saying that anything that is not part of woke ideology, yeah, of course they are going to say that they're less conservative.
It doesn't mean that they are not conservative.
It means that we are living in a situation where people are incredibly pressured to identify as non-conservative.
Well, I mean, there's another thing here, which is LGBT +, especially with the plus included, very broad category.
Can you guess what most people in Gen Z identifying themselves in such a way are actually identifying themselves as?
Begins with a T. No.
It's bisexual.
Because it's really easy to just go, oh, I'm bi.
I don't have to be in a gay relationship to prove that I'm bi, I just have to say that I'm bi.
You know, I could say that I'm bi, and I'm still engaged to a woman, still going to get married to her, but, I mean, you can just say it, and you can immediately get political brownie points because people go, oh, you're part of a marginalised class.
You would have Owen Jones defending you.
Oh, if only.
If only.
So it was 4% of the age group saying that they were attracted to both men and women, and that was 4% compared to the extra 2.11% that was left over.
So it's only 2.11% of Gen Z are identifying as anything other than bisexual or straight there.
So it's actually very small, and once again, bisexual, you don't have to prove anything.
You just have to say it.
Especially because women...
Women themselves were much more likely to say that they were bisexual than the men as well, which is just very easy.
So, once again, it's difficult to tell what this is really saying, other than it's a reflection of the incentives that we have at the moment.
But then you find articles talking about the opposite direction, such as this Forbes one saying, why Democrats should be losing sleep over Gen Z. And this is from 2017, so it's a while back.
but they label them, if you go to the next one John for us, thank you, as fiscally responsible, tattoo-hating, Republican-leaning group, touted by conservatives as their best hope for the future, and as the antithesis of millennials.
This reads like agitprop.
Because when you get to the bottom of this article, it turns out that they're saying, okay, what we need to do as leftists is form and organize ways in which we can prevent them from getting even more right-wing.
This is agitprop for the leftists reading the article so they know we need to propagandize Gen Z even harder to make them even more leftists.
Now, Within Gen Z, I will say there's definitely a group of people who are probably more right-wing than any generation since the Boomers, because you've got people like John Doyle, and I don't want to include Nick Fuentes, because he's probably a Glowy.
I'm just going to put that out there.
Let's stick with Doyle.
Yeah, you've got people like John Doyle and people around him who are really young and really very conservative.
He's not afraid to put his opinions out there.
He's not afraid to be controversial with some of his takes.
You definitely have that group of people, but they seem to me, and perhaps Doyle could correct me if he ends up watching this, but they seem like a minority.
I think that all societies tend to have a tendency towards extremes, and this leads It's like a saying that says that bad times breed good people, good people create good times, good times create easy people, or easy going people create bad times.
I think there is a circle there.
I think it's the...
Chad times create...
Hard times create chads.
Chads create good times.
Good times create bug men.
Bug men create bodega times.
I'm sure we will be corrected on this.
I've seen that one about the place before.
So, yes, I do agree with you that we do have a tendency now for people to be...
There are some people who are more conservative because we see...
The state of the world.
Yeah, it's kind of hard to ignore.
We see the extreme woke ideology that has captured society.
And we say maybe, okay, I mean, there has to be some order.
Yeah, I mean, we recognise that it's kind of a historical anomaly just how extreme things have got right now.
So it's a reaction against it, hence where you get, you know, reactionary as a term.
But they're not necessarily wrong in doing so.
And then the last one I wanted to look at was this Politico article from 2020 talking about six things to know about Gen Z... So, it's just a few interesting little tidbits and facts here.
Politico and Morning Consult surveyed 1,000 eligible Gen Z voters between September 17th and 21.
This was leading up to Joe Biden being voted in as the most popular president in US history.
Separately surveyed 1,987 registered voters of all ages around the same time.
They also launched social media call-out that received hundreds of responses, and they found things like Gen Z twice as likely to vote for Biden over Trump.
A significant chunk is doing so.
Not because they love Biden, but because it was a backlash to the president, probably because they were told by all of the media that Trump was evil and they decided not to look into it any further.
Almost half of Gen Z respondents to the poll also voted against Trump, voted rather than Biden.
Despite the significant leftward bend, Gen Zs are no more likely to identify as Democrats than registered voters, instead choosing to book the two-party system and go independent.
Gen Z is much less likely than registered voters to think that Black Lives Matter protests specifically are too violent.
And also Gen Z mainly gets its news from social media.
2,000 people is not a big sample.
It's not a big sample.
Okay, maybe a bit harsh.
We have to conduct studies, but I don't think that it's a representative sample.
It's not great, but I do think this is possibly a bit more reflective, certainly of the attitudes that I've seen of people around my age out in the wild.
But once again, I might be skewed myself because I have communicated and moved within universities and subcultures which just naturally tend to swing left anyway.
But still, these are the sorts of arguments I've seen where most people aren't identifying as necessarily Labour, they're not identifying as Democrat, they're identifying as feminist.
Further left than those, therefore not represented by them.
