Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 15, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:36:08

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #610

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music Hello and welcome to the podcast of Lotus Eases episode 610 for today, Wednesday the 15th of March 2020.
	I am your host, Connor, rejoined by the brilliant Calvin Robinson.
	Hello, hello, thank you for having me back.
	How are you, my friend?
	I'm very well, how are you?
	Excellent!
	Thank you very much for having me on your show so frequently.
	It's the crossover everyone wanted.
	Today we're going to discuss how to fix modern women.
	I know it's a Herculean endeavour, but we're going to take a more hopeful tact, I hope.
	What would we do without the enlightened centrists?
	Because we're relying on all of them for our opinions.
	And happy anniversary to Karl Marx!
	I couldn't think of a more deserving guy to die.
	Before we kick off with the news, I'd just like to direct you to a piece of content that's coming out at 5 o'clock today.
	That is the fifth episode of Comics Corner.
	We're taking a break from DC for a while, and we're kicking it off with the East Rail 177 trilogy by M. Night Shyamalan, which is unbreakable split and glass.
	Have you ever seen any of these films?
	No.
	They're really good.
	I would highly recommend it.
	Unbreakable is a treatise on how to be the superhero that every son sees his father as.
	Is this the Samuel L. Jackson one?
	Yes.
	It's really, really good.
	He's obviously copying your hairstyle, Calvin.
	I suppose we'll jump straight into the stories.
	So, Michael Knowles recently appeared on the Whatever podcast, and I know what you might be thinking.
	Yes, Callum did cover some of this yesterday.
	But I wanted to cover this segment in particular for two reasons.
	Number one, I'd already written it by the time I found out Callum was doing it, so I wasn't going to waste a day of work.
	But number two, we at Low Seaters can sometimes disagree, both on-air and often off-air, and it's what brings you, the viewers, some of our best opinions, because we like to bounce ideas off of each other.
	And I would like to say that I'm going to go with a different tact with my analysis of some of Michael's comments on the podcast episode in particular, because I'm just going to focus on his appearance.
	And also, I want to be a little less vitriolic, because I don't think we're going to convince many modern women who have made many mistakes under the misguided ideological rubric of feminism, the idea that you can just sleep around, not have a family, pursue your career, and that there will be no consequences to that.
	I don't think we're going to win them back over to what is better for them, what is better for men, what is better for civilisation, wholesome families, by just insulting them and saying, you're dumb and look at all the silly sex acts you've done, you've ruined it forever, you've got no ex.
	I don't think the reductive approach actually helps very much.
	And so I think what we want to do is look at how Michael's tactics for speaking to these women on their own level Putting his framework outside the realm of what they would characterize as offensive back into, well, this is compassionate and I'm giving you some tough love and some hard truth.
	That is very instructive of how we can talk to modern women as men, as thought leaders and heads of households and try and turn this culture around because you're not going to get anywhere without women, let's be honest.
	We can't just fully go our own way, because that means a discontinuation of the species, and that's what the feminists wanted, I suppose.
	If you want to find out more about love and the future that we hope to have with wholesome families, you can subscribe to the website for as little as £5 a month, and check out Stelios' series Symposium, on which he was more than gracious to host me, where we did a two-hour conversation about love, and I can sincerely say it's among the best content I've ever done since starting here, because Stelios brings out the best in people.
	And we've had lots of people ask us to do some more wholesome content, a bit more moralizing stuff, and you can't ever say that we won't make you optimistic, because by the end of this, we not only define how to feel it and identify it, but how to go out and earn it for yourself.
	And it's really encouraging among all the miserable stuff we usually cover.
	Right, let's jump into the first, shall we?
	So, this is Michael's foray into the Whatever podcast.
	It's done really well, but I wanted to pick out some clips and weave a narrative of how he goes from the most hated and unbelievable conservative archetype in their eyes, towards the end of where they tacitly admit their respect for the man.
	So, first off, when they're going round the table and talking about their relationship status, the girls can't quite believe how wholesome the story is that Michael met his wife, because they're all saying they're single, they're hooking up with people, or they're engaged.
	But they've been seeing other people, and Michael just gives a very traditional story, and they're in disbelief.
	So let's watch the first clip.
	And Michael?
	I'm married, and I met my wife when we were ten years old.
	But it's a complicated history, because she had a crush on me in the eighth grade, but I was dating the lead of the middle school play.
	And then I had a crush on her in ninth grade, but she was dating an upperclassman, which was very scandalous, I thought.
	And then we dated in high school, split for college, got together at the end of college.
	Now we're married and have two children.
	Wow.
	That was an enthusiastic wow there.
	This does seem like a really pro-marriage crowd.
	I don't know from that reaction.
	Wait, is that like 100% true?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I wouldn't lie.
	Oh, it's... I don't know.
	I thought you were being sarcastic.
	No, it's true.
	No, that's real.
	It's real.
	It really is.
	That happened.
	Bitch talk!
	Yes!
	Let's go!
	That's very, like, romantic.
	Sorry.
	I thought you were being, like, a jokester and just fucking with me.
	Yeah, same.
	No, that's real.
	That can happen.
	That's... Okay, I'm supposed to be five, too.
	I thought we were gonna come again.
	Whoa!
	So I apologize for the audio peaking slightly in that, I think it might have been just an issue with speeding up, that's probably my fault.
	But you can see how in complete disbelief they are, that someone could have delayed gratification while at college, that the whole we need to break up just to sleep around and find ourselves narrative didn't play out, and actually he could be happier than they are by sticking to traditional mores?
	That's so sad, isn't it?
	Did I hear at the end she said, oh I can believe in love again?
	Yes!
	They've already forgotten about traditional love and traditional relationship.
	They've already moved past that into what they are at now.
	And you can tell by the way they're acting and talking, the expletives, the way they're dressing, exposing themselves.
	You can tell that they're looking for something and they're entirely lost, bless them.
	I think lots of them are trading sex in order to ensnare love.
	But also, I think they have a misguided approach to love.
	And this is something that Mary Harrington's been writing about recently, because I've been reading her book, so it's fresh on my mind.
	She talks about capital B, capital L, capital R, sorry, big romance.
	And that is that because the way that marriage has worked since the Industrial Revolution, because lots of women's work was outsourced to machinery, Marriage became more of a marketplace of complementarianism, of beauty and of character, than just an economic pact that you got together early in your life and you sort of struggled through it and worked upwards through life.
	And so that has meant that people are more focused on being good and virtuous people for each other, and this is where the soulmates idea has come from.
	But then that in our liberal culture, because it's become unmoored from any kind of religious tradition or higher ideal that you mutually strive towards, that has become, how useful is my partner to actualizing my self-conception?
	So are they contributing to my development?
	And at the moment that they aren't, well, I'll just drop them and move on and find someone better that does.
	And there's never the consideration of, are we moving forward into the future together?
	Or are we going to have children together and continue what we've inherited?
	Well, I think relationships have always been quite utilitarian.
	Women have always traded sex for power and resources, which tended to be with men.
	That's the patriarchal system, right?
	But it's now a case that they trade it too cheaply.
	They give it away too freely, and therefore they have less power and fewer resources.
	And I do think the issue there is commitment.
	When you had to commit to a lifelong relationship before engaging in that exchange of resources, then you were there forever, you were together forever, and you were building resources together.
	And now you're quite right that they're swapping and choosing, and it's resulting in depression and loneliness.
	Yeah, well that lack of needing to ensure commitment before sexual access or just baiting online attention by looking sexually available has led them to be unhappy, but they don't understand how it plays into that.
	And funnily enough, Michael turns around and says, well, are you sure that maybe your decision to engage in casual sex, OnlyFans and simp baiting isn't making you unhappy?
	And the woman he's talking to gets so close to the realisation Let's watch.
	So you said that there's a guy you're hooking up with but while you're doing that you are kind of exploring other options, you're going on dates with other guys.
	So how long have you been seeing this one guy that you're just hooking up with?
	Um, well I've known him for like a couple years, but we started talking again, or we saw each other again New Year's of this.
	So you reconnected?
	Yes.
	So if you don't want to date him long term and you don't think he's the right boyfriend material and you want to see these other guys, why would you waste your time seeing him?
	I don't think it's wasting my time because it's like, okay so he lives in Santa Barbara, I live in L.A.
	When I come up to see my family, I see him.
	But if it's not going to go anywhere, why don't you spend the time with some other guy?
	Go on another dinner date or something.
	I don't need a boyfriend in Santa Barbara.
	I probably should date someone in L.A., but it's fine.
	I'm sorry.
	I kind of see him for the sex.
	Do women really do that?
	I understand why men do that, because men are just...
	constantly thinking about sex, especially when they were young.
	But do women really think that way?
	I know feminism pretends that women think about sex the same way that men do, but that's not real, right?
	I feel like they do.
	I think they do.
	I don't think they get the same great orgasm that these guys are getting from casual sex, that's for sure.
	But I do think women think about sex.
	Yeah, I definitely feel like women think about sex.
	At least we do.
	I know.
	But you're admitting that the experience of it is totally different from men and women.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	But you're saying that the drive... I mean, no, actually, once you get comfortable with someone, like, once you're sleeping with them enough, I think the sex gets a lot better.
	A lot better.
	Which is why I'm seeing this guy where the sex is good because we've been seeing each other, but I, you know, I'm, like, dating other people.
	But don't you think the other guys that you're dating might Do you frown upon it if you're sleeping with a different guy?
	No, because I'm sleeping with other people, too, probably.
	Do you like it that they're sleeping with other people, too?
	I mean, you know, don't you want your needs met?
	Don't you want to fulfill your needs with one person to whom you're attracted?
	But I haven't been attracted enough to any of the dates I've been on.
	Do you think the fact that you're sleeping with this guy consistently might have something to do with that?
	No.
	No?
	No.
	It's a lie.
	So the woman at the end there immediately says that's a lie.
	She's salvageable, definitely.
	The reason I'm making frustrated faces is because this woman is caught in a kind of tragic hell loop of the culture's making and doesn't quite see it.
	So Michael asks us straight up, why would you waste your time sleeping with someone or dating someone that you're not interested in?
	And her answer is, don't you want your needs met?
	But then she openly admits that the sex she is getting and the relationship she is entangled in are not emotionally or physically fulfilling.
	The most fulfilling one is her long-term hookup because she feels most committed and connected to him.
	Okay, so then rooted at the foundation of that awe, Drop all the guys you're not that attracted to but somewhat sleeping with anyway in other area codes and just commit to one man who will make you emotionally and sexually fulfilled.
	Yeah.
	When she says, do you want your needs met, it's what are those needs?
	This is the problem.
	They can't hear this from Michael Knowles.
	They can't hear this from a guy.
	They can't hear this from us.
	As much as we can sit here and analyze the problem, it's going to take women to solve the problem for women.
	And that means bringing back women, shaming women for sexual promiscuity, for dressing How can I say sluttily in a nice way?
	Salaciously.
	Thank you.
	And for all of this stuff and saying, look, you're giving it away too easily, you're giving it, you're being cheap, quite literally.
	And it takes women to shame other women, to bring each other to a level of respect for each other and themselves.
	And as great as Michael is here, I don't think he's able to open her eyes.
	But the woman who says that's a lie, that will have a bigger impact.
	Yeah.
	So one of the phenomenons that you do identify in the clips that we're going to go through is that, and I think this has been the case throughout much of human civilization, is that the men are often thought leaders, but the women are the community enforcers.
	They preserve the great chain of cultural cohesion on the local level.
	And so if as a man you break down and articulate an idea and put forth a philosophy, You are going to need women to inculcate it socially and transmit it along with the children.
	And so if Michael, which he does with a couple of the girls here, can get the women to go along with his philosophy because it's in the best interest of women, and he does sincerely care about that, if the one woman can pick up and run with that, then they can make that a counter-narrative to the feminist consensus reality that is keeping these women in relationship purgatory.
	Just sleeping around and trying to trade sex for love, but never getting a fulfilling amount of either.
	Let's go to the next one then, because we can, unfortunately, explain why this woman hasn't had those values instilled, because this comes straight after the clip we just watched.