The thing is that one of the myths that young people nowadays believe, or they have been force-fed, is this post-modern idea that we live in a post-ideological society and there are no grand narratives.
Now that's totally false.
Because woke ideology is the narrative that has captured people today.
So many of them, they may say that we're not conservative because we don't like isms.
That's a fair point.
I think, more than anything, it's not necessarily the post-modern post-ideology, although obviously a lot of people are just raised to think that whatever ideology that they're raised within is just the normal state of affairs, so they don't even see it as an ideological position in the first place.
But I think that Gen Z is beginning to show the limits of the left and right distinction in the first place.
And many are abandoning traditional moderate positions that have been considered normal over the past 60 years for more extreme positions, both on the left and the right.
The right wing is no longer just the position of moderate conservatism.
It's people going back to reactionary positions or traditionalist positions.
The left wing is no longer just the position of we want moderate social progress.
It's the we want all the social progress all at once.
We want leftist communist economics at the same time.
I think that's a ticking bomb.
And I'm not happy to say this.
That's why I think that we should be a bit more careful with what we say and we should be a bit more critical with, you know, how we speak and what we are told.
Well, that's fair, but I mean, personally, I don't necessarily know if the answer is to bring them back to moderation, because I think the moderate positions have led to where we are right now, because they've let things slide as far as they have.
I think we need to understand the system as it stands, and how it's broken, because it is obviously broken, no matter how you look at it.
Financially, the system is broken, you just need to look at Dan's Brokenomics to understand such a thing.
And it does seem to only work, as far as I can tell, For financial and political elites.
I don't think the answers to how to solve that are on the left.
I don't know if they're on the right, but I know that my instincts are taking me to the right for that.
So that's how I stand on that.
But that's how I've answered the question, how communist is Gen Z? Probably very.
That's as far as I understand.
Anyway, with that, let's go on to the video comments.
Hey fellas.
Know y'all are asking how much these guns cost.
I got both of these on sale for about $200 each.
This one is the Taurus G2C. It fires the 9mm.
This is a hollow point.
Expands upon impact.
This is a FMJ round.
This is used for target practice and the like.
This is about $15 for $50 and this is $20 for $20.
This is the birdshot 12 gauge.
This one is about $10 for 25 cartridges.
This one is the double-lock buckshot self-defense round.
It's about $20 for 5 rounds.
I did get the budget option, however, I have shot thousands of rounds of these things and I've never had a single misfire.
Nice.
I really want all that.
I really want all of that.
That looks so cool.
Thank you for helping us to understand, though, because Callum and I were talking about the prices of guns on the podcast the other day, so it's nice to get an indication of how expensive this all is.
I imagine that upfront cost of the initial, what, $200 for the gun probably pales in comparison to the costs of ammunition over the years, but worthwhile, it seems.
It seems the ammo didn't seem that bad in terms of price as well.
What was that, $10 for 25 buckshot?
Not bad.
Some time ago I submitted a video comment advising fellow Lotosi to stay away from the YouTube video The Last Church.
Having read the short story as part of the Horus heresy, I'd like to take back what I said.
The video is still uninspiring, but the book makes it clear that the Emperor of Mankind is woke, and that Horus was right to rise up against him.
As with any woke philosophy, if it's taken too far, then the only way to fight back is open war and ravening destruction.
I hope we can rescue the West before that happens.
Read the story, and I challenge anyone to say I'm wrong.
I do need to get into Warhammer lore.
I've got one of the books, I've got a collection, I forget what it is, it might be connected to the Horus Heresy, it might be just a collection of short stories to get you into all of these individual narratives, but I've always been told, read the Horus Heresy and generally read anything that Dan Abnett wrote.
That's what my brothers tell me.
They're really big into the Horus Heresy books.
I mean, it looks really cool, but I've got so much more that I need to read.
Connor and I are maybe thinking about covering Berserk for Comics Corner, so that's massive in itself.
I've already read quite a bit of that, but I need to read more of that, and those omnibus editions are like that thick just on their own.
I'm about to start reading Aristotle.
I just don't have the time to invest in reading 40k lore.
even though it seems really awesome but let's get into the written comments so first for owen jones destroying boomer truth omar awad says in a way convincing a child to consent to sexual acts is worse than outright rape you've destroyed their innocence so thoroughly as to have forever corrupted their moral compass is akin to traffic to a trafficking victim turning to copious casual sex or even porn because they retroactively chose to make it meaningless yet that's all correct i
I think whoever Tatchell was referring to when he brought up that example was obviously somebody who's just gone back in the same way that Milo Yiannopoulos did when he was talking about it a few years ago, when he was talking about the abuse that he received when he was 13 years old.
It's just obvious rationalisation of what happened so that they can try and reframe what happened Outside of them being a victim.
You don't want to think of yourself as a victim.
You want to think of yourself as somebody who's in control of your own life.
So if I've been abused when I was younger, what's a way to try and make it so that I wasn't abused, or at least wasn't taken advantage of?