	Let's play.
	I tend to agree with you, yeah.
	I'm thinking about him while I'm with them.
	Because your behavior is always going to color... Any behavior that you're habitually engaging in is always going to color the way that you view the world.
	And so if you're occupying your mind space and your body and all these, as you're saying, really powerful, sensual emotions with some dude, that's obviously going to color the way you think about romance and love with any other guy you're going on a date with.
	Maybe that's why you're not so interested in the other guys.
	How come guys can do that so easily, though?
	Like, I feel like I know guys can go and fuck women and find this, like, amazing, intimate experience, but then they can actually find a girl who they respect and like, and then date them.
	So how come it's different for men and women?
	Men can compartmentalize a little bit better that way, and men can treat sex as purely physical a little bit better.
	But even for men, even for men, it's somewhat difficult.
	You can't actually separate.
	Yeah, see, I feel like it would be like, I don't know, have you met my dad?
	He can.
	Really?
	Yeah, he can.
	He really can.
	That's unfortunate to hear.
	That does explain a lot.
	Well, there's two things there.
	The issue of poor parenting.
	Mm-hmm.
	And women need a strong male role model in their lives.
	Absolutely.
	Which is why fatherlessness is leading to this situation that we're seeing.
	Because they need to see what a good male person is like so they know who to be attracted to in the future.
	A normative model for relationship dynamics.
	Indeed.
	But also the other issue there is the fact that...
	I lost my train of thought.
	Well, I was surprised they expressed surprise about the fact that men and women approach sex differently.
	Right, so the difference between men and women.
	We are different.
	And that's what all of this comes down to.
	The feminist movement is women trying to be men and seeing that as equality.
	Now, the Christian argument would be that men and women are equal in worth and dignity, but different in being, right?
	That's the whole complementary movement.
	This is why men are supposed to be leaders of the household.
	are supposed to be leaders of the family, are supposed to be leaders of the faith.
	Because we see, I mean the statistics show this, that if the man is faithful, as in not just in relationship but to God, the family, like the wife and the children, tend to be.
	Whereas if it's the woman, the mother, that is faithful to God and the man has no faith, none of the family has faith too.
	So the man has to lead in that way.
	But also, a lot of research shows that the father or the man in the family will always defend the community.
	Like, not just his personal family community, but the wider community.
	Whereas for the mother, or the woman in the relationship, it's the immediate community, it's the family.
	So the father and the mother figure together make sure that the family unit stays together, and this is why women need to have a strong male role model, but men also need to have a strong female role model.
	Absolutely.
	And you can see, even outside of the religious purview, which I obviously share with you, despite our difference in denomination, that even things like if the man isn't earning as much as his wife, the divorce likelihood massively goes up.
	If the man is doing household chores, of all things, women self-report that he is less attractive to them.
	So that sex distinction You can disregard its stereotypes all you like, but first of all, the civilizations like the Nordic countries that have done the most to eradicate gender stereotyping have exacerbated the biological differences, and we can see this in employment choices.
	But also, if it's so deeply rooted that these women, despite the consensus reality, that is destabilising them, that they're just parroting ad nauseum, are unhappy.
	It's because the ideology that tells them men and women are indistinguishable is running up against reality, and they're the casualties of that, and they need it explained to them.
	And it just comes down to biology, which of course is denied these days, but men and women have different levels of parental investment, because the man can Father, plenty of children in the same time that one takes to gestate within the woman.
	So it is the obligation of a man to stick by the woman that his fathered a child with because they bear the disproportionate biological cost of parental investment.
	Otherwise the entire civilization destabilizes into infighting over whose kids are yours and who owns how many women.
	Which naturally makes the woman the gatekeeper of the family, which is important because a lot of this feminist argument is about power.
	And the man might have power outside of the family, outside into the wider community, but the woman has power within the family.
	As in, she is the one nurturing and educating and raising the children.
	And it's a social capital that isn't reducible down to economic value.
	This is the thing that's frustrated me about this new budget the Conservatives have brought out.
	I mean, there's many things, because Conservatives aren't very conservative.
	But they're now promising 30 hours a week of state-subsidised childcare for children aged one to two.
	What you're achieving is the socialist despecified pod model of parental raising.
	You're fulfilling Marx, Plato, Edward Bellamy's dream of state-mandated wet nurses, and it's because it treats motherhood as an impediment to women's full workplace participation.
	It's an inconvenience that they're out the workplace at this time, the presupposition is there, we should eliminate it.
	No.
	Just because motherhood doesn't show up on a balance sheet does not mean it doesn't have intangible social and metaphysical value that we should be cultivating.
	We should take a hit and have one industry where money doesn't change hands and allow women to stay home because it is for the good of the children, and that's what we should be cared about.
	And in the narrative of female empowerment, I can't conceive of something that is more authentically admirable, specific to women, than that.
	Well, this is the trap of feminism.
	The idea that the women's rights movement was about employment rights, it was about education rights, it was about property rights and the right to have wages.
	Great, but this should have been a choice and it's no longer a choice, it's now a necessity by design.
	So it is a trap.
	Yes, indeed, because women have had to become men in order to survive in the world.
	Yeah, they've had to have technological interventions to change their biological processes, like the pill and abortion.
	And as Abigail Favale says in her book, which I'll be chatting to her about soon, the pill is the only medical intervention in history where it changes a biological function To have the default setting being off and to think that that has no repercussions for how women conceive of themselves and operate in the world is ludicrous.
	Well, it's worse than that.
	The pill is actually a fundamental element in all of this that breaks down our society and our way of life because it separates the conjugal act from matrimony.
	Yes.
	So it makes sex a commodity and a purpose of personal pleasure rather than something that happens between two people who are married for the purposes of begetting of children.
	And separating that out is what's essentially led to these people being so unhappy and lonely because they're able to have one without the other.
	That's why Mary Harrington has called it rewilding sex.
	You almost need to reintroduce the risk of conception into your sex life so that you can have a deeper emotional bond.
	But even if you remove the religious element and say that sex is an act between two people that are married, and you look at the pill itself...
	It's toxic.
	It's dangerous for women.
	It alters their attraction levels, so it stops women being attracted to more masculine men.
	Yeah, we've covered this before on the website, so go check out our segment on that.
	But it's the same as what pornography does to men.
	It stops men being attracted to real women.
	And all of these are having chemical effects on our brains.
	Yeah, surrogate intimacy.
	Yeah, indeed.
	Which is, again, leading to situations like this.
	Yeah, and so Michael decided to just go out on an all-out offensive against hookup culture, and we can watch this next clip.
	No, I was just saying I agree with Kiko in that they're living their best life for them.
	And maybe for you that's not what you want.
	Because you don't want three boyfriends, but for someone else they do.
	What if they're not living their best life, though?
	What if their life is not for you?
	How is that your choice?
	No, I'm just asking if they are or they're not.
	But that's what they're choosing to do.
	So let them do it.
	Can people make choices that are bad for them?
	Yeah, but if they don't feel like that's bad for them and they're happy, then why do we know what's good?
	I'm saying, if people make choices that are bad for them, that will probably make them happy.
	But why do we know what's good and bad?
	Well, it's sort of self-referential at a certain point.
	If they're making these bad choices, those bad choices, by definition, are going to make them less happy than if they make good choices.
	And people obviously do make bad choices all the time.
	So if people are making lots of bad choices, don't you think that instead of just saying, hey, just find other people who want to make bad choices, you might say, hey, how about you find people who want to make better choices?
	That's just your opinion!
	I have no problem with it.
	I have no problem with it.
	That is good.
	That is bad.
	That is really good.
	I thought we agreed that some things are objectively good and some things are objectively bad.
	I thought we agreed on that.
	I'll take it out the door.
	There's no bad and good, and we all live on this little loopy spectrum.
	There's no bad and good.
	So it's not better to bake a pie for the lady down the street than to kick the baby?
	No.
	It's because I'm doing work either way, and I'd rather kick the baby.
	So, the indefensibility of the position leads you to a space of nihilism where you cannot say that doing an obviously good and charitable act is not better than harming a child.
	They were agitated there by the truth.
	You could see there was a moment where he spoke too much truth and they were physically agitated by it.
	They couldn't hear anymore, so they started going against it.
	It became choral, yeah.
	Indeed, even though the larger woman had already admitted that she was unhappy in her lifestyle, so she wasn't living her best life.
	But then the woman next to her said, what is the difference between good and bad?
	How do we know what's good and bad?
	This is how we know.
	Unless you have an objective, universal truth, then you don't know what's good and bad.
	And this whole idea of everyone owning their own truths and everything being relativism, of course there's no objective good and bad for people like this.
	And this is why they live bad lifestyles.
	So even though, and I'll speak to some of the secular members of our audience for once, right?
	Even though you, myself, and Michael would all agree on that being a pathway to transcendent truth, I think speaking to the women here who are largely secular and materialist, you can even say your intuition about the fact that you're unhappy, despite having material abundance and being told culturally you're empowered, is a kind of signpost to an objective truth that you don't know where it comes from yet, but it does exist.
	It's the same way that C.S.
	Lewis talks about the Tao.
	There's an undercurrent of reality that we don't just look at a thing and ascribe value to it.
	Instead, we're the interpreters of what is already present and innate to the world.
	And so if you are miserable because you're having repeated, meaningless one-off sex, but when you sleep with someone and form a relationship with someone and it feels deeper and meaningful because you are committed to that person, why wouldn't you just lean into the one that feels more meaningful?
	Just because you are being propagandized that that is not in your best interest.
	Literally follow your heart.
	This is the sexual revolution, isn't it?
	The whole liberalisation of sexualisation means that you're going to be freer.
	You're not freer.
	You're more trapped now than you were before.
	You're a slave to desire, to lust, to sin, essentially.
	And that's why people are more depressed.
	Absolutely.
	Shall we play the next clip, please, John?
	I don't want to sound like a prude, because I'm really not a prude.
	Maybe I've become a prude much more than I used to be.
	But isn't it all just so gross?
	Isn't it just so extremely gross to think about the five dudes and the... It's all just... Why are you thinking about the dudes?
	Wait, hold on.
	Well, yeah, because he put it in my head.
	You know, the girl with the five boyfriends and the this and you gotta put the... Yeah, that's why you don't do it with someone who you're in a relationship with.
	I think that's way different.
	But isn't...
	Like, let's say the most traditional thing would be you don't do any of this stuff, and then you get married, and then you do appropriate sexual behaviors with your spouse.
	And then the extreme on the other end is you're doing all sorts of weird stuff, putting things in the wrong places with, like, five guys at a time.
	Haram!
	Yeah, which is very haram.
	Like, clearly that's gross, and the good one is, like, good and wholesome.
	Can there be a balance?
	Is there not somewhere in the middle for that?
	Why would you want a balance between good and gross?
	Why don't you just go for the good stuff?
	I think it's just black and white again.
	I think that you can have intercourse with other people unless you want your husband a good time.
	I'll take my, like, sorry, I don't mean to sound like a George Moore or anything, but I'm saying, if you got, you were all describing all these weird sexual behaviors, right?
	And you're saying, There's a spectrum, and on the spectrum, let's go from the one end, it's the most trad, good, like, wholesome thing, where it's just you and your husband, and you've got this good life, right?
	And then on the other end, it's you with, like, seven dudes and a chihuahua, and, I don't know, like, all this weird stuff, right?
	And so, on that spectrum, that spectrum is actually just, like, good, normal, flourishing... For you?
	For you?
	For everybody, for all of human history?
	No!
	So you're excited about it?
	No, I'm just looking at history, and I'm looking at also philosophy, and I'm looking at also... History?
	I feel like there's been a lot of terrible things that have happened in history, so why are you looking back at history?
	I mean, for a long time, that's always been good, but now we have a different look on love.
	Personally, I don't think hookup culture is great, but a lot of guys will not commit, so... Yeah, right.
	Yeah, you don't want that.
	Because you make them.
	Like, you know, not to be...
	So, why should we look at history?
	History's all bad.
	We're modern.
	But also, I'm miserable in the present.
	And it's like, yes, because your intuition, your disgust sensitivity, is a signpost to the fact that something's wrong.
	Lean into it.
	But where she's right there is that this isn't just down to women, this is down to men not committing.
	Absolutely.
	Men won't commit, like she feels like she has to give it out because otherwise she won't get a relationship with a man.
	So men have got to go back to being protectors, providers and actually to commit to women and provide safety and security and fulfill the masculine role.
	Otherwise this is the kind of woman they'll end up with.
	This is the frustration I have with the more nihilistic side of the Red Pill, MGTOW, Wind Cell, self-identified community.
	It's that they hold these contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time.
	That is, women are very impressionable and they're led by material incentives and loads of them are jumping on OnlyFans because they're being subsidized to do it.
	They are easily manipulated, and also, there is no changing this.
	Lads, if you think that men are the thought leaders, that they can change the conditions to incentivise female behaviour, then get on it!
	You need to be the vanguard against the degeneracy that has wasted so many fertile years, and the potential of... I mean, none of these women are particularly my type, but women who are not ugly, you know?
	In another time, another place, another culture, they could have been someone's wife, and they're certainly someone's daughter.
	Lads, put the groundwork in.
	Don't just take yourself out of the dating pool just because you've had a few bad experiences.
	I've had plenty of bad experiences.
	It doesn't mean I'm giving up.
	It's true, but I can understand the men-go-their-own-way mentality, because if these girls are sleeping with several guys and the guys aren't getting a commitment from these women, then why would they give them everything?
	Why would they give them security and protection?
	The cycle needs to be broken at some point, though.
	Yeah, but it comes down to trust, and trust is broken on both sides.
	I agree with that.
	So you have to commit in trust.
	Yep.
	So Michael levels his charges against the MGTOW movement.
	Let's watch this.
	Yeah, really great point.
	I find all the red pill stuff is so stupid.
	It's just not, because it's, it's just this, it's just another shade of liberalism and feminism.
	Because it also just goes nowhere.
	I mean, this is the problem with, if you're just dating, dating, dating, and you have no interest in getting married or anything, it's just, there's no point to it.
	You know, you just remain perpetually a child.
	And so you're a little boy, you're not a man.
	You don't want to get married?
	No.
	No, no.
	Why not?
	Uh-oh.
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
	Alright, 1v7, okay.
	Well, so... To your point, Brian, you make a good amount of money, the way the judicial system works.
	If a woman divorced you, she could take a bunch of your money, she could take your kids.
	There's a risk, but my question is, if you're already going to have a life partner, which sounds, I'm sorry to say, kind of gay.
	It's not gendered, it's not traditional.
	Thank you for saying that.
	So if you're going to do that anyway, But you want to protect against divorce.
	Why not just marry a woman who's not going to get divorced?
	You're saying, like, well, if you find a great woman that you know that's... No, not even just that.
	I'm saying, because, you know, you can find the most wonderful woman in the world and, I don't know, someday something goes off in her brain and she totally turns on you.
	But what if you create the structure such that you're not going to get divorced?
	I'll give you an example.
	I'm Catholic.
	My wife and I cannot get divorced.
	She could murder me.
	That would be the way out of the marriage.
	It is not possible for us to get divorced.
	Now, if you, let's say you're not Catholic yet, and maybe you don't, you know, you haven't worked through these things, maybe... But did you say yet?
	We're just talking.
	I'm saying, what if, before you get married, you sign a prenup?
	But not the kind of prenup now.
	Not the kind of prenup where you say, okay, in case we get divorced, you know, we get 50-50.
	What if you sign a prenup that says, if you divorce me... I will kill you.
	I'll kill you.
	Whoever brings the divorce forfeits everything.
	That's the Knowles prenup.
	And then you're safe.
	You're not going to take your kids and you're not going to take your money.
	And you get to be married and not have a life partner.
	So, the really interesting thing in that is that he points out that the Red Pill philosophy, living in resentment of the eternal woman of excessive female hypergamy, hypersexuality and commodified sexuality, is playing within the liberal paradigm that's brought us here in the first place, and men need to lead their way out of it.
	And he's also pointing out by examining Brian, the host here, that a lot of this philosophy is the fact that lots of men are afraid of getting burned, afraid of being rejected or being taken advantage of, or already have, and so are homogenising this perspective to the modern woman or all women.
	And I get that.
	Like, I've seen, when I've covered the virtues of marriage before, I've seen in the YouTube comments guys going, well, you're just going to get taken for all you've got, or you don't know the real world.
	Look, lads, I'm sorry if that's happened to you.
	I really and truly am.
	But that's why we have to be the people that put in place a culture which stigmatizes divorce and disconnectivity to the point of where both parties would never want to do that in the first place.
	I'm not saying it's there yet.
	We've got to make a start, otherwise no one will.
	There's only one way to do that, and that's through the faith, right?
	You have to have a shared set of values.
	You have to both be, like Michael Noll says, you have to both be Catholic and understand there is no, you know, marriage is indissoluble, there is no divorce.
	When you enter the commitment at that level, you're both coming from the same place.
	I definitely think so as well.
	Again, if you think that women are the percolators and defenders of values but don't particularly create them, they receive them and work out what's best for them given their life conditions, Then yeah, taking your girlfriend or your future wife to church might not be the worst idea because it's better that she worships that god than the god of materialism, sexuality and OnlyFans.
	Might just work, fellas.
	So you're saying if you can't find a woman with those values you have to give her those values?
	Of course.
	That's a sensible thing.
	I'd love to see if that works.
	I've done it before.
	Lots of people with projects, there we go.
	So, after discussing antinatalism, because that's obviously the logical extension of discussing family, they then talk about would they date a conservative?
	And lots of the women said yes.
	Are they all antinatalists?
	Well, lots of them have said they don't want children.
	So, the girl there in the middle, the Hispanic girl with the low-cut top, said that she never wants children.
	And Michael pointed out that that's the female equivalent of MGTOW.
	You're just running from responsibility.
	So we're caught in this trap and we need to break it.
	On one hand, I think it's quite demonic, because that's what we're here for.
	But on the other hand, I think actually it's quite good if hyper-liberals don't want to have children.
	Sure.
	Just let the conservatives breed.
	The world will become a much better place.
	I agree, but by the virtue of the fact that they're all having sex while on the pill, as we saw from the pill, the rate of unexpected pregnancies went up because the rate of sexual encounters went up, which led to abortion.
	And also, yes, if the Liberals aren't having children, they want yours.
	Hence why they're infiltrating schools.
	That's very true.
	So we've got to fix this on the cultural level.
	They're not just going to out-breed themselves.
	You know, ideology doesn't die out within a generation.
	Marx has been dead for 140 years and we're still stuck with him.
	So that leads on to a question about abortion.
	And this abortion debate is Illuminating as to how men can change the conversation.
	Because watch the approach that Michael takes.
	He moves from unmitigated hostility being thrown his way to the women respecting his position by the end of it.
	Let's play the clip.
	So, how is me making a claim about, like, having an abortion and pro-life?
	Obviously, I feel like if you're having an abortion, it's not a good thing.
	Like, I don't think it's something that should be romanticized.
	I don't think it's, like, a good thing.
	I feel like it's sad that you even have to go out to that point, but it should be there for women if they need it.
	Why?
	If it's not a good thing, then why?
	No one needs it.
	Because there's other things that are not a good thing.
	Birth controls aren't a good thing either, and we have it, but it makes it needed.
	Well, I mean... Having sex before marriage is not a good thing for society, but we have it, so you can't ban it.
	Right, but you just shouldn't do it.
	Drugs are not a good thing, but we have it.
	Right, you also shouldn't do that.
	You're making very arguous... I agree with your viewpoint, and I know you're very passionate about your viewpoint.
	I'm very passionate about it.
	But I think we're going a wrong way about the whole conversation, because you're saying that's just wrong, but we have to talk about how can we prevent that from happening in the first place.
	Like, what happens to a 14-year-old girl who gets raped, for example?
	Like, how would we prevent that?
	I think we have to talk about it.
	How do you prevent rape?
	Well, how do we talk about people with, like, mental issues?
	Like, we have to talk about just bettering, like, are you doing something to better them?
	Yeah, well, the way to prevent rape would be to get tougher on crime, and it would be to circumscribe certain sexual behaviors, right?
	And stop, I would say, probably stop encouraging a hookup culture that makes it a bit easier.
	So, you can do all sorts of things like that.
	And then what do you do for, sort of like a young woman who's already pregnant, what do you do?
	You, well, you know, The crime has already happened, so if she gets an abortion or she doesn't get an abortion, that's not going to change the fact that she was raped.
	Oh yeah, there are plenty of those.
	Crisis Pregnancy Centers are great, great organizations all over.
	Yes, everywhere.
	that's a baby crisis pregnancy centers are great great organizations are they accessible to people yes everywhere well that's good i mean i don't know it's a hard issue like they totally are look at look how he de-escalated it by leading them down the path of logic Like, they innately, because of the received programming of feminism, because of the autonomy-maximizing doctrine that says, I should be able to kill my baby if it's an inconvenience, they wanted to jump down his throat.
	Even the most traditional Eastern European girl there, who's the calmest throughout, who's giving him dull eyes, because I think she thinks he's his type, but Michael's a spoken-for man, you know?
	Even she was trying to press him on the disagreement.
	And by the end there, they're all calm, and they're all nodding, and they're agreeing with his premises.
	And it's because, lads, as we've been saying throughout, if you think men should be thought leaders to change the culture, it's because you have to put it within the paradigm of, this is what is good for women.
	You don't just mock them for the mistakes they've made.
	Much like you do with the trans issue, you don't just say, you're a big ugly man in a dress and you'll never be a man.
	Aiming it at the people that are on the side of the regime, like Dylan Mulvaney or the trans activists, definitely it works.
	But the people who have been swept up in the ideology, the young girls that have gone to the Tavistock clinic, not providing them a pathway to normality again will keep them entrenched in the ideology.
	And so not providing these women with a road to redemption for their mistakes in hook-up culture or even abortion, it will just perpetuate this culture.
	And look how calm Michael was compared to the gaggle that they assaulted him with earlier.
	No, I mean, it's basic logic, isn't it?
	You know, these women start by saying abortion is a necessity, and then they're saying, let's solve the problem that abortion seems to create.
	So, one final clip, and then we'll finish.
	So, Brian, the host here, he elucidates why you can't have a rationalistic philosophy like the red pill or feminism.
	And a happy relationship.
	And this part shows that the girls end up actually innately respecting Michael for the consistency of his position, even if they don't agree with him.
	And he becomes the conservative that they said they might date if they felt emotionally connected with them, they could overcome their value differences.
	Let's play the final clip.
	There's two more?
	Okay, well, let's play both. - I don't know if I can leave it you are. - And that helps your sleep better at night, bro.
	- Oh my God.
	- When you're tucking yourself in, you go to sleep thinking that, that's how the life is working.
	- No, it's just the inescapable-- - F*ck up your sleep habits.
	- No, it's just the inescapable conclusion of my use of right reason, by the things that I perceive in the world.
	- And it's like, but you say that, and you don't realize when you're saying that, how insane you start.
	Like, to us, like, you know how back in the day when people were like, oh, I'm sick.
	I have a mental illness.
	They're like, oh, the devil will save you.
	I feel like we're going to get to a point where it's like, what you're saying right now is like, they're going to think you're crazy.
	You sound crazy.
	You sound crazy when you say that shit.
	I don't know if it's just me, but you literally sound like Looney Tunes being like, you're ready to get locked up.
	Kiko, you just told me.
	You just told me that if a man has sex with another man while that other man is wearing a dress, he's not engaged in a homosexual action because the second man is secretly a woman.
	But you're telling me that I, by using my right reason to deduce from the world that because the world is, say, in motion, there has to be an unmoved mover.
	Or because the world is caused, there has to be an uncaused cause.
	Or, for any other number of reasons, we can conclude that God must exist in order for this contingent world to be as it is.
	That seems a little crazy.
	And there, right there, folks, is exactly what the f**k I'm talking about.
	Like, that was like, you barely even used any religious jargon, but it's like- Right, I used logic.
	laughs You're losing us, like you're losing us.
	laughs I guess I guess I guess.
	The defensive scorn that she pours on Michael despite him being relatively calm just makes her position look way worse.
	And it's because she's falling back on the last vestige of reputation destruction, as you said.
	Social shaming, which is a tool of female communal power, to cling onto her ideological position because she doesn't want to be shown up.
	But then by the end, as Michael is interrogating Brian's contradictions, he comes off the better for it.
	So let's play the last one.
	You guys want to treat feminism and equality like a buffet.
	You want to pick and choose that which... Hold on.
	You want to pick and choose the things that benefit you, and then you want to disregard, perhaps, the equality which does not come at a benefit to you.
	Because I believe... Well, okay, you want... Oh, well, I believe in gender equality, but I like it when guys pay, and I like it when they lead, and I like it when they initiate.
	And I like them when they adhere to their traditional gender roles.
	However, I want to be promiscuous.
	I want to sleep around.
	Are you a virgin?
	No, I'm saying the girl wouldn't... No, right?
	Okay, so if you're a virgin, then yeah, it's rightful for you to expect someone else to be virgin.
	If you're not a virgin, why can't you expect to have a virgin?
	What Brian is saying is that, yeah, you're advancing the feminist idea that men and women are exactly the same and have the same expectations.
	But what Brian is saying is...
	No, no, I'm not a feminist.
	Men and women have different expectations.
	There are different thresholds for their different kinds of behaviors.
	And as a result of that, there are also different privileges that women get.
	So men are going to open the door, they're going to pay for the tab, they're going to take more responsibility for certain problems, they're going to, I don't know, kill the spider or whatever.
	But also, women are going to have certain expectations that men either do not have or will be treated with less culpability.
	I agree with Kiko that you're a walking contradiction for the type of energy you want and the type of energy movement you want.
	I'm not though.
	I'm real hot.
	I'm real hot.
	At least I saw the walking contradiction.
	He's all like, straight forward.
	No, okay.
	At least Michael knows he wants.
	I'm not going to lie.
	Keep going, lady.
	But, okay.
	So, the girl on the end was insulting him relentlessly for his religious convictions a little while ago, and then now says, "Well, at least he's consistent.
	Yeah, I can admire it." And all the girls, rather than pouring scorn and laughing in consensus, are agreeing.
	This is the point.
	You can't just pick and choose out of a rational buffet of either red pill, MGTOW, or feminism.
	It keeps us apart.
	What we need is to break the cycle.
	Stop, stop, noshing off at the feeding trough, and Have some integrity, take the risk, be vulnerable.
	Sure, it's difficult but try and bridge the great divide because we're not going to get out of this awful situation of terrible relationships without women's help.
	So, hope that's provided a bit more of a positive spin on that.
	The problem is there to be solved by men and women and both need to come to the table.
	Good luck out there.
	Alright, let's move on next to the sensible centrists.
	No, no, hang on a minute.
	We'll start.
	We'll start that again, because what would we do without the enlightened centrists?
	That's a better kick-off, yeah.
	Fantastic.
	Alright.
	What would we do without the enlightened centrists, ladies and gentlemen?
	They are the thought leaders.
	Sitting on the fence, splinters in their backside, above it all, telling us not to be concerned about the things obviously happening before your eyes, and just when you think that you've seen video evidence of utter degeneracy, well, they swoop in to debunk and discredit it.
	If you'd like to learn about these professional debunkers, you can pay £5 for our website and watch our book club on CS Lewis's The Abolition of Man, where he takes a school textbook to task over destroying the moral sentiments of every English schoolboy by saying, well, you actually Don't feel a certain way because of the beauty of that waterfall?
	You're just ascribing feelings to that waterfall.
	It's all arbitrary.
	The world can mean whatever you want it can mean, and then Ian sneaks in ideology under the rubric of nihilism.
	So let's go to why this discourse all started.
	This is a post from Libs of TikTok, but I believe she originally got it.
	If you just scroll down, John, because Dominique, friend of the show, and obviously also on GB News, was one of the first people I saw sharing this, and Dominique had been forwarded lots of screenshots and videos from this company called Cababababarave, the Cabaret Baby Rave Company.
	So, if we move to the next tweet, Dominique has shown that some of these events have been cancelled since the backlash has arisen, which is all good news, but we have video evidence of men in thongs, men in bondage gear, men in dresses Dancing in front of infants because lots of weird pathological mothers are taking them there.
	Now, I of course think that the parents should face some kind of repercussion for exposing their child to sexual content, but also the performers are clearly exhibitionist fetishists Who are not doing this for inclusivity or family-friendliness, as I went on your show to speak about.
	The founder of Drag Queen Story Hour said that we're not family-friendly.
	Family-friendly means the way to identify other queers on the street.
	So, this isn't for good reasons.
	This is, in front of our eyes, weird perversion.
	But thank God the mainstream media swooped in and told us we're wrong about everything.
	No, no, no, no.
	Disbelieve your lying eyes.
	We go first.
	TLDR Jack from TLDR News decided to smear Dominique and say that she had misrepresented and doctored these videos and then he had to delete the tweet and retract it because it turns out the evidence was so overwhelming and everyone was going, well, not really, mate.
	This is from people that actually attended the event that he just looked shameful.
	Now, he had the arrogance to put forth and say that this obvious video evidence was faked, and then had to retract it, not on the principle of that he was wrong, not because he disagrees with sticking children in front of gyrating men in thongs, no, no, no, because the evidence was so overwhelming that this time it looked bad to try to run interference.
	These people are not principled, it's a friend-enemy distinction, and they just hate you.
	So, if we go on to the next one, please.
	Jack did a Twitter thread, basically groveling and saying that more evidence has arisen suggesting the footage may not have been doctored, I don't care how short the clips were, there was a man with basically his meat and two veg out in front of a two-year-old.
	At what point is that meant to be acceptable and family-friendly?
	But alright, let's move next, shall we?
	Let's move on to the next tweet, please, John.
	So, this is when you went recently down to a protest.
	for Drag Queen Story Hour, accompanied by also friend of the show and GB News host, Lawrence Fox.
	You were faced by a renter mob of, looks like about 100 people, from stand-up to racism there, because apparently saying that men shouldn't be naked in front of children is somehow racist.
	That's just the mob that was available for rent that day, I think.
	Well, yeah, they came with their placards, of course.
	And if we go to the next, Politics Joe decided to interview you, Dan, and said, the Drag Story Hour never existed in the first place.
	Well, number one, why was stand-up to racism there, counter-protesting?
	That'd be a great question.
	Well, stand-up to racism are interesting because every time an ethnic minority person got up to speak, they would shout them down.
	Oh, of course.
	So much for listening to ethnic minority voices.
	I'm not just talking about me, there were some young women there that were mixed race and black and stuff and they were not able to be heard because the anti-protesters would shout them down and hurl racial abuse at them.
	You know, I put a tweet up saying, you know, these anti-racists are being racist and people's responses In what way have they been racist?
	What exactly are they saying?
	It's always the assumption that, no, you are wrong.
	You are wrong.
	And people like Politics Joe, this guy is... Anyway, I won't be ad hominem.
	He's some genius.
	Yes, because I generously gave him some of my time, even though they've ridiculed me and mocked me in the past and thought, you know, he's here, let's engage, because that's the whole purpose of us protesters being there, to engage on this topic.
	And I said to him, he said, why are you here?
	I said, I think the sexualization of young children is wrong.
	I think it's beautiful when adults read it to kids, but I don't see why they have to do it in thongs, men dressed as women, and kind of gyrating and thrusting in front of them.
	It's just inappropriate.
	It would have been considered a safeguarding risk just a couple of years ago.
	I don't get it.
	And he said, well, but is it happening in this pub right here?
	And I said, it has done, and it has been scheduled.
	It might have been cancelled for this particular event, but it's not this event that we're protesting.
	It's the idea of drag queens reading to children, and I think it's inappropriate.
	And we had a whole conversation about it.
	They took that bit out and put up a clip.
	On the day, he's like, yeah, yeah, thank you.
	I see where you're coming from.
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	Yeah, yeah.
	We all want to safeguard children.
	And then they put up a clip saying, the culture wars are BS.
	These people are stupid.
	There wasn't even a drag queen here, and they're still protesting.
	Like, he knew what he was doing.
	And they are the people that say, oh, there are no culture wars, and then propagate the culture wars.
	They are the worst people.
	I wanted to go to the next tweet, actually, because that does sum it up.
	Because one of my friends, and a person I've debated on GB News before, who I've taken umbrage with his political takes, but he's quite a nice fellow interpersonally, Albie, who runs... But the devil's very charming.
	Stop flirting with him.
	He said, anyone else tired of people embarrassing the Conservative movement like this?
	So people like him are a prime example of why we're in the mess that we're in.
	Because these people are not Conservatives.
	He is a Liberal, right?
	I've told him as much before.
	So have I. He's complicit in this.
	Because I'm out there protesting the sexualisation of children.
	I thought everyone should get on board with that.
	But at the very least, Conservatives should get on board with that.
	And what did they take issue with?
	Me.
	Me being there protesting.
	So if he has a bigger issue with me personally than he does with people sexualising children, I question his motives.
	And I don't think he's doing the LGBTQ plus community any favours either.
	I did respond to him actually, if you scroll down John, just with some screenshots of the paper.
	I don't know how far it'll be.
	Thank you to Dominique and Jess and yourself for pointing them out as well.
	Yeah, so I just mentioned some of the screenshots from the Drag Queen Story Hour Founders paper that I brought up on your show specifically, that says these people have obviously ill motives, ideologically and sexually, for your children.
	Because they can't reproduce, so they're recruits.
	Spot on!
	I couldn't put it better myself.
	So, point being, why would we ever trust that they are being family friendly as they say and take them at their word for it when they've written elsewhere and unfortunately no response?
	But the thing is, look, if people are, if perverts are trying to indoctrinate children toward their lifestyle and people are going to defend the perverts over people who are saying it's not okay, I think that makes them complicit in perverse nature.
	And I think when people are saying it's not happening, And then we provide them evidence and they say, it is happening, but it's not how you say it's happening.
	And then eventually they say, it is happening and it's a blooming good thing.
	These are the devils themselves.
	I think, unfortunately, the want to be above it all and to try to befriend everyone ends up befriending no one and you become an unwilling participant or useful idiot in the obviously malevolent intentions of weird activists.
	It's like, so Albi wasn't the only one.
	I can see Bella's just down there in the comments.
	Oh, Bella Waller-Steiner is a one-woman advertisement of why the patriarchy should exist.
	But they're liberals, and there's that Lynne May or whatever her name is as well.
	And the fact is, these people are like, let's be reasonable.
	We're conservatives, but we're more reasonable than people like Conor and Calvin.
	It's like, yeah, so, you know, some parents might want to take their kids to these drag queen shows, but they're not fully sexualizing them.
	They're only sexualizing them a little bit.
	It's okay.
	It's up to the parents how much they sexualize their kids.
	It's like, no, some things are never okay.
	Some things are never good.
	This is an example of something that's not good.
	Well, having your opposition to something obviously bad slowly eroded is not just the Conservative Party platform, but that's how grooming works.
	It's a slow, incremental dismantling of your prejudices against doing something which degrades you.
	So these people are the Trojan horses, and these people are the reason that this country is a mess.
	It's not necessarily the enemy, it's the people that enable the enemy from within.
	The people that call themselves Conservatives.
	Try and sway some, but some definitely won't be swayed, and that is this times column, which I just had to talk to you about, because this is from David Aron... I can't say his last name.
	Aronovich?
	I hope that's correct for accuracy, not because I'm bothered about insulting him.
	I think he said this is his last column.
	Thank the Lord.
	And he decided to say, you shouldn't be distracted by drag queens.
	Again, it's not happening.
	It's not a big deal.
	First step on the road to it's a good thing.
	So I'm just going to read some from here.
	If there is one lesson the last 10 years have taught us, it's that populism as a governing ideology, left or right, has failed.
	Right, so you have come out of the ether.
	You are completely without ideological prescriptions, without political biases, without any vested interests.
	You are the neutral arbiter to rationally reorder society.
	You are the middle way, just like Tony Blair was.
	Let's see how well that went.
	It's the metropolitan liberal elite, that's what that is.
	We are better, they sneer at the rest of us.
	You're just operating off of presuppositions that you think you have already defined yourself as correct.
	And this is why you find the left-wingers pathologising stupidity.
	And stupidity's not the right word.
	Not being sufficiently versed in the current thing dogma.
	They go from, you haven't had your programming updated, to therefore you must be evil.
	It's a working class baz down the pub who's working off of his intuition and just wants to live kind of a quiet life with his missus and his spoons and his job.
	They think, because you aren't talking about current social issue, you're not just stupid, but you are an impediment to the actualisation of utopia and we deserve to roll over you.
	And that's how this is being treated.
	So, very frustrating.
	It seems that drag queens telling stories to children has recently become quite popular among parents and schools, and in Lewisham there's a drag queen called Coppertop who has appeared on a hugely popular TV series hosted by the American drag queen RuPaul, which even I have heard of.
	Top hosts magical storytelling at the pub, and as a parent, and now a grandparent myself, I can imagine that kids respond to the theatricality and costuming involved.
	So he's Seeding ground to the drag queens of saying, because they're putting on a performance and they're very colourful and loud, and because children will be surprised by this but not necessarily understand it, they could enjoy it, right?
	The children are consenting to being there, taken there by their parents.
	Also, do you know what copper top means?
	No.
	So I covered this when I covered the protest.
	Don't look it up on Urban Dictionary.
	Okay.
	Coppertop is a sexual act involving excrement and fellatio.
	My gosh.
	Okay, that's gross.
	Yeah, and that's the name of the person they're getting reading to children, but okay.
	But also, imported from the US, is a culture war backlash against the sexualisation of children supposedly represented by men dressed up as women performing in front of youngsters.
	Imagine a backlash against the sexualisation of children.
	Oh my gosh.
	But he's not just that, he's saying, oh, how could you possibly think that men dressed as women dancing in front of children is sexual?
	Self-evidently, I have eyes!
	Well, it's always been adult entertainment, hasn't it?
	And we see these drag queens taking cash in their thongs from children as a stripper would.
	It's a strip act, essentially.
	Yeah, but there's even gradations of drag that... And I don't enjoy drag, and I think it's weird and gross.
	I never even enjoyed Pantomime Danes as a kid.
	I was always like, why is this weird fat camp man dancing around in a blue wig in front of me?
	So, Conservative Party Conference.
	Here's a prime example.
	Of moderate, conservative drag, right?
	Last night of the conference, they have their big send-off by the LGBT plus conservatives.
	And they have it in a gay bar.
	Which is an oxymoron.
	I agree.
	So, what they did was they hosted a drag act on a rotating stage that just did karaoke.
	Now, I think that's cringeworthy, I think it's decadent, and I don't think it belongs in any kind of cultural English conservatism.
	However, it's not sexualised.
	It's just a weird man dressing up as a woman and singing.
	Not my taste, but it's in the appropriate place.
	In a liberal society, adults can do what they like as long as they're not harming other people, etc.
	But this is not about adults.
	Don't put me off, Calvin.
	I'm not in favour of a liberal society at this point.
	That's what we're living in.
	But point being, that's not even what's happening.
	You've got men hiking up skirts and doing the splits and exposing their genitals.
	There was a story in Florida that I haven't brought into this, but I should have, where Ron DeSantis has revoked the liquor license, that's it, he hasn't imprisoned anyone, which is gutting, of a Hyatt Hotel because they hosted a family-friendly drag story event where the man had prosthetic breasts and had a child motorboat him.
	How is that family-friendly?
	That's pedophilia.
	It's not.
	It's never meant to be family-friendly.
	It's meant to conscript your children into a weird ideological cult via sexual confusion.
	I mean, it's literally grooming.
	Yeah, it is.
	But don't worry, it's not happening, but it's a good thing.
	The Lewisham demonstration was organised by a group called Turning Point UK.
	Oh no.
	You alright there, mate?
	One of a plethora of anti-woke organisations highly active in Britain.
	Their most celebrated speaker was Calvin Robinson.
	Who's he when he's at home?
	Who, although the Church of England refused him ordination, likes to dress as a vicar.
	I love that line because they couldn't help but get that in there.
	They have to get that little ad hominem dig in there.
	So I do dress as a vicar because I have a parish and I'm a deacon, an ordained minister.
	It's Quite well known that I didn't get ordained in the Church of England because I left the Church of England because they were too woke and we had a battle.
	However, I did get ordained and I'm in communion with 80% of Anglicans around the world.
	My orders are valid and recognized and so is my qualification.
	However, these people don't know what a real vicar is.
	When they say, he's not a real priest, it's like, okay, so what is a real priest?
	Let's talk about apostolic succession.
	Let's talk about sacradotal worship.
	Let's talk about what that means to be a real priest.
	They don't know what it means.
	They have no idea, but it's just an easy throwaway line.
	You know, Everyone has one.
	Darren Grimes has one, he's crafty, wanker.
	I don't know what yours is.
	Probably something about my ears, I don't know.
	Because they're unthinking and they want to personally attack you because they can't defeat your arguments, because they know you're speaking truth.
	And that's what this is.
	I actually wrote to his editor about this, this entire article.
	Because I said, first of all, either he's a liar or he's a poor journalist.
	Because he goes on, I'm sure you're going to read in a minute, but he goes on to say there's no evidence of this happening.
	I gave them loads of evidence of this happening.
	It's clearly all out there.
	So either he didn't look or he doesn't want to look.
	And I also said, likes to dress as a vicar is quite a below the belt ad hominem attack for someone that is an ordained minister and has a parish church to look after.
	And the editor says, okay, we'll correct the line about the vicar, which clearly hasn't been corrected.
	However, we don't see the characterization of the article that you've portrayed.
	So I was like, okay, well, I'll just leave you to it.
	Because at this point, the editor is siding with the columnist which does tend to be the case but when you're providing evidence to suggest that the columnist is clearly wrong and or a poor journalist you would have thought the editor wanting to look after the dignity of the paper would have had a second thought but no.
	Yeah, but Times Radio has recently hired Kathy Newman, so I don't think dignity is high on their list.
	The Times went down a long time ago.
	There's also the fact that you said a little minute ago about the Westminster bubble being insulated, the journo class, the metropolitan elite.
	These people don't do anything on the ground, but they don't actually do their research.
	They haven't spoken to you.
	They haven't watched your Epochs of Beau, or any of your segments on GB News.
	And I've written for the Times in the past.
	They could have asked me for comment if they wanted to.
	Yeah.
	But you are against the narrative, so that's very inconvenient.
	And he also hasn't been down to the protests, he hasn't seen any of the footage for himself, whereas you've actually been on the ground protesting it.
	The point being, these people are so devolved from the consequences of their actions that they feel entitled to sit above it all.
	Because, frankly, it's not their children's breasts being cut off in the Tavistock Clinic.
	This is the problem I have.
	So that Lim May also attacked me today, similar to Albie and Bella and all those people saying, you know, Calvin's just opposing things.
	He doesn't actually do anything.
	I'm like, look, first of all, I was down on the street.
	Second of all, I've provided alternative resources that I've created for schools.
	I've consulted schools.
	I've consulted the DfE.
	I've spoken to the government, I've worked for think tanks to put reports together.
	I have done positive work and I do provide alternatives and I'm working on this because I care.
	So for people to sit on the sidelines and say, oh, you're just opposing something.
	Actually, some things do need opposing and sexualizing children does need opposing.
	There is no positive to that, although the positives I have tried to.
	So these people are just disingenuous and dishonest and actually they are always the thing that you're accusing you of.
	There's always projection.
	Yeah.
	In his speech, Robinson demanded, with something approaching rhetorical ability, to snide Cattiness.
	Really snide.
	Ask not why your children are so keen to spend time with drag queens, ask why drag queens are so keen to spend time with your children.
	I still haven't got an answer to that.
	No, because they can't refute it.
	Because, obviously, the children aren't choosing to spend time with their drag queens.
	They're being brought there by weird, pathological, devouring mothers, ensnared with the ideological obsession of looking compassionate on social media, to the point of where they will give their children over to obvious predators.
	But he doesn't want to say that.
	Well, it's Baal, isn't it?
	It's sacrifice to Baal, that's what this is.
	And when you see the kids with their daunt expressions, looking really bewildered at what's going on, you see the mother's like, yeah, yeah, I'm really progressive and inclusive, like, something's wrong there.
	They're not parenting.
	This is not so much an insinuation as an accusation.
	Since there hasn't been a single instance I can find of drag queens grooming children for sex, hold on to that, those who do that tend to dress up as respectable middle-aged men, this simply constitutes an unpleasant libel.
	Right, okay, you haven't got any examples?
	Okay, I'm just going to assume you're a crap journalist because I've got three just offhand.
	Right, first one.
	Drag queen Robert Clothier, who headlined Brighton Pride, caught in a police sting after arranging sex with children with chocolate-flavoured condoms and pink underwear from Primark in his bag.
	He had multiple instances of child pornography at his home, was only jailed for 18 months.
	He's out.
	What?
	Yeah.
	Right, next one.
	Alfonso Garza in Texas.
	He was a convicted sex offender and they let him host Drag Queen Story Hour because the library didn't do a background check.
	Right, next one.
	Here's one, most recent.
	You know the Tate Gallery guy, right?
	He decided to crowdfund for the funeral of a convicted child sex offender who has recently died of manslaughter charges which are being investigated outside a Cardiff nightclub.
	Drag queens, right?
	This is one of the most recent protests.
	So you just didn't bother looking it up, did you?
	Because you're running interference for a regime that's paying your wages at the expense of children's safety.
	Disgusting.
	Back to his terrible article then.
	It's so stupid.
	Every Christmas, tens of thousands of children go to see men dressed up as women in pantomime.
	In the 1970s, their grandparents made Danny De La Rue Britain's highest paid entertainer.
	And it's just waffling on about these false equivalencies.
	It's such a lazy false equivalence.
	It's one they always go to straight away.
	Whenever you mention this on social media, it's like, oh, you don't like panto then?
	Right, if you think pantomime is the same as adult entertainment drag queens, then you are either dumb or you're lying.
	Yeah, you're absolutely lying.
	The reality is that most of us just want little part in these conflicts and would rather be guided by moderation and common sense.
	Oh, I'm so sorry that the sexualization of children is such an inconvenience to your day.
	Writing telegraph columns on, sorry, Times, because Telegraph's actually quite good on Whatever other wastrel nonsense that you shouldn't be paid for.
	Why should one accept that a person's conscience concerning gay equality is somehow to be more respected if it arises from church doctrine than if it simply reflects personal prejudices?
	Or, as my daughter put, why is Christian homophobia somehow better than atheist homophobia?
	Unlike some cultural warriors, you may agree that religion deserves no such privileges.
	So that's Christophobic.
	Yeah, it's just contempt for your beliefs.
	Christianity homophobic.
	That's Christophobic right there.
	And what's this got to do with gay rights?
	Yeah.
	Because it's the LGBTQ plus community, which, as I said on your show when I was debating that woman, Scarlet, that works with Labour, they're not a community.
	And she goes, yes they are.
	And I went, okay, where do they live?
	Name them.
	He's being homophobic, conflating sexualised drag queens with gay rights.
	I don't see what one has to do with the other.
	Yeah, I don't see how liking men or liking women leads you inexorably to liking children, because I know plenty of gay people, and yeah, no, they don't want to diddle kids.
	A sensible, centrist take, I suppose?
	Maybe I'm just a radical?
	This is the TQ messing up the LGB, that's what this is.
	Absolutely.
	But we can't say they're insidious or you might nearly get arrested again.
	Oh, wait.
	Drag queens are not sexualising our children.
	You're just lying.
	Okay.
	Don't fall for the Culture Warrior's hysterical shtick.
	Treat it with contempt.
	Unlike getting to grips with the Stormont Break or understanding Net Zero or contemplating the future of AI, any idiot or popular charlatan can have an opinion about drag queens or statues.
	The irony of writing this column about it.
	In fact, it's all they have an opinion about.
	We don't have to listen.
	Now first of all, Calvin, is that all you have an opinion about?
	Because he doesn't know anything about the church, and you just rattled off plenty of knowledge about it.
	I have plenty of opinions on plenty of subjects, and Drag Queens is just one of them.
	I don't see how a guy like this can say, first of all, it's not a problem, and then ignore the people who are addressing the problem.
	It's either one or the other, surely.
	And also, he lists issues there where it's just utilitarian negotiation of how much money we're going to spend making you poor.
	So the destination's already been agreed upon all the time, it's just how breakneck pace we already get there.
	So you don't get a say in it, it's not very democratic, and he's just gaslighting you into putting up no resistance to things that the regime already want to do.
	So I thought we'd just look at the tweet thread where you defiantly say to him, I'm glad this is your last column.
	If we just scroll down, John, as we're talking, please.
	And he's saying that you made libelous comments about him.
	If you click on show replies just under David's reply to Calvin, please.
	And you said, oh, I bet you I won't withdraw that before you withdraw the accusations of remarks in your article.
	And he says, oh, I'm going to go after you for defamation.
	You just put, Chad, no.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Which I absolutely respect.
	I will not withdraw those remarks, because I mean those remarks.
	And if he wants to try and sue me for defamation, he can go ahead.
	First of all, it costs a lot of money.
	But second of all, I'd probably counter-sue him, because he's the one who's making defamation remarks against me in his article.
	Yeah, good luck.
	And also, you sent in something to the newspaper, and the newspaper didn't decide to change it.
	And even though they said they would change it, and they haven't changed it.
	Which is why he's probably not going to sue you for defamation because he realizes he'd be up S-Creek without a paddle.
	But we can't hurt these people's feelings, right?
	It's a bad tactic, it's bad optics.
	As we've been reliably informed by an ex-employee of the Daily Wire, Christina Buttons, if we can go on to this, she decided to publish, I believe this was on a sub-stack, about why after Michael Knowles said we must eradicate the transgender ideology from public life because it's doing harm to people, again, Knowles framing it in terms of compassion, And Matt Warf saying to Dylan Mulvaney, you will never be a woman because you're a biological man.
	No matter how many surgeries you have, you will have known your past life.
	Put things very harshly, but it's all true, because these people are supporting the butchery of children.
	She said, but my feelings are hurt.
	Who said that?
	Christina Buttons.
	She was a staff writer for the Daily Wire, and she said, my feelings are hurt.
	I was hired with the auspices that transgender people, we can allow them to live their lives and not be criticised, and it's only about the kids.
	No one's criticism-free.
	They can live their lives, but we have a right to criticise them.
	Yes.
	It's almost like you went to work for an outlet populated almost unanimously by Christians who believe that men and women were created in the image of God, and to defy that is blasphemous.
	But anyway, she still complains, and she says, a number of those who identify as transgender today may become detransitioners tomorrow.
	They will need our help, especially as they face a torrent of attacks from their former community for the sin of apostasy.
	That's absolutely fair.
	But what Walsh and Knowles weren't doing was attacking those people.
	They were attacking the ideology, and someone directly involved the Biden administration funding these castrative surgeries like Dylan Mulvaney.
	And she said, as a journalist I have to believe there are reachable centrists including moderate liberals who are uncomfortable with gender ideology but have been insulated from serious coverage of this medical scandal.
	Winning over hearts and minds is difficult enough without inflammatory statements such as transgenderism must be eradicated from public life.
	There is a critical distinction between speaking truth and being tactless, between sticking to the facts and sticking it to the libs.
	You're offended at factual statements that the ideology itself is untrue, and you are bending over backwards to compromise with confused people who have mutilated themselves in pursuit of a goal they will never achieve.
	That's not true, and it's not compassionate.
	So she's close, as in truth must always be expressed in love, of course.
	A love in truth.
	It goes both ways.
	But she's saying that people should be sheltered from the truth.
	That's not loving.
	Christ came to bring love, but he also said, I came to bring a sword.
	And the sword was very much rhetorical.
	So, I just thought we'd explain briefly, before we wrap up on this particular part, how these people are not acting genuinely.
	There are properly subversive, malevolent activists hiding beneath the sea of the people that tell you to look the other way.
	One of those is Peter Tatchell.
	Who always gets invited on GB News, because I suppose we have to meet Ofcom regulations now.
	Well, I've said I won't have him on my show ever again unless I'm able to explore this issue.
	I don't blame you.
	Yeah, they keep pitting you against him, which I'm glad they do because it's someone that can talk against his nonsense.
	Literally.
	Yeah, Peter has been celebrating this.
	My priest actually read out this tweet in his recent homily and said that this is the degeneration of society, so it's nice that some churches are still good out there.
	Tatchell said, the UK ranks in the world's top four countries for accepting divorce, homosexuality, casual sex, assisted dying, prostitution and abortion.
	Bravo!
	Live and let live!
	Well, assisted dying and abortion isn't living.
	It's not letting live, is it?
	No.
	No.
	I did delightfully ratio this tweet with thanks, I hate it.
	So that was good.
	The point being is that... I retweeted it saying, let's celebrate our degeneracy, because that's what he's doing here.
	Yeah.
	And it seems that he has some other taboos he would like to dismantle.
	We're going to address some contentious territory today, because James Esses, also friend of the show, decided to do a Stubstack article on the pedigree of his crimes regarding the sexualisation of children.
	So, if you notice ever someone puts a tweet out replying to Peter Tatchell saying that he has said some questionable things about child sex before, he copy-pastes a link and a press release pre-prepared to refute this.
	S is a sub-stack and we won't read through all of it, but it goes through things like, in 1997, Peter Tatchell wrote a letter to The Guardian and it says, Ros Coward thinks that it's shocking that Gay Men's Press has published a book, Dare to Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive.
	I think it's courageous.
	The letter continues by saying, Societies where consenting intergenerational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by young and old alike, and says, several of my gay friends, gay and straight, male and female, had sex with adults from the ages of 9 to 14.
	None feel they were abused.
	But they were abused.
	Yes.
	And my point is that there are people that are obviously aiming at abusing children and using the veneer of respectability to get away with it, and people like David are running interference by telling us to look the other way.
	And that's the only reason why the likes of Peter continues to get invited on these networks.
	So I just want to finish with the fact that, despite all this, you were the one that got cancelled.
	Great.
	Can we go to the last one, please, John?
	Yeah.
	So you were going to the Royal Academy of Dance, and...
	So I've been on their board for a number of years now.
	The former CEO invited me onto the board because he was a good man.
	He said, Calvin, I can see things are going woke here.
	I want to provide an alternative perspective.
	I've seen the stuff you've said about BLM and that's so important.
	We need to hear more of that, especially on our education subcommittee, because we don't want them to go down the route of critical race theory and victimization and all of that kind of nonsense.
	He said, please, would you come on?
	So I said yes, doing my civic duty.
	I got nothing out of it whatsoever.
	Gave up many hours over the last few years to help these people out.
	They've got a new CEO who's clearly far more woke than the previous one.
	And after I campaigned against sexualization of children, after I campaigned against the drug queens, I received this letter without a thanks for my time or my service or anything like that, just saying, look, we can't be associated with you.
	We're firing you from our board.
	And I just found, first of all, I found it disrespectful.
	But then I read into it, it says, we tolerate all views.
	I don't think anyone should tolerate all views.
	Some views are intolerable.
	But this says, we tolerate all views, including those that our staff disagree with.
	And that's a core rad value.
	So they say, it's not what you say, it's how you say it.
	It wasn't your views, it's how you put them across.
	So I asked them, okay, so what is it about the way I put my views across that you found intolerable?
	To the point of, we never had a conversation.
	and you just sucked me without engaging.
	What is it or how is it that I put my views across?
	And I've been chasing them and chasing them on this because I want to get it down to a T.
	And they keep saying, look, it's not your views, it's how you say them.
	And they've given me a tweet now.
	They said, you tweeted something on this time, on this day, at this time, so I've looked at it.
	It is the monologue that I gave where I said, ask not why your children need to see drag queens, ask why drag queens are so keen to spend time with their children.
	It's a five minute monologue where I go into saying I think it's inappropriate, it's a safeguarding concern, and we should all be asking questions.
	I don't think asking questions is a bad thing.
	But how did I put the message across?
	Well-mannered, polite, reasonable, moderate, I think, at least, unless they can prove otherwise.
	But what this is, they don't want to be sued just for discrimination.
	They know that the moment they say, look, we do not tolerate your views, that's a protected characteristic, whether it's my religious views or my political views, right?
	That's what they're hiding from.
	That's what they always hide from.
	That's what part of the debate I had with the Church of England was.
	Like, these liberals cannot tolerate conservative views.
	And I said to them, so are you condoning the sexualization of children?
	Because that's what I was speaking against.
	So either you're for it or against it, right?
	Some issues are black and white.
	There's no nuance there when it comes to sexualizing children.
	Are you for the sexualization of children?
	And they said, no, we're not.
	It's not that we're against.
	I'm like, okay, so tell me.
	Come on.
	But they can't.
	They can't give an answer.
	And they're allowed to not give an answer because idiots in the media just keep running interference for them by telling you, gaslighting you over and over, that it's not happening, but it's a good thing, so press people on this issue.
	Don't be gaslit, because it is children's safety at stake here.
	Onto the final one then, before we wrap up and go to the comments.
	So it's been 140 years yesterday since the death of Karl Marx, and it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
	And we have the Socialist Worker celebrating it here.
	saying here's all of the modern literature in all its forms as it's been adapted to race, sex, class, nationality, and all of the various intersectional avenues that are polluting our society.
	Here's some reading materials.
	I thought rather than memorialising Marx, we'd go through some of the facts of his lifetimes and crimes as to why, that many people don't know why actually, He is one of the most evil men who has ever lived, despite never claiming a life directly.
	If you'd like to know more about the evil lies of communism, you can watch our book clubs on George Orwell's Animal Farm.
	It's the only book club, it's a two-parter, it turned impromptu.
	I specifically raised part two because Bo and I discussed how...
	The promise of real communism was always a false bill of goods, because it is founded on the labour theory of value, which is economically illiterate, and it's just the justification that Marx used to designate an entire group of people who were more wealthy and successful than him as worthy of killing and stealing their stuff, and it always results in dictatorship.
	So the ideology itself actively incentivises the most contemptuous and resentful people to rise to the top, and then just sort of expects them to Give up all that power, redistribute property, and we'll all live in harmony forever.
	It's nonsense.
	It's just Marx's way of enriching himself because he was so afraid of his own mediocrity.
	So let's go to this tweet first.
	And I wanted to bring up a couple of mine just because it was particularly relevant yesterday.
	I stumbled downstairs on Monday and in the lobby of Lotus Eater's building, there was the BBC playing because the man at the desk was watching it.
	And a gentleman on here talking about Gary Lineker has a statue of Karl Marx in frame.
	Now, I understand that the BBC impartiality issue is just a lie, because you're never going to get impartiality, but we are forced to pay for this, and it got me thinking, what other person would be able to be had on a t-shirt or a statue with the same ideological vitriol in shot?
	You couldn't have Hitler behind you, could you?
	Or Stalin?
	No.
	Well, you could have Mao if you're Diane Abbott, I suppose, because she said that Mao did more harm than good.
	But you couldn't have Augusto Pinochet.
	Pinochet did more good than harm, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Other way around.
	There we go, yeah.
	Outrageous.
	I'm starting to talk like Diane Abbott now, apparently.
	You couldn't have someone like Oswald Mosley on there, and I'm happy to condemn those figures, but for some reason Karl Marx's legacy is not quite as disgraced as the people he inspired.
	And even then, some people still try and make excuses.
	I think it's just because he's so boring a writer, people haven't properly read him.
	I've read a lot of Marx.
	Soon on LotusTheatres.com, you'll be getting an audio track and a very lengthy 7,000 to 8,000 word article on why real Marxism has already been tried, and murder was always the goal, because I went through his biography and his and Engle's writings, and there's some really eye-opening stuff in there.
	But I thought I'd just go to this tweet, because this did very well yesterday, actually.
	I'm quite chuffed.
	I don't actually know what the likes are up to now, but my definition of very well is the kind of tweet that Karl just throws out on a weekend without thinking about it, because he does so well.
	I just went through some of the biographical facts about Marx, and I thought I'd just tell our audience a little bit about it today, because there were lots of people, including Larry Elder, who is a real hero of mine, who decided to share it.
	If we go to the next one, please.
	John, Larry Elder's interview with Dave Rubin actually was one of the main things that set me on the path of understanding challenging political narratives and forming my own moral views.
	And his story about his father is really inspirational as well, it's wonderful.
	And also Dean Cain as well, former Superman, so that was cool.
	They decided to share it, but They were surprised at the contents of it, and so lots of people don't know the biographical facts of Marx.
	So I thought I'd just read through a few here, and I don't know how much of this you will know, Calvin, but some of this is taken from Paul Kengor's book The Devil and Karl Marx.
	He is a devout American Catholic.
	Michael Knowles wrote the foreword, so there's a bit of a theme going through this podcast.
	He believes that Marx is possessed.
	necessarily by that but if anyone were to be possessed by a demon he certainly had the characteristics for it and his dad thought so as well his dad actually said i think you're possessed by a demon and marx decided not to show up to his dad's funeral because he said he was too busy lovely gentleman despite taking loads of money throughout his lifetime from his parents and from angles because he didn't work so this is from a prussian police report
	They were staking out Marx's apartment, and I want to list this off just because this is the kind of character that Marx thought of him- that Marx conducted himself as in life, and thought of himself as the perfect person to steward Utopia into being.
	Yeah.
	"Washing, grooming and changing his linens are things he does rarely, and he likes to get drunk.
	He has no fixed time for going to sleep or waking up.
	As for the family apartment, everything is broken down, busted, spilled, smashed, falling apart.
	From toys and chairs and dishes and cups to tables and tobacco pipes and on and on.
	In a word, the report says, everything is topsy-turvy.
	To sit down becomes a thoroughly dangerous business.
	Now, bear in mind, this disorganization, he had six children and a wife brought into this, and it was entirely subsidized by his friends and family.
	He also never washed.
	He had a skin condition, which meant that the skin hardened and broke out into pustules.
	But because he didn't wash and he didn't manage it, he had boils covering his backside to the point where he couldn't sit down.
	And I included a... if you just scroll down slightly, John, I included a photo in my tweet of Marx here.
	No, not the postules.
	No, no!
	And people were going, well, he's sitting down, so you've been debunked.
	Yeah.
	Right, but Marx wrote letters talking to Engels about how his face had broken out into so many hives he couldn't leave the house.
	So just because he sat down for one photo there doesn't mean that he wasn't plagued by boils that he could have otherwise managed.
	An unhygienic, alcoholic slob.
	How pleasant.
	Yep.
	His father, as I said, wrote, Since your heart is obviously animated and governed by a demon not granted to all men, is that demon heavenly or Faustian?
	Will you ever, and that is not the least painful doubt of my heart, will you ever be capable of truly human domestic happiness?
	Wow, that's deep.
	So that's why he didn't attend his dad's funeral.
	He also didn't attend his wife's funeral, because he said he was too bed-bound ill to make it out there.
	Speaking of his treatment to his wife and his children, For a while, he was so destitute because he wasn't getting any donations and he was slumming it about in Europe between 1848 and 1850.
	So he was in Brussels, Paris, Cologne and London.
	And it was very, very cold that he caused the deaths from living conditions of two of his sons.
	So he and Jenny had a newborn called Heinrich Guido, who was named after his dad, and he died of cold exposure.
	And then in 1855, his eight-year-old son Edgar, who Marx apparently loved very much, though he didn't treat him very well it seems, He died of intestinal tuberculosis exacerbated by unhealthy living conditions, and that's according to one of Marx's biographers, who's very sympathetic to him.
	And Jenny actually never forgave him for this, so this was a major rift in their relationship.
	Another rift in their relationship was the fact that he raped his unpaid housemaid, Helen Lentjen de Meuth.
	In June 1851, she gave birth to a baby boy, and Marx always refused to concede the fact that it was his, and had Engels pay for it throughout his lifetime.
	Four of his kids actually died before he did, including his oldest daughter, also named Jenny, and she died of cancer, so that was unrelated, though cancer is brought on by lifetime stress in many cases, and I think lifetime stress definitely influenced the deaths of his other two daughters, because Eleanor and Laura committed suicide by both drinking or injecting themselves with poison, which is curious, because Marx dedicated a poem called Nocturnal Love to his wife, which was about a suicide pact between two lovers.
	So you can only imagine the kind of household those two girls were growing up in.
	Eleanor had tried to kill herself with an opium overdose, and then she would try again by entering into a suicide pact with Havlock Averling, who she was his mistress of.
	She had actually been dating George Bernard Shaw, who was the socialist playwright, and Havlock Ellis.
	I don't know if you recognise that name, but he was the man who Margaret Sanger went off to Europe to elope with and then found planned parenthood.
	Okay.
	So, if your thesis is the devil's working for these people, then it is definitely the death drive of destruction at work here.
	Explicitly so.
	Yeah.
	So, Eleanor, on the evening of March 31st, 1898, used a combination of chloroform and prussic acid to kill herself.
	Aveling said he would.
	After she was dead, he went and shacked up with a 22-year-old girlfriend and inherited all of her possessions and didn't want to make his side of the bargain.
	kind of people that you surround yourself with in socialist circles.
	Thirteen years later, the only remaining Marx daughter, that was Laura, and her husband Paul, who had owned a zoo and he was a Cuban immigrant.
	Yeah, he was from Cuba.
	They killed themselves, and Marx throughout their lifetime had disowned Laura for marrying Paul because he had called him some words that I can't fully repeat here, but including guerrilla and negrillo.
	So Marx, very progressive.
	Also don't read on the Jewish question if you were Want to stay on the internet and not be cancelled, I suppose.
	So they both killed themselves on November 25th and 26th, 1911.
	So these are the kind of people that were in Marx's orbit.
	This is how he treated his own family.
	This is the contaminating force that he inflicted on the world.
	And it's not a surprise when him and Engels said things like this, which is that the bloody birth-throes of the new society should arrive from revolutionary terror, and that the next version of the French Revolution should be a revolution so bloody, beside which the French Revolution was child's play.
	Engles also predicted the disappearance from the face of the Earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but the entire reactionary people in a global war, and then said this would be a very good opportunity to build socialism on top of.
	And the reason I've written that is I replied to a Newham councillor who asked for receipts and said, maybe you're confusing Marx with Lenin, because he obviously wasn't murderous.
	Just scroll down, please, John.
	I did actually provide the sources there.
	Some people did note that he was basically nuked off the internet by that fact.
	But the point being is you're a self-identified socialist who hasn't read Marx and Engels.
	You don't know anything about his life, you don't know anything about the ideology.
	That's how this ensnares people.
	It's a promise to the mediocre to empower themselves without realising that the reason it always fails is because this is the calibre of person that enacted this ideology.
	I mean, I don't know if you ever left wing when you were younger, Calvin, but I was kind of apolitical.
	I just didn't understand economics, and my girlfriend told me to vote Labour once, so I did.
	But I always kind of hated the way the feminists had infiltrated my comic books.
	But I always had this instinctive knowledge of, wait, everyone owns everything.
	That's just not going to work, is it?
	I mean, have you seen a park bench?
	I've visited communes, right, or proper communities where everyone is of equal value and worth, and everyone has to contribute to a common purse, and it can work.
	With free will.
	If you choose to opt into a society like that, that's fine.
	But a whole community, like a nation, could never work in that way.
	Because you would have to have a dictatorship, you'd have to have absolute power to make everyone contribute in an equal way.
	They also have an international scope and so you will never be left alone as long as communism exists.
	Because they truly believe that inequality exists as a conspiracy by the wealthy.
	And because they believe it's a moral grievance, they believe they have an imperial mandate to wipe out that grievance worldwide.
	Inequality is natural.
	You're way taller than me, you're going to be a way better basketball player.
	It's just going to happen.
	So if we go on to the next, I just thought we'd, just before we finish, look at this particular poem by Marx when he was younger.
	And as an even better versed man of faith than me, You might see the animating principle behind his ideology in this.
	So a god has snatched from me my all in the curse and wrack of destiny.
	All his worlds are gone beyond recall.
	Nothing but revenge is left to me.
	On my self, revenge I'll proudly wreak.
	On that being, that enthroned lord, make my strength a patchwork of what's weak.
	Leave my better self without reward.
	I shall build my throne high overhead, Cold tremendous shall its summit be, For its bulwark superstitious dread, For its marshal blackest agony.
	Who looks on it with a healthy eye Shall turn back, struck deathly pale and dumb, Clutched by blind and sure mortality, May his happiness prepare his tomb, And the Almighty's lightning shall rebound From that massive iron giant.
	If he bring my walls and towers down, Eternity shall raise them up defiant.
	That sounds like the words of Lucifer.
	He's a very forgiving man, isn't he?
	It does sound Luciferian.
	He's saying that I am utterly miserable, I am a wretched creature, I've not achieved all I wanted, so I will deface my own image to defile an image of God out of spite, and then I'll build a parallel structure like a tower of Babel to get back up to God, dethrone him, and any time he comes at me to retake the throne, I will maintain it through pure avarice.
	And people wonder why communism always erupts into murderous dictatorship?
	Like, that seems like the motivations of someone under the sway of some kind of demon.
	That is the leftist idea of equality though, isn't it?
	Everyone being equally poor and equally miserable.
	That pretty much sums it up.
	Marx genuinely has a quote that I'll include in my essay where he admits we're gonna have to eradicate everything except the lowest common denominator.
	It was always the goal to make you poor and survive.
	Abundance was impossible.
	You'll earn nothing and you'll be happy.
	Or will you?
	It's almost like happiness isn't the goal, but communism is.
	But don't worry, the WEF's a conspiracy theory.
	I've been reliably informed by Mike Graham.
	So if we go on to the last one, I just thought I'd propose this.
	Do we keep his statue?
	Now, number one, it's kind of hilarious that you have to pay to go and see it, right?
	You've got to pay a fee to go and see the Communist grave.
	Fine.
	But someone defiled it a little while ago, and people were saying, oh, isn't it terrible that we defaced the statue?
	Any statue we don't like, we have to keep up as a reminder to history.
	There's no plaque about all the people his ideology has murdered there.
	just got workers of all lands unite, so it's actively promoting the communist ideal with a gigantic bust of the man like it's some sort of religious artefact.
	Why is his and Engle's statue in Manchester still up?
	Because I don't think we should be celebrating anyone else that has called for genocide.
	How do you feel about this?
	Oof, on the spot.
	I don't believe in tearing down statues.
	I don't know what we would gain from removing it, other than stoking up the hard left.
	I think it's more interesting to see who venerates the statue and who it attracts.
	You could put together a watchlist from that if you were the MI5 looking for extremists rather than looking for Catholics or whatever they do these days.
	Yeah, I'm not in favour of tearing it down if I'm honest with you.
	That's fair.
	I do admire James Lindsay putting out a photo yesterday of him mock urinating on it, at least.
	That gave me a chuckle.
	But I just don't think we should celebrate false idols of the people that deliberately would like to subvert our entire culture.
	But I understand the argument in principle.
	But there are many people like that.
	There are many statues, you know, in and around Parliament of people that would have seen us undermine our entire way of life.
	Yeah, Nelson Mandela.
	Yeah, definitely.
	I was thinking more Cromwell and people like that.
	We did Bomber Train, you know.
	But I think the point is that it's not necessarily celebrating their ideology.
	It's recognising them for something, but also remembering that period of history.
	I think without a plaque, it does cost.
	So you believe in contextualising these statues?
	At least, yeah.
	I wouldn't be opposed to dynamite, because I'm a Guy Fawkes kind of Catholic.
	I understand, I think a giant plaque written by the most informed type of people on the atrocities of communism, or perhaps just some Solzhenitsyn quotes draped around it like bunting would go a long way to correct the monstrosity of history.
	Yeah, maybe there is a line, because we wouldn't have a statue of Hitler, would we?
	Well, the USSR tore down statues of Lenin.
	So I think we're going to have to assert our values at some point, we just have to be Prudent in the line that we draw with that.
	Because the idea that we can have this apathetic liberalism and have monuments like this still up doesn't really wash.
	It just lets us be exploited.
	No, I think you're right, actually.
	I'm being too liberal.
	You're right.
	Let's tear it down.
	That's the first time I've ever heard you say that, Calvin.
	So, lotus eat is exclusive.
	Well, happy anniversary, Marks, for yesterday.
	I hope you're nice and toasty downstairs in hell.
	The best thing we can do is eradicate the influence of communism, the haunting specter over all of our nations, and that's the best way to honour all of its victims.
	Let's go to the video comment.
	Guys, I think one thing you need to save England is to rekindle that enthusiasm for English culture.
	I love English culture.
	I grew up loving fantasy books and like 90% of my favorite fantasy books are English.
	Terry Pratchett is the greatest thing that ever lived.
	Why do people still love Harry Potter?
	Because Harry Potter is great!
	The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, His Dark Materials.
	Oh, I love Charles Dickens!
	I like Shakespeare!
	English literature and culture, which is intrinsically English, is amazing!
	So, Connor, what are you doing?
	The American comics are great and all, but cover some British stuff, for God's sake!
	Okay, I do want to cover more English literature, definitely.
	I do want to cover Dickens specifically at some point.
	I'm currently writing something in response to Mary Harrington using Bleak House, so that'll be fun.
	I will be covering some John Keats at some point, Shakespeare would be good.
	It's just a shame, and I'm sure lots of the audience will join us in this, that Mr John Wheatley has moved so far away and it's difficult to come back into the studio because John, likewise as I've spoken to him off-air, wants to cover Harry Potter.
	He did a video on Saruman and how he's a progressive From Lord of the Rings, so perfect co-chair for that.
	But yeah, you're right, I probably should dust off some of my old books and get to celebrating our heritage.
	I like American comics, but I'm trying to salvage them from the corruption, but I should also balance it out a bit.
	So, some of the comments.
	Lord Naravar, it's my birthday today and what better gift than a podcast with Calvin Robinson to have a good one.
	Happy birthday.
	And Ron also says, great to see Calvin back on.
	While I'm not a member of the faith, I do appreciate his views and delivery.
	I think you're probably one of the best one-man rhetorical arguments for why you should belong to it, because... Put it this way, it's like the Roald Dahl argument from the Twits, where virtue is self-evident from how people comport themselves and how happy they seem.
	The same with Michael Knowles.
	Calmly delivering.
	compassionately advice versus the vitriol of Kiki, Kiko, the black girl that was shouting at him relentlessly, you know?
	But this is why they attack us so much, right?
	Because they see we're living a life in truth and we're content in that, and that truth agitates their demons.
	They cannot, you know, it disrupts their way of life.
	Yeah, screaming to ail their own consciences.
	They hate themselves, they don't hate me, they don't hate us.
	As we said earlier, it's all projection.
	The French Viking.
	Seems like a contradiction in terms.
	The problem with modern women is that they spend all their time seeking attention on social media and sleeping around instead of learning the skills and virtues that men seek in a relationship.
	This is the female equivalent of men spending all their time playing video games and watching pornography.
	You cannot view this as fixing women only.
	The modern world has broken everyone.
	Men are just as lucky to have more time to better themselves.
	So men do need to stop watching pornography and playing video games all the time.
	But women also need to stop trying to get validation from social media.
	Even outside, the conservative women are very bad for this.
	The ones that call themselves traditionalists, putting the pictures up of themselves.
	I prefer not to speak.
	If I speak, I'm in big trouble.
	Well, I'll speak on behalf of you.
	I just don't want to name names because I've got lots that come to mind.
	These so-called conservative women or girls that put photographs of themselves online exposing too much skin, even if they're not showing any skin, even if they're not showing anything, it's like, here I am, am I pretty?
	Please like me, tell me you like me.
	That's not the kind of validation you should be looking for.
	I respect the individuals that are putting out their policy ideas and their opinions and fighting the good fight with intellectualism, that's great.
	But even then, they're still looking for that affirmation.
	It should be about, well, I'm going to be old-fashioned here, it should be about finding a good husband for him to affirm you, for him to validate you.
	And vice versa.
	Absolutely not, yeah.
	And there are lots of women that will pepper in, go for it.
	There's lots of women that will pepper into their political takes, lewd, lavacious or self-aggrandizing photos.
	And if you just look at the like ratio, their political takes are basically ignored, but any photo of them in a summer dress, lots more.
	Exactly.
	Now I've got Ephesians open here because I know you quoted it in our draft, but I also wanted to call this out anyway because people often think that Christianity is misogynistic and or subjugating women, but it's not.
	It's about women submitting to their husbands, but it's about men submitting to their wives too.
	So in Ephesians, in the advice to wives and husbands, we hear submitting yourself to one another in the fear of God.
	That's how it starts.
	So it's submitting to each other for him and in front of him.
	It's always relative.
	Exactly.
	Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord.
	Right?
	So, wives, you belong to your husband.
	You are a partnership with your husband under God.
	But likewise, men, husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.
	So, it's a sacrificial love.
	Men, give yourself to your wife.
	Like, keep yourself for your wife.
	That's what love means.
	It's the willing, the good of the other.
	It's that self-sacrificing for the other.
	It's not that lustful personal desire, that wanting to be personally happy.
	It's about the other person.
	And that's what the Christian view of love is.
	I think lots of women out there are very lucky that the Church of England allows their members to marry Calvin, so when you do settle down, you're going to be doing alright, mate.
	Well, I have to find someone that's not on OnlyFans and doesn't put cleavage shots on Instagram.
	Good luck, yeah, you're alright.
	And doesn't sleep around and all of these things.
	Yeah, unfortunately dating within our sphere is...
	Yeah, I'll shut up on that and just go for a couple more comments before we wrap up.
	Arizona Desert Rat, wow, all those girls got really defensive really quickly.
	Making good choices will always make life better.
	Sometimes it's hard, but it's better.
	Obviously.
	Brandon Thomas, that podcast highlights why men don't commit.
	Every one of those women would be a wild knight, but I wouldn't put a ring on any of them.
	Sure, but you have to put the work in to make it so that you can bring out their potential and undo the cultural corruption which has afflicted them.
	That's part of the problem.
	Fuzzy Toaster, talking about taking your lady friend to church, my current girlfriend is partly Greek and she was raised Greek Orthodox.
	She's not uber devout, but there is definitely an undercurrent of the culture there.
	How would you recommend I, an Anglo-Protestant, proceed?
	Start going in private or with a family member, like I started going with my nan just because I enjoy the company, and then she will be naturally curious and want to spend more time with you alongside it.
	It's so, so important.
	And when a child sees how faithful their father is to the Lord, they also want to be faithful to the Lord.
	So it's just as important for kids as it is for girlfriends and wives.
	Spot on.
	Brian Tomlinson.
	A moderate liberal will only watch kids being groomed.
	A devout liberal will join in.
	Well, there's...
	That's quite good, because a moderate Conservative will only watch it and say it's not happening, whereas an actual Conservative will fight against it.
	Yeah, well, as we said about liberalism being a universal solvent, it went from eroding any arbitrary prohibitions the state would place on your freedom to eroding every single taboo until all is permitted, and that is the satanic promise in the end, as Alistair Crowley made his doctrine.
	X, Y and Z, if there's one thing we can learn from Milo Yiannopoulos, it's to record any interview anyone ever gives and post them up yourself.
	That is a very good point.
	I wish I recorded that interview with Joe.
	I won't speak to them ever again, they will get no more of my time, but any people like that I will definitely record it.
	Yeah, that's why I always post the long-form version of the clip any time I go on TV, because it's not like GB News is going to misrepresent me, but it's always good to have it in your back pocket so that if it ever gets clipped out of context in future, you can just go, and here's everything that I said.
	Context is key.
	Exactly.
	The last couple of comments we'll do is Joshua Swanson.
	Marx begged Engels for money in the letter giving condolences for Engels' wife's death.
	Yeah, so Engels had a mistress for a very long time and Marx wrote back...
	Yeah.
	with one line saying, sorry to hear about that, and then about 30 lines asking him for more money, and Engels didn't reply to him for multiple days and just wrote back, so be it then.
	Even my bourgeois friends were kinder about this.
	It just shows you, the communists have, what's the old line?
	The communists claim to love humanity, but express utter contempt for individual humans.
	Yes.
	Or projection.
	It's not about compassion, it's about envy.
	And then finally, we'll go for Severin Knox.
	Stop attributing bad choices of women to manipulation.
	They're thinking people making conscious choices.
	They have to be respected and experience consequences, good or bad.
	When there are no consequences, there is no good and bad.
	Yeah, but the point is they're already experiencing the consequences.
	That's why they're unhappy.
	What you need is to be compassionate enough to provide them a road to restitution.
	Otherwise, we're just going to be locked in this cultural ouroboros of eating ourselves alive forever.
	And nobody's happy that way.
	I don't think women are incapable of making informed choices.
	But the culture has ideologically captured them.
	And if they're more agreeable, then the most dominant voice in the room will end up being the thought leader.
	So all men have got to do is be calmly, assertively, non-aggressively, and in their interest, the most dominant voice in the room.
	And we can see how Kelly J's done that, for example, against the trans debate.
	We've got this vanguard of TERFs, I think we should eject the radical feminist part because we've got us here first, but they have become the wedge issue drivers in that.
	Okay, then men and women like Mary Harrington, Louise Perry and the like need to push back against the sexual revolution because it's been a disaster for the human race.
	For all of us, absolutely.
	Calvin, where can people find you?
	Can I end on some scripture?
	Please do.
	I feel like we've been dumping on women, but we're not dumping on women.
	So I want to point to some scriptural evidence of the importance of women, right?
	So in Proverbs, Proverbs 31, 16, She considereth a field, and buyeth it.
	With the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
	Essentially saying, what a woman sets her mind to, she will achieve it if she has faith in God.
	She will achieve it no matter what.
	And within the same proverb, because this is a great proverb for praising a good Christian wife, 20 to 21, she stretched out her hand to the poor, yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
	She is not afraid of the snow for her household, for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
	A woman is always happy to help, happy to follow the Lord's calling.
	And I think all of these link together.
	It's so important.
	I'll end on the last one of number 30.
	Favour is deceitful and beauty is vain, but all a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.
	So, you know, looks might be great, but they'll fade.
	Worldly goods might be great, but they'll corrupt.
	But your commitment to the Lord is what makes you special.
	Yeah.
	Character and the embodiment of good in proportion to the highest possible good makes you a good person, a good woman, a good wife, and a good mother.
	And, as well, in there, she took care of her household first before she went about reordering the world.
	Ah, yes, yes.
	And that's what made the world... Family, then nation.
	Exactly.
	Great bit of advice to end on.
	Calvin's show is on every Sunday at 3 o'clock till 4, isn't it?
	Currently, yep, 3 till 4 on Sundays.
	It will be changing soon, more on that coming up.
	But just go to calvinrobinson.com.
	The Showtime's on there, my social media's on there, my substux on there, just calvinrobinson.com.
	Go follow him on Twitter, it's easily accessible.
	While I'm not banned.
	Well, yeah.
	We keep skirting the line, don't we?
	Until next time, thank you very much for watching.
	We'll be back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.
	Take care and goodbye.

▲