I know.
I chose to do it.
That's what it reads like to me.
And Tatchell just either takes that on face value because he's an idiot, and I don't think he's an idiot, or tries to express it and convince others to take it on face value because...
He has ulterior motives.
I think both actions are reprehensible, and there is a pressure for people to think that it's a choice.
But it's not, because there is room for choice in life, but we also have a passive aspect in our nature.
Things happen to us that are not up to us, and I think that we all should accept this.
Yes.
Thomas Howell has a good point here, which is he says, I always forget that that's a term that he came up with.
That's a really good one.
Yeah, it's honest but not truthful.
Thomas again says, That's true.
Andrew Narog says, all I hear in Owen Jones' argument is that the slippery slope theory is not only correct, but needs to be combated.
Yep.
Michael Migus, I don't know if I've pronounced that right, how the hell does a nine-year-old want sex unless they have been groomed?
That is the question, and Peter Tatchell did not do a great job of explaining.
Colin P. I'm still waiting for somebody to explain exactly what rights these various minorities lack that others have, but having said that, I don't think activism is necessarily a bad thing.
The problem is that these days, activism has changed to agitation.
I'm sorry, if you go back and actually look at the facts of what happened in all of these old activist movements, they were almost always headed by massive leftists, funded by communists, and full of evil people.
Just because...
You know, obviously I'm not saying anything like we need to return to tradition and ban gay people or something, but we need to look back on these movements honestly and recognise that what they were was a bunch of leftist agitators doing horrible things in favour of a pet cause of theirs.
That doesn't mean we have to go back and repeal and reinstate these laws that are kind of immoral, but it means we just need to recognise what they were and not try and make excuses for what was done in the name of those movements either.
Shall we move on to your comments?
Okay.
So, Omar Awad, if you get past the retarded self-projection, it's a sadly revealing moment.
Who instilled in you the idea that only whites can be American or Americans are white?
Leftists think white people are trash because the only white people they interact with are trashy.
Leftist white upper class.
Fair point.
They speak from experience, but their experience is limited to a very select bubble and maybe a mirror.
I really think that they want to think this way.
I don't think that they only encounter, you know, white people who behave badly.
I think that they want to project this behavior to them.
LaFrench, as a developer of a relatively popular open source project, I have rejected all attacks on language.
First, it was curse words, then code of conduct, then master-slave.
Stanford and others kept adding more words to avoid in their lists, and now AP bans the word the in many contexts.
Really?
Yeah.
Do they?
I must have missed that.
Either that or I've completely forgotten because news moves at a mile a minute nowadays.
I think they think that when you put the, it's considered to be dehumanizing.
I think that's the...
See, if somebody referred to me as the Harry, that's not dehumanizing.
That's empowering.
It's like a title.
I think it refers to groups.
Alright, so if I say like the gays or the blacks or the whites...
I think that's the justification or explanation.
Tone-deaf retards with OCD are addicted to sanity-checking language and behaviour.
Crazy, huh?
Surprising.
Gordy Swordsman.
Can confirm the diversity statement for jobs.
Yeah.
Applying for a very technical lad job at the UK Health Security Agency in part of the essential requirements I had to provide evidence for was an understanding of and commitment to the equality of opportunity and good working relationship.
Thankfully, ChatGPT exists and wrote the damn thing for me.
Genius!
That's good use of it.
But the thing is that this is not just confined into universities.
Yeah, that's the scary thing, is it's breached outside of that now.
Trend C.
If America is racist because its founding is bound in racism, why is Planned Parenthood not a racist eugenics project?
Because leftists want to kill babies.
That's literally the...
If it's in favour of the left and what they want, then it's not racist.
If it isn't, then it is racist.
That's the rules.
Jonathan Crowe.
The entire point of political correctness, especially in the case of telling you what words are appropriate or not, is the policing of the mind.
Totally.
I will use absolutely any word I please and I hope it drives these retards crazy.
I'm sorry, this is going to be a new game after you said you don't like using it that much just to get you to say retard.
Northblood.
Dame Edna and Mrs.
Brown make more of convincing women.
Free Will 2112.
The teachers who are sowing this confusion should be sacked and made accountable for their actions.
They're deliberately sowing doubt and confusion and fear.
That's absolutely right.
And just because we're about out of time now, I'll just read one more comment from here, from my segment to end with, saying, The French says, How communist is Gen Z? Yes.
Yes, I agree there.
And with that, that's all we've got time for.
Remember, at 3.30 we have...
The Gold Tier Zoom call going out where you'll have the opportunity for the first time ever, if you're a Gold Tier member, to speak to Stelios, which should be really fun for everybody involved.
And also, we're still looking for the web developer, so if you do have the skills necessary, you can apply on the website.
And finally, my premium podcast about MLK is coming out in just half an hour's time, so keep an eye out for that one.
I am very proud of it.
I do think it is a very good one.
And with that, thank you all very, very much for watching.
We'll see you on Monday.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection