All Episodes
Previous Next
April 14, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:31:41
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #632
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Loaded Seaters episode 632 on today, Friday the 14th of April 2023.
I am your host, Conor, joined again by Stelios.
Hello, hello.
Today we're going to be discussing how I'm going to dare the leftists to defend this, and this by I mean the current thing, which we will find out about very shortly.
The persecution of one Riley Gaines, and how AI is going to be arranging all of our marriages.
So, before we start, today at 3.30, if you weren't depressed enough, you can subscribe for £5 a month and get all our premium content.
And for premium subscribers, we're going to be having Hangout Number 35, which Carl and Callum will be going through the grooming gang timeline by looking at the various papers.
When it started, what has happened, and the total lack of consequences for all of the authorities complicit in it.
So, it's a really important piece of journalism.
You'll probably need a stiff drink afterwards, but go over because the story isn't covered enough.
Without further ado, speaking of non-story, let's get into the news, I suppose.
So, we have our new current thing, the new grenade that every leftist needs to dive on.
And this time, they decided they weren't debaucherous enough, so they thought, what we should do is we should flash kids.
Yep.
Trenchcoat Flash children on live television in multiple countries.
Leftists don't be a degenerate challenge.
Difficulty impossible, I suppose.
If you'd rather watch something more wholesome, you can go over to our website and pay £5 a month and get premium content like this, which is mine and Carl's chat on if Christianity and Communism are compatible.
Spoiler alert, no.
No, definitely not, but it's a really deep discussion looking at biblical scripture and the history of Marxism and how communism is essentially the philosophy of Judas Iscariot and the devil, and I think the devil is very much at work with the following programs.
Now, if you're confused as to what I'm talking about, because you don't live in the UK or Denmark or the Netherlands, well, here's a trailer for Channel 4, which is one of the government-owned channels in the UK.
Channel 4's newest program called Naked Education.
Let's take a watch of the trailer.
Stereo?
Stereos?
As teenagers, you're always thinking, I'm so fat.
There have definitely been times I've looked in the mirror and hated what I see.
This is a baby step to becoming more accepting of who you are.
Being naked is not a bad thing at all.
D-Row, please!
In you get!
I think it's time that we see what real male bodies look like.
Whoa.
Naked men.
Do you know what?
Your happiness shouldn't be reliant on whether you have this perfect shape.
You know, every time I see this I feel really weird.
I think physical education would be the answer.
All episodes available after on all four.
You know, every time I see this, I feel really weird.
I think physical education would be the answer.
How so?
In that when, you know, you have people complaining about their, let's say, bodily images, that maybe the healthy thing is to exercise.
What, so all the fat birds just end up running laps instead?
I don't know.
It doesn't seem productive.
How is it going to help?
It helps the adults participating who want to strip off in front of children.
Yes.
It's not about the kids.
No.
For those on YouTube that didn't see that, you can check the link in our description on the website.
Or don't if you don't want to bleach our eyes.
What happened was a bunch of adults derobed and got naked in front of a classroom full of children to teach them about body positivity.
Let's go to the male reporting on exactly the purpose of this show so I can explain this to you.
Channel 4's Naked Education, not to be confused with Channel 4's Naked Attraction, which is a dating show about people getting naked, where you select your partner based on their genitals, that has the same presenter on the same network, except this time it's with kids, so I'm sure that's just on the up and up.
That aired recently and many viewers have obviously complained about it because the children they're stripping off in front of were aged 14 to 16.
The show is promoted as being all about body positivity.
The celebrity presenters are on a mission to normalise all body types, champion our differences and break down stereotypes.
A Channel 4 spokesperson told Mail Online, all the teenagers who participated in Naked Education did so with appropriate consent.
They and their guardians were fully aware and prepared to take part in the item about body taboos and they had support throughout.
Oh, so children can consent apparently.
Oh, no?
No?
Because it would be really awkward if you said that?
I suppose you could say it out loud, because it seems that you're just doing it in front of cameras now.
And also, I'm not happy with the answer that, oh, just the children consented because their guardian said they could do it.
Okay, well, if the guardians had exposed their children to any other adult, completely nude, outside the household, you'd have Child Protective Services come in and take them away from those parents.
I want the prosecution of everyone involved in this, funnily enough, for indecent exposure to children.
Not a good thing.
So, let's figure out why they did this.
We can hear it from the mouths of the participants.
This was a video uploaded by a trans man, I think that's the word for it, saying about why they decided to show their phyloplasty, their forearm flesh constructed artificial penis, to a classroom full of children.
Let's listen to the motivation.
You know, it's all about Just loving our bodies, body autonomy to change our bodies should that make us happier in terms of like gender identity and gender affirming surgeries in my case.
It's a really really positive show that's why I chose to take part Now, the sticking point was that, you know, they wanted to, well, the really positive thing is what they wanted to do was talk about phalloplasty.
They wanted to talk about gender transition, but specifically in terms of surgery and about phalloplasty.
But then what they wanted to do was show a naked trans body and show phalloplasty.
So what they want to do is promote gender surgeries including sewing up the vagina and making a fake penis out of forearm tissue and irreparably scarring your arm To children.
They wanted to promote it as a positive thing.
Now this person in the rest of the video, which you can go and watch because it's linked in the description, they said that they would not have known if they were trans if it wasn't seeing shows like this, like My Transsexual Summer, on television.
So that means that to promote the trans surgery to kids who are deliberately being confused by gender ideology is to perpetuate the raising of trans consciousness just like it was in this poor confused trans person.
So it's trans begetting trans.
The media is just generating this social contagion across time and that's not good for the Mental comorbidities of lots of young trans kids, I'm sure.
I don't think they have put the least amount of effort into actually putting a justification for why they're doing it or a purported justification.
Well, they've said it's because of inclusion and body positivity and to make the kids feel better.
Yeah, but how are they gonna feel better?
It's not like the kids have never seen someone who has excess fat.
Yeah, but it's not just fat people, it's trans penises.
So the question is, okay, why do trans people desperately need the validation of children to feel better about themselves?
Questions can't be answered here for legal reasons.
Speaking of things that I couldn't say on air, I actually went on GB News the other night.
I'm not doing a Leo here, don't worry.
And I spoke to one of the members of, members is probably the wrong word, panellists from this show who attempted to justify why he, after spending £20,000 on reconstructive surgery and then undoing it, went on the show and stripped off down to his underwear in front of a bunch of children.
And I asked some pointed questions and we'll see what he tries to justify as you said so if we can play the first clip please let him speak for himself Let me say, young kids.
Kids are getting taught sex education and being shown these images in sex education.
So I just want to put that out there first.
But I went on the show because I wanted to show the youth of today that they can be comfortable in their own skin and also that the naked body isn't perverse.
It's just a naked body.
So you had to get completely naked in front of a group of young teenagers?
So, for me, I went on and I stripped down to my boxer shorts, because obviously the line-up I was in was all about cosmetic, as you've just said, with the £20,000 that I spent on meself.
But I wanted to just show, you know, like, people can be themselves and be confident.
And I got sucked into the Instagram world of showing, you know, the abs and the filtered images and stuff.
So I felt like it was my duty to go on I think we've got some footage of you on the show now, actually.
Okay, so there you go.
You can see you're talking to the children there about what you're doing.
I mean, did it not feel a little bit perverted?
A lot of people have complained to Ofcom, the regulator, about this, Liam.
Yeah, no, I've seen lots of, you know, lots of words being thrown around like perverse, but what we've got to do is take perverse out of it, because perverse shouldn't be in it whatsoever.
Because at the end of the day, that's a defamation of someone's character, and I feel like we should take that perverse word out.
But Liam, you're very clear that this was nothing sexual for you or any of the other participants, was it?
It definitely wasn't.
Like, we were all vetted.
We all had our background checks with this show.
The parents were there as well, with the youth of today.
They all signed the agreement.
And do you know what?
The youth were absolutely brilliant.
They wanted to learn.
And looking at the episode that you can see on all four of mine already, seeing some of the youth of today go away from that programme and just learn so much from it.
I'm just so happy that, you know, 90% of the public are taking this programme as it is.
OK, well look, I don't see how it's just OK because a bunch of parents say, oh, even though they're underage, if I sign the waiver to have someone basically flash my child on live television, then it's alright.
I think we used to call Child Protective Services for things like that.
And also, OK, if it's educational, if we need nudity for that, obviously The logical consequence of sex education isn't just to have naked people to talk about the anatomy in front of people.
So, Liam, simple question, would you be fine with practical demonstrations between adults, sexually, in front of children, or is that a line too far?
Well, what you've got to remember, Connor, is that definitely people, it's so out there, online, they can see all this fake... Oh, so it's okay because it's already going on, right?
Well, yeah, these can see all this fake stuff anyway.
When they look at pornographic images, that's all fake anyway.
That should be illegal.
So you're saying because they can access porn online, you should have real sex performed in front of them so they know what it is?
Well, like you said, it should be illegal and being on social media should be illegal.
I was about to say that you, for some reason, I think you want to torture me.
Blame GB News for torturing me, for putting me on the panel.
No, but I think your contribution was really good.
I would like to... No, I wouldn't like to, but I think it's an important question to be asked.
What does this person think is perverse?
Anything that doesn't allow him to get off.
Yeah.
So he's genuinely trying to say, we need to take the perversion out of it because it's a defamation of character.
No, it's a moral judgment.
It's not implying you've done anything illegal, though I think it should be, definitely.
But it is obviously perverse because you want to strip off in front of children.
Like, I'm not going to be gaslit into thinking, oh, well, if it's about inclusion in the context of making sure the children feel body positive.
No, you're stripping off in front of other people's kids.
And, if you noticed there, he had absolutely no argument against the idea that you should not be performing sex acts in front of kids like it's a Monty Python sketch.
Because he just deflected to, well, it's on the internet anyway, we might as well tell them what real sex is like.
Hmm.
I wonder if there's some sort of sexual fetish involved here.
They try to treat everything as a parking.
They have this issue to flash.
They go with the robes and they open it.
I would be fascinated, I'm not insinuating anything of course, if they had to edit out any of the clips because any of the members of the line-up got aroused while they were standing there.
That'd be a good question to answer Channel 4.
So obviously it's got a lot of complaints, and if you're in the UK you can actually file an Ofcom complaint against this kind of thing.
I would encourage you go and do that.
So, Naked Education has attracted over, up to now, I think it's probably over, a thousand Ofcom complaints.
It's been aimed at children at 8pm, which is before the watershed, which, if people don't know, in the UK you can't have gratuitous swearing, nudity, or gratuitous violence.
Before the watershed which is nine o'clock in the afternoon because the idea is you have some kind of public standard of propriety Until the kids go to bed, but this is before watershed.
So it's just nudging the Overton window even so further towards perversion Host Anna Richardson has said the show goes a step further than the show She also presents which is naked attraction naked education is a sort of step further than naked attraction as it says.
Let's normalize bodies Let's have the conversation about what we go through and let's educate the nation I like to make shows that are controversial, break taboos and make a difference.
And with every single show that I've done, you can tick one of those boxes.
Ian Katz, who's Channel 4's Chief Content Officer, wrote on Twitter in response to criticism about the program: "Anyone who suggests that Channel 4 show naked education promotes paedophilia or is abusive of children almost certainly hasn't watched it.
You put out the trailer where people are taking off their clothes in front of children.
I don't care if you try and justify it as educational.
You're obviously platforming non-story.
No, I'm not going to play mental gymnastics, it's just weird.
The show counters the dangerous myths and toxic images that teenagers are bombarded with by exposing them to real, normal bodies and engaging them in an open, safe conversation about them.
It would be hard to think of a clearer example of valuable public service broadcasting that challenges the kind of misconceptions that too often cause anxiety and feelings of inadequacy in young people.
What is a misconception?
Sorry, what's the misconception here?
I'm getting angry.
So, if you see an edited photo on Instagram, the only antidote to that is to look at a trans penis in real life.
And that's going to suddenly make all your problems go away?
Yeah, it's going to make you a lot mentally healthier.
Sure.
Some discussions should not be had, I think.
Yeah, well, I'm fine with some discussions.
I'm just not fine with people getting naked in front of children.
Don't think we can hammer the point home anymore.
Spokesperson for Ofcom said, So the translation is, So, we're going to allow it.
It's fine.
our broadcasting rules before deciding whether or not to investigate.
So the translation is, repressive tolerance mandates that anything that goes in favour of the regime will be tolerated, despite it being obviously perverse and exploitative of children.
So we're going to allow it.
It's fine.
So, it turns out, UK, not the only one that's doing this, there's a show in the Netherlands that...
Daily Beast has reported on this, and I don't normally go to the Daily Beast, but even they are, well, they're putting it in a positive light, but we're not going to.
The show, called Genwin Bloot, which translates to Simply Naked, is meant to promote body positivity.
In it, a panel of clotheless adults talk to kids between the ages of 10 and 12 about not feeling ashamed of their physical selves, and take on such subjects as shaving and waxing.
Dutch public broadcaster NOS said, the aim is to teach children that each and every body is different, and that not all bodies are perfect.
However, Dutch MP, Tuana Nkuzu reportedly called the show ridiculous and called for a boycott.
Far-right politician Thierry Baudet accused the show of promoting paedophilia.
Oh.
The far-right are against paedophilia.
How radical!
And Kees van der Starge, who heads up the Fundamentalist Protestant Party, SGP, said, So I'm actually quite glad they used the term far-right there, because it obviously demonstrates how far they've moved the needle towards saying, everything we don't like is far-right, and whatever comes along that we now have to defend, anyone who doesn't Defend that.
Is far right.
And it's gotten to the point now where the category is so broad, it's anyone who doesn't want their children flashed on live television by a forearm penis is far right.
Thank you for immediately discrediting that smear in the public eye.
So the show is also based on a Danish program, definitely not based, called Ultra Smijder Toget, called Ultra Strips Down, which is now in its second season, and we'll get to that in a moment.
We've got a clip, just that I'll talk over, of this Dutch TV show.
This is the episode where they showed young children transgender people.
It's thankfully blurred, of course, and I'm just going to read from a Daily Mail article, which is linked in the description, while this plays.
It turns out that the Dutch show had criticism before it broadcast on March 21st.
The host said the aim is to teach children that each and every body is different and that not all bodies are perfect.
In this particular episode, it says, today our guests are transgender, so it's not just male and female, there's an entire spectrum of genders besides male and female.
So the purpose of the show is to introduce gender confusion.
One transgender person who was on the program said they felt euphoric after their gender reassignment surgery.
I woke up and I knew my breasts were gone, that I looked like I had always wanted to look, it finally matched the way I felt inside, and that made me feel ecstatic.
They're obviously promoting self-mutilation as a good thing to children.
Anyone who is still under the delusion that this is a good thing should go and watch our interview with Richie Herron about that.
One Twitter user from the Netherlands defended the show saying: "I live in the Netherlands.
This is simply one episode of the show.
It normalizes any naked body and lets children engage with it in an educational way.
It doesn't say anything unsubstantiated by science, and you just watched a right-wing political ad about it.
I had a look at what the particular Twitter account was, by the way, and it's an anime profile picture not-safe-for-work account called MrYupJup, so that's an obvious authority on the issue.
Anyway, we can stop playing this, John, so we don't torture all of our viewers, but you get the point.
Now, why would the far right oppose this?
That's a good question.
Right?
It's just educational.
There's nothing going to go wrong here at all.
Well, let's go over to the one in Denmark, because I also want to know why all of these shows have started around the same time.
Is there some sort of lobbying group behind this?
If anyone knows, please put it in the comments, because I'm sure there's going to be some kind of activist pressure bankrolling this entire...
Parade of degeneracy.
In Copenhagen, okay children, does anyone have a question?
This is in a New York Times article.
The TV host says, only a few in the audience of 11 to 13 year olds raised their hands.
Remember, you can't do anything wrong, he said.
There are no bad questions.
You can't blame the children if their thoughts were elsewhere.
On a stage before them, in a heated studio in Copenhagen, stood five adults in bathrobes, Having discussed it for days before school, the children knew what was coming next.
Mr. Shao gave a nod, and the adults cast off their robes.
Facing the children and the cameras, they stood completely naked like statues, with their hands and arms folded behind their backs.
And so, a recording of the latest episode of an award-winning Danish children's program, Ultra Strips Down, Yeah.
Kind of a bad thing.
Oh, not at all.
No, no, no.
It's about seeing the body as natural.
who's the host, who helped develop the concept of the show after the producer came up with the idea said the point was to counter the daily bombardment of young people with images of perfect unrealistic bodies.
Perhaps some people are like, oh my god, they're combining nakedness and kids.
Yeah.
Kind of a bad thing.
But this has nothing to do with sex.
Oh, not at all.
No, no, no.
It's about seeing the body as natural.
The way that kids do.
Excuse me, I've been very angry with this.
Yep.
It makes me very angry.
I don't understand the level and the strength of the projection.
Why are they doing it so much?
It seems that they're trying to push it very aggressively.
Yes.
And honestly, there's no excuse for this.
If there are some parents who for some reason think that their children should watch naked bodies, they could take them to places where nudists swim, let's say.
I don't think you should even give them that, Stelios.
I'm not saying that they should, but I'm trying to point out the degree in which they're pushing forward that.
Why do you need a TV show?
Because... Because honestly, I mean, that would be a really weird request.
Yeah, but if they make it everywhere... When they make it a TV show, they are trying to create the idea and the impression to the people that this is a request that many people have and many children have.
Yeah, exactly.
So it's to gaslight you into compliance by making you feel like a minority.
I never said it's acceptable.
No, no, I know you didn't.
I'm just trying to illustrate the distinction between these two attitudes.
Yeah, they're trying to create the new normal of acceptable discourse as placating to the perverted, and if you speak up against it, you're made to feel bullied and small.
So it's institutional gaslighting at the expense of child innocence.
What if children don't want to watch it?
Then they're bigots, aren't they?
And you wouldn't want to be a bigot at school and be bullied, would you?
And where do they fall on the political spectrum according to the Directors of the show.
You don't have to answer.
Yep.
We recognise the significance for bruise, said Sophie Munzer, a nationally recognised expert in Nordic parenting.
Ah, experts say, flashing children, great idea.
Danish parenting generally favours exposing children rather than shielding them.
One famous example of how far the Danes take this philosophy was the euthanisation and dissection of a giraffe at the Copenhagen Zoo in 2014, while children observed from the front row.
I think dissecting an animal might be a bit different to seeing a grown adult's appendage.
But maybe I'm just a bigot.
Complete inclusiveness is one of the show's key objectives, which is why the children were also introduced to Ray, who is a transgender and identifies as they-them.
I'm not a boy, not a girl, I'm a bit of everything, said Ray.
I have seven hairs of beard now.
So, again, vehicle for obvious gender confusion and gender ideology.
The program is now in its second season, and while perhaps a shock to non-Danes, it is highly popular in Denmark.
Recently, however, a leading member of the right-wing Danish People's Party, Peter Skarup, said he found ultra-strips down to be depriving our children.
It's far too early for children to start with male and female genitalia, he told BT, a Danish tabloid.
At that age, he said, they already have many things running in their heads.
How radical!
Basically a mid-century German painter.
So, why do they oppose this?
What could possibly be wrong with this?
Well, imagine my shock, to the surprise of absolutely no one, when a convicted paedophile participates in the show in Denmark, because they didn't background check it.
Shockingly, when you put children in the proximity of naked adults that they don't know, paedophiles are going to get involved.
Why didn't they fact check?
Did they think that it was going to harm the psychology of the contestant?
Possibly.
Yeah, well, paedophilia will be the new frontier in the abolition of oppression.
We've already seen that with the Minor Attracted Persons movement, and the EU even lending credence to that, and Scotland.
So, only a matter of time.
Fortunately, this has been a wedge issue that we've been pushing on, but keep going, because this is clearly waking up lots of normal people and parents to how pernicious intersectionality is.
One of the participants in Ultra Strips Down has been convicted of sexual intercourse And intercourse with a child and possession of more than 3,000 child pornographic images and videos.
This is reading from a translation of this article, by the way.
The verdict fell on Monday in a court in Gloucester.
The 41-year-old convicted of this offence is one of the people who undress in the programme in front of school class.
The programme was broadcast in the fall of 2020, but after an acquaintance of the now convicted man contacted DR and reported suspicion against him, DR chose to remove the episode However, without informing the outside world as to why, one of the program's most persistent critics, the Danish People's Party Peter Skarup, calls the case unfortunate.
We have a specific victim of one of the contributors and a family to the victim who can see that DR has had a paedophile in a broadcast where he stands naked in front of children.
I am particularly upset by the way they took the program down without making more of it.
It's outrageous to try and cover it up afterwards, putting it in instead of clearly announcing.
And so, do you know what the topic of this particular show that the pedophile took part of is?
I have a feeling I don't want to learn, but... Gender and identity.
Okay.
Because of course it is.
Because if you say, by virtue of your identity, you can do no wrong and you are marginalized, you're going to get people using it as a Trojan horse to get close to children, because that is their sexual fetish.
So then they interviewed the convicted person in question.
And he says, there is nothing sexual about him and his participation in the broadcast.
So everyone else that trots out their defence for this show, including the fella I debated on GB News, and I brought that up on air, I just didn't include it there because I didn't want to...
Didn't want to expose the lead for you, ladies and gentlemen.
Anyone who brings out that defence is actively enabling predators in the proximity of innocent children.
Now, it's either they're so naive that they walk into furniture every day, which I'm sure is plenty of people going along with the gender ideology, or because some people have a vested interest in it themselves.
But I wouldn't insinuate that about anyone who's participated in the show, of course, because that would be legally liable.
So I'm not going to say that.
Not at all.
Didn't say it.
I'm not exactly an athlete, but I'm not embarrassed of my body and I want to pass that element on, this person said.
So what do they think about the criticism of the program?
I don't see the problem in it, we're all born naked after all and everyone has been given written permission from their parents to join.
Can you understand if anyone thinks it is uncomfortable now that there is a convicted man who has been part of the program?
No, I actually can't, I've been standing 10 metres from the children on stage and they have been able to ask me questions, but it is possible that someone thinks so and that is why DR has chosen to remove the program.
The man was sentenced to nine months in prison in district court and has appealed the sentence to an eastern district court.
Because obviously, he violated the conditions of him being on the sex offence registry because he's stripping off in front of children.
Look, I'm not going to beat the dead horse.
Obviously let's not do this.
It should be completely sane to anyone involved that isn't a rabid progressive leftist who will justify literally anything for the sake of inclusion and allow lots of perverse people to get their rocks off and I think it would do a good job if you pretty much prosecuted everyone involved in this.
It's very sad because I mean, in general, we can say that many people think in terms of short term of their short term interest, and they cannot see the bigger picture.
Here, I think we see this being blown out of proportions and By not checking, by not even checking the background of that contestant, they just illustrate perfectly that all they care about is just sensitivity on the one hand.
They say, OK, no, we don't want to hurt your emotions.
That's one bit.
The other bit, which may be a bit more, let's say, a more harsh interpretation, is that this is a very There's an intention behind it and there's, not behind putting the contestant there, but behind all these programs to push this agenda very hard.
Yeah, well remember, an excuse is a promise of repetition.
Yes, and I think that we're running, no, not we, many people who refuse to see the bigger picture, they're running out of excuses and they should be confronted with info like that because, you know, they're running out of excuses when they say that, well, You know, some people are blowing it out of proportions.
We're not.
Now, speaking of athleticism, let's talk about the persecution of Riley Gaines.
I want to say that Riley Gaines is a champion in more than one senses.
And she's a swimming champion.
And she's also a champion of common sense, as you will see.
But speaking of championship, let us move.
You can visit our website, LotusEaters.com And with only £5 a month, you can have access to our premium content, such as the latest video of the symposium we did together on Nietzsche's book called The Gay Science.
And he is talking about, in a sense, grabbing life by its horns.
Is that the correct expression?
Yes, yeah.
He's not talking about homosexual empiricism, though I would suggest the trans activists probably should look into that a little bit more.
Yes, so it's worth it.
Go and have a look.
OK, now let's go back.
Riley Gaines is a 12 times All-American swimmer at the University of Kentucky.
She holds five SEC titles.
We came across many acronyms of the SEC.
I think it is Southeastern Conference title.
John helped me very much with it.
If it's mistaken, it's my fault.
Also, she had plans to pursue a dental degree.
You can visit her website here and, you know, check more information about her.
Now, the thing is that lately she was involved in various controversies and we will talk about it.
We will give plenty of context to talk about why she was recently persecuted and what happens after, what happened, what's the aftermath.
Okay, so one thing is that She's swimming I think from, she's around 23 years old and I was checking some of her interviews and she says that she has been swimming and she wasn't, her father was an athlete ever since four years old.
So she does have the athletic virtue and the athletic disciplined mindset.
It's a lifelong passion.
Yes, it is a lifelong passion and I remember she was saying that she was training for six hours a day.
So, it's a lot.
It takes plenty of effort and she was trying to combine this with studies as well.
Now, she was swimming for the National Collegiate Athletic Association and she had some issues with them.
Because they took some decisions that I think I agree with her when we say that they are controversial ones.
Now, let's look a bit on the website of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
It is a member-led organization dedicated to the well-being and lifelong success of college athletes.
NCAA schools award nearly $3.5 billion in athletic scholarship every year and provide vast support to help student-athletes graduate at a rate higher than their general student peers.
We have more than half a million college athletes across all three divisions compete for about 1,100 member schools in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and even Canada.
Okay, now if we go to the next link, I want to look a bit on the priorities or the values that NCAA is supposed to be in favor of.
You'd think it would be meritocracy, competition, fairness, right?
Yeah, and if we scroll down a bit where it talks about participants, it says focus on participants.
There we go.
A bit up, please?
Yes.
Division III athletics departments place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than that of the spectators.
The student-athlete's experience is of paramount concern.
Now, I want us to examine whether this is a double standard, and I think that it is pretty obvious that it is because they don't care about participants in general.
Maybe they have an agenda that they want to put forward.
So what happened is that Riley Gaines swam against Leah Thomas.
Yes.
In 2022.
Obvious woman.
And I think what happened was that when Leah Thomas won the 500 yard freestyle, and I think he broke the records there.
And also they tied on a 200-yard freestyle.
But the NCAA decided to give the first award to Leah Thomas.
And Riley Gaines confronted them and she asked them, why do you think that this should happen?
And they told her basically, for photographic reasons, we want Leah Thomas to have the award.
made her turned her into an activist.
And she is championing also common sense now, I would say.
And she's talking about, she is arguing against the inclusion of biological males into women's sports.
And she talks a lot about the legislation that the Biden administration has tried to push forward.
And focuses a lot on the sharing of locker rooms with biological males.
Because as she was saying in an interview, it's not an issue of going in, changing about a minute or two and just leaving.
It takes a long time to change, especially when you have to get into the proper outfit to run into these matches.
So let us watch this clip of what she says.
In addition to being forced to give up our awards, our titles, not opportunities.
The NCAA forced female swimmers to share a locker room with Thomas, a 6'4", 22-year-old male who was fully intact with male genitalia. - Yeah.
Let me be clear.
We were not forewarned.
We were not asked for our consent, and we did not give our consent.
If nothing else, I hope you can truly see how this is a violation of our privacy, And how some of us have felt uncomfortable, awkward, embarrassed, and even traumatized by this experience.
I know I don't speak for everyone.
It's impossible to speak for everyone.
But I can attest to the tears that were shed on that pool deck by these poor 9th and 17th place finishers who miss out on being named an All-American by one place.
And I can attest to the extreme discomfort in the locker room when you turn around and there's a male watching you undress while exposing himself.
I can attest to the anger and frustration from these girls who had worked so hard and sacrificed so much to get to this point.
So people have disparaged her for now partnering up with TPUK and going and doing college talks because of this ordeal and they're saying, oh you're just a grifter, you're jumping on the right wing bandwagon.
No, you took her lifelong athletic dreams from her and you, the regime, are pushing this on people?
So she's totally justified from this ordeal to fight back?
That's Very authentic, what she's saying there.
Yes.
And also, it's very harrowing with the knowledge now that we have, if you go and look on our YouTube channel, we have a segment called Keep Your Fetish to Yourself.
Someone found, and it was published in the Daily Wire, Leah Thomas' private Instagram account, and that features photos of Leah and his trans girlfriend lopping off their testicles on date night, and photos of women of questionable age in autogynephile posts.
So, It seems that he had a perverse incentive to undress in front of other women.
Sorry, I will not watch it.
I don't blame you.
Yeah.
So this is enough to make us doubt what NCAA is supposed to be in favor of, the values that they are supposed to support.
They talk about focus on participants, but in this case, as Riley Gaines says, no one was notified.
Yeah.
And I don't see this as constituting focusing on the participants.
Because it's not about reciprocity, it's about an intersectional hierarchy.
They've bought into the oppressed or repressed paradigm, so anyone who is oppressed can get away with anything.
And it reminds me a bit of the rhetoric on Orwell's Animal Farm.
They know everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Here we have a statement that is supposed to say that all participants are going to be taken care of and the worries of all participants are going to somehow be accommodated and met, or they will count, but we see that there are some participants who are a bit more special and that the NCAA is a bit more partial to them, so perhaps that's a facade.
Two legs good, three legs better.
Double standard, one of the many that we have encountered.
Okay, now, the thing is that on the 6th of April, I think it was Thursday, she was invited to give a talk at San Francisco State University.
Now, I think that this is a... I've heard that this is a very woke part of California.
San Francisco?
Yeah, could say that.
Yes, and what happened is that she gave a talk about Her views on the issue and why she thinks that biological males should not be included on women's sports and she talked about the unfairness of it and she talked about her experience because this is supposed to be an audience that constantly talks about lived experiences and how much they value the idea of a lived experience.
Supposedly.
They talk about their own lived experience, whatever that is supposed to mean, but they don't necessarily care about the lived experiences of others.
So, what happened?
Before we watch the video, what happens is that after the talk, a crowd stormed in and physically assaulted her.
And they were threatening her, and the police officers and security officers who were there, they put her to a room for three hours.
Outside there was a mob that was shouting at her, and they were, you know, they were having fun, they were saying that they were demanding ransom, they were swearing at her, they were actually threatening her, and she was there for three hours.
Let us watch the student mob.
I'm coming.
I'm good.
I'm coming.
I'm good.
I'm good.
Trust me.
Go ahead.
Trans-rate! Our women! Trans-rate! Trans-rate! Are you being raped?
You're crying!
You're f***ing crying, b***h!
F*** you!
F*** you!
Trans rights are human rights!
Trans rights are human rights!
Trans rights are human f***ing rights!
Bye, b***h!
Bye, b***h!
You're dressed like a communist.
So, we could put it on mute now.
Yeah, very ladylike behaviour.
Yeah.
So, the thing is that it doesn't seem to me to be a group of people that are very much interested in listening to the other opinion.
They don't seem to care about the lived experience of Riley Gaines and women who may think the same, but they may not be as articulate or vocal about it, or they may not be, to be fair to them, they may not be at the position to do so.
That sounds very polite, Stelios.
I would say they're an ideologically possessed zombie horde.
No, these people are.
I'm not talking about these people.
I'm talking about, yeah, Riley Games.
Yeah, you're basically correct.
Yes, they're trying to...
That's not civilized.
And the aftermath is that after three hours, she was released.
The police took her off.
We saw on the video clearly police officers being there.
It wasn't just campus security.
We saw people who had the police sign on their backs, on the back of their outfits.
So the question is, What happened?
How come the police can't help you there?
Let us look a bit about the aftermath.
Now, let's look at this tweet from Olly London.
San Francisco State University, where students assaulted Riley Gaines and held her hostage, has blamed Riley for the promotion of violence, within quotation marks, and claimed that protesters who assaulted the women's swimming star were threatened while calling the The police who were protecting Riley Gaines was excessive and uncalled for.
Now, of course, these are Associated Students president.
They are saying that basically it was wrong that there was security there.
Now, why was it wrong?
Because they couldn't tear her limb from limb.
Yes.
So it's a very harrowing statement.
Let us move forward.
After that, Riley Gaines has made various appearances on GB News, on Fox News, and has given many interviews.
Her message is simple.
The Biden administration has tried to make it sexual harassment for Riley Gaines to say, for instance, that biological males should not compete in women's sports, but it is not sexual harassment for Leah Thomas to use the same locker room as women.
So that's one of the basic core, one of her basic core messages.
Now, let us move a bit on the next video.
Turning Point USA invited me to the campus.
I delivered a very civil and respectful speech where I had great dialogue with even protesters who were participating in a sit-in.
All of a sudden after my speech, the room was stormed.
The lights were turned off and I was rushed.
Three hours?
with no one there to escort me to a safe place.
I was punched, I was hit multiple times, I was shoved until finally we exited the room, but we could not leave because the protesters flooded the halls and so I was pushed into a classroom along that hallway where I was barricaded in for three hours.
- Three hours?
Why didn't someone with a gun come and bring you to safety? - Because they were terrified.
They were scared to put their hands on these people because they know what these people are capable of.
These people yelled obscene, violent, vulgar things to both myself and the officers.
And the officers, I could tell, didn't feel comfortable putting them in a position that would mean they'd do their job, which is a really scary, chilling thought.
So I find this completely harrowing.
We have the person who was attacked saying that police officers were afraid to actually do their job.
And I think that this is a very bad sign that sometimes whenever law is not enforced, and whenever we have people who do not do their job with respect to, you know, protecting the civil rights of citizens, it is only normalizing the idea that some people behave this way.
So I have a comment on that.
I wanted to apologise if anyone saw me smirk during that, because obviously it's not a nice topic, it's just because I saw Tucker Carlson's face in the corner and Tucker's slack-jawed face is always very amusing, but everything that Riley's gone through is horrible.
I wanted to point out the fact that it's not just that they're not enforcing the law, it's that they're deliberately enforcing the law unilaterally.
This is a top-down imposition.
Yes.
San Francisco's mayor, London Breed, is hot on hate crime legislation on the city level.
And so the police officers there know that if they restrain any of the violent trans activists, they themselves will lose their job because they are a protected, marginalized group.
How can you be marginalized when you're endorsed by the state and not culpable for any of your actions?
But intersectionality is brain rot anyway.
So, this is a top-down imposition of anarcho-tyranny.
They have chosen a group of spiteful revolutionary mutants, they have immunized them from consequences because they are on the right side of history, and the fortunate thing for the oligarchs like Nancy Pelosi, who's the congresswoman for one of those districts in San Francisco, is that the more chaos there is on the ground, the more people are dependent on the government to tell them what arbitrary law is going to be imposed on them on that day, and so she can sit in Congress forever and make lots and lots of money and never have her power challenged.
Yes, and we see the disconcerting phenomenon on various, let's say, police officers who seem to take kind of joy in it.
They find it funny, like in the case where Billboard Chris was attacked in Canada some weeks ago, where we had an officer that she was clearly having fun with it.
There are lots of officers as well who are all too happy to enforce COVID lockdown laws, but as soon as Black Lives Matter protesters were toppling statues or swinging from the flag on the cenotaph, oh no, no, no, no.
No, it's okay.
We have to let you go.
For racial justice.
It turns out that racial justice fights COVID-19.
Yes, and I think that we should show the double standards and expose the double standards of those who are in favour of this agenda whenever we can, because it's good for maintaining sanity.
Well, one of the most useful things to wake people up to the voraciousness of the social justice left was when Jordan Peterson would give perfectly reasonable campus speeches and you would have people with megaphones screeching, banging on the walls and windows outside the lecture hall, or when Michael Knowles turns up to campus and they try and shoot him with a water gun or when Michael Knowles turns up to campus and they try and shoot him with a water gun of what they thought These people are delusional and so are not kind of the people you want to share a country
And when they are selected as a protected group, a group that is by no means the majority of the population, but it is somehow treated as a special group, it has special preferential treatment, that means that basically someone gives them power.
And we should always pose that question.
Who gives them power?
Who wants the that lobby to let's say these people to have preferential treatment and get away with uncivilized behavior.
Now, I want to say that this event was a bit it, it went viral, millions of people watched it.
And some people from the left started criticizing the behavior of those people.
And before we show you a clip from the discussion of the Young Turks about it, I want to say that I watched, there's a quarter, it's 15 minutes, okay?
Around 15-16 minutes.
And I watched Cenk and Anna Kasparian talking about the event.
And to a point, I was happy with what I heard, because they said that that was unacceptable behavior, it's completely counterproductive, it doesn't get you anywhere, that people who are in favor of the transgender ideology, they shouldn't take it as a given that People understand them.
And there was a good point at some point where I think Cenk said that you cannot be want to be an activist, you cannot want to be politically active on the one hand, but on the other hand want to say that, well, I don't need to educate you, which is a frequent, let's say,
behavior when we see people who say no no I'm I know it this is that's the truth I have an infallible conception of the truth if you don't agree with me you're a bigot yeah it's not my job educate yourself yes so up to a point I think they were say they were speaking sense right but when did he start talking about horses but let us watch this clip this clip So we've got to find a way to convince the average person.
Here, I'll give you the last example, guys.
So, for example, when you talk about sports and trans people participating in sports, I think it is an interesting and legitimate debate to talk about hormone blockers and how much of an effect they have on athletic ability.
Agreed, yeah.
Right?
That are activists like Benny Corolla or anyone else makes that point, that's good.
You're engaging and a lot of people don't know that, okay?
So that's great, do that, right?
And that might change some minds.
By the way, and then it's okay if the right winger or moderate or whoever or the newbie or even me says, hey, you know what?
I'm not sure I'm quite convinced yet, but let's keep talking about it, right?
How much do the hormone blockers affect athletic performance?
That's a legitimate debate.
When the right-wingers say, oh, trans people are mentally ill and we should take away their rights, that is not a legitimate debate.
We fight back ferociously on that, both politically and rhetorically, because they're going to win on the politics of it and they're going to keep passing those atrocious laws unless you convince a majority of Americans that you are right.
So basically, did you spot it?
Yeah, the only debate we can have is about transing the kids earlier, and it's unacceptable to reject the ideology outright on the premise that men can become women.
So, in general, when people talk about laws, of course it's going to be a bit abstract and general, it's not going to be particularly enlightening.
But the point is, when he talks about laws that are passed against a preferential treatment of a group as atrocious, basically there is no debate we had there.
So they simultaneously try to present themselves as pro-debate, but actually it's not a debate.
It's actually a paternalistic discussion or communication where we have a segment of the population that is treated preferentially and it goes like that.
They know what they're saying.
They should talk to those who are willing to listen, but not those who are willing to disagree.
Yeah, because they've already agreed on the end point of the dialectic, and so they just have to marginalise the perspectives that would slow them down, and anyone who is not yet informed as to the atrocities of trans ideology, well, this is a new angle of attack from which we can capture them and bully them into silence and compliance.
I'm sorry, Cenk, that's not dialogue enough.
There isn't room for dialogue.
That's just preaching.
Why are you saying sorry to Cenk?
Do you ever think he was an honest actor?
So let's move to the next clip about speaking about laws now.
Not the next video, please.
If we can go to the tab.
Yeah, okay.
So we have Biden's proposed legislation.
So Biden is proposing, he announced potential changes to Title IX regulations.
Some context.
Title IX regulations are, it's called Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, which is a federal civil rights law in the U.S.
that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government.
It was to ensure that women could have their own sports teams originally.
So I'll read just a bit from this article.
Don't worry those of you who find it very weird when I read whole articles.
I won't do that.
The US Department of Education announced potential changes to the Title IX regulations this Thursday.
Presenting plans to bar blanket bans of transgender student-athletes but allowing limitations on a case-by-case basis.
The proposed policy, which will apply to public K-12 schools and colleges, universities and other educational institutions that receive federal funding, finds schools that categorically ban transgender students from participating in sports teams consistent with their gender identity are in violation of Title IX.
The department will still allow schools to limit the participation of transgender students in some cases to allow fairness in competition.
Now, they're going after the money, in a way.
It's like, if you don't comply with pushing forward gender ideology, you're not going to receive federal funding.
But it's also the attitude of, on a case-by-case basis, we'll let transgender activists in.
Okay, so you're making it completely arbitrary, and you're saying that, oh, if they just dislocate your eye socket a little bit in the case of Fallon Fox, or if they just utterly blow out women in competitions in the swim meets and destroy their college athlete dreams a little bit, it's okay.
It's literally the Dolph Lundgren perspective from Rocky IV.
If he dies, he dies.
I had to make a reference.
You've been making Arnold references off-air all the time.
Sure.
I had to match it.
Okay.
Now let's go to the next article.
You see, I don't have time to read it, but if you're interested in seeing how California governor Gavin Newsom is trying to silence debate, you should definitely read that, because this shows actually how the woke left is treating the whole matter.
Now, and let's go to the next clip, because it's good, since we're talking about testosterone, I think we should end with that clip.
It's good to, and you know, Cenk was saying that we should have a debate.
I tried, I searched a bit, some world experts on testosterone, He is Professor David Handelsman.
I think he is based in Australia.
And this is a conversation that was 11 months ago, but I think he is really informative when he talks about the effects of testosterone and how it affects the dynamics between men and women, especially after puberty.
Let's watch.
David, you're a world authority on testosterone and its effects on sports performance.
How does testosterone impact the body?
Look, the male physical advantages in sports really stem from male puberty.
Before puberty, boys and girls could compete equally, but after puberty, men have 20 to 30 times the production of testosterone compared to women, and this leads to larger and stronger muscles, bigger and stronger heart, bigger and more lung capacity, and longer and stronger bones, as well as a higher haemoglobin, and all of those things contribute to sports performance.
To the improvement in sports performance.
What is the extent of these male advantages?
If we consider the times and distances like throwing or jumping in athletics and swimming, the advantages that males have are between 10 to 20 percent in virtually all of those events.
To put that into context, if you look at female world records in all the swimming and athletic events, every year Men, hundreds of men surpass those performances and thousands of them do it over time.
And the most telling thing is that at the age of 14 or 15, boys at that age in early to mid-puberty already surpass female world records, pointing out that it's male puberty that's so instrumental in that.
So that makes it very unfair to have male-bodied athletes in female events. - So a 10 to 20% discrepancy.
Discrepancy is a really big discrepancy when we're talking about championship races.
I think we should end with this because I'm a bit sensitive about time.
Yeah, that's totally fine.
I just think it's obvious that if you were a good faith actor, you would not stick a grown man in the pool with women and you would not try to excuse a mob of radical activists chasing her down the hallway for saying, you ruined my dreams.
Well put.
Alright then, so I don't know if you noticed recently, but apparently we're in a bit of a mating crisis.
For one of the first times in history, we've had adults under 30 being the most likely group to be single.
47% of US adults are single, under 30.
63% of men under 30 describe themselves as single, and 34% of women, because obviously it's a lot easier if you're a young woman to get a willing man, whereas men have to put a lot more effort in.
You have to be complete when you come to a relationship, because Men often gatekeep commitment, but women gatekeep sexual access.
So, that's just how the dynamic works.
Well, if you're struggling out there, ladies and gents, rejoice, fellow incels!
AI are going to start giving us wives.
So, ChatGPT is being developed to also generate chat-up lines and responses for conversations on dating apps and shortcut you to get to the dinner table.
And there's also AI that are actually setting up your perfect partner to push her down the aisle.
Not coercively, of course, because our robot overlords haven't quite stuck the gun in the back yet, but we'll eventually get there, I'm sure.
Look, I want to examine the implications here and see if this will resolve the mating crisis, because this could be a white pill, or it could be horrifying technocracy like something you see in Black Mirror.
So let's at least have fun with it.
Well, the more things that change, the more things stay the same, I suppose.
If you want to find out how to get yourself a woman the ancient Roman way, you can pay £5 a month.
Go and get all of our content on the website and watch mine and Carl's podcast on ancient Roman red pill wisdom.
So, in this, I spoke about how Gen Z spend far too much time texting.
We had a discussion about this before, didn't we?
Not just one.
Yes.
Well, I keep subjecting you to it, Stelios, because hopefully you can impart, as being a man who's engaged due to be betrothed, impart your wisdom onto the rest of our audience.
But dating apps are currently designed to keep you on the app, to perpetually have you exposed to their advertisers, because you are the thing that they're selling.
You are the source of their profit.
So largely, dating apps aren't meant to get you off them.
They're meant to just keep you swiping on this digital meat market of people commodifying themselves.
And back in ancient Rome, Ovid actually wrote about how to use letters and periods of abstinence from your lover to excite anticipation and passion in them.
So, using a robot to shortcut to that might be a bad idea, but then it also might just be the natural end point.
Is it the ancient Roman version of the push-pull strategy?
What's that?
It's that, you know, when you approach a woman you should never, or, you know, a man, if you're a woman, you should sort of play a sort, approach them a bit, show some affection, then go back and play a bit silent.
And allow them to have their own fantasy about you.
Yeah, just give them a bit of homework to say whether, you know, does he or she like me now or not.
It's just Yeah, it's essentially that, and this was written in BC, so after thousands of years, human interactions remain the same.
But they might be changed soon, because it turns out, if we go to this, there's a bunch of ChatGPT plugins that are in development at the moment.
So functions like this are entertainment curation, also translation, asset price trackers, automated shopping lists with the potential to sync with your smart devices like your fridge, so if you run out, ChatGPT may end up available to tell you what you need to buy for the month.
This will obviously diminish the use of search engines over time, because if you have a bunch of automated processes that can sync up to data, then it'll make your life a lot more convenient.
Obviously, it's contingent on not a bunch of woke junk being put into it, as we've already covered, myself and Dan have, and myself and Josh did a hangout on Biden's AI Bill of Rights, so how NGOs are gonna control the amount of information that goes into AI algorithms to stop mal-information, which is factual information but that misrepresents the conclusion they want to get to, like FBI crime statistics for example.
So obviously the tech will be adopted for intersectional premises, but what if we have GigaChad chat GPT to line you up with a date with a beautiful woman?
We're going over to cupidbot.ai.
Now, this is in beta at the moment.
So, this website claims to have been trained on thousands of conversations that led men getting women's phone numbers, some of which were sourced from Reddit, according to a document journal piece we'll talk about later.
You input a certain number of swipes into the app to give the algorithm a general set of faces, bio preferences, to give it something to go on, right?
And then the algorithm decides what to work with.
Do you want blondes?
Do you want brunettes?
Do you swipe left on astrology girls?
Because you definitely We should.
The algorithm then analyses your profile, it analyses theirs, and it generates conversation prompts between the two of you.
So, it optimises the shortcut to getting you on a date.
And it's made in mind for men, because of course, the majority of women on dating apps get positive interactions with men, so they can have their pick, but lots of men get rejected by women because women have a plethora of options, and so she's often paralysed by analysis.
Now, currently it only works on swipe apps, and specifically Bumble.
So, if you want a woman to talk first, Go for it, you feminist, I guess.
In future, it could actually possibly apply to prompt-based apps, like Hinge.
I see someone, Bailey Waitress.
Yes, we'll go on the, we can go, if you want to go to the next one actually, John, we can look at some of the conversations here.
So this is the example that it uses.
So Bailey opens with, hello Mr. Italia, this is for our audio listeners, and the AI says, hey, you look like a heartbreaker.
She says, definitely the opposite.
the opposite.
The AI says, you're the kind of girl I can introduce to my sweet Italian mother.
She says, absolutely.
So the AI says, cool, let's grab ice cream this week, send me your number, and she sends her number over.
Now, there are multiple images like this.
If you just want to take a cursory scroll, John, this is how it works.
There are lots of, just keep scrolling while I talk, please.
There are lots of examples of this actually working.
We have no authentication as to the overall success rate yet.
Stop smiling, Stelios.
This is Skynet. - Oh, I scat.
Obviously it has various tone settings as well, which is quite interesting.
So it can say you can have the cold approach, you can be flirtatious, you can be funny.
It claims to have a 60% success rate, which sounds a little bit like Paul Rudd in Anchorman, 60% of the time it works every time, but there you go.
It's a trap, it's bait.
If you get any weird messages, they seem too good to be true, don't answer.
It's like when a guy would ask a girl out in secondary school, and when she'd say, no thanks, he'd go, haha, my phone was hacked, my friend had it, it wasn't me that sent that, I hope it wasn't me!
Oh god, I'm so ashamed!
It has calendar integration.
It also builds in your contacts from your phone, so it blocks people that you already know, so that they won't match with you on this app, and they won't know that you're using a robot to get women.
And it has support for apparently all languages, so...
Date abroad, be a passport, bro.
I suppose it's three months for $15 a month, and then a monthly fee of $15.
It's $30 a month for anyone joining after the beta, so the beta's currently open, it has spots.
Who calls herself Kashish?
Don't be racist.
No, no, it's not, it just reminds me of pot, something.
Sorry.
It's always a joy to be on with you, Stelios.
Anyway, before you get excited, it doesn't work on Tinder yet, which is what most people want to use it on.
So if we go to the next one, please, John, from Document Journal.
This says an update on this.
After the publication of this story, the people working at CupidBot had retracted previous claims that were on their website and in an interview with Document Journal that some of their engineers had worked at Tinder before, because they were saying that that's the algorithm they based it on.
A representative of Tinder had also confirmed that the group's founders are not former employees of Tinder or Match.com, stating that the service is not operational and has never been used on Tinder.
So, there's some questions as to the effectiveness of this, as you said.
It could all just be BS, but it seems at least it's trending in that direction, because if ChatGPT would be capable of this, it's just whether or not it is executing at the rate that they believe it is, yeah?
Imagine people getting these emails from ChatGPT and, you know, they agree on a date with ChatGPT.
And they go on a date and they say, I don't see you, where are you?
I'm everywhere.
What if two robots start organising it without their organisers realising?
And they actually set it up.
And so the robots start arguing between each other, you've betrayed me, whereas the people have never met.
That is truly dystopian.
But the implications of this, whether or not it's properly up and running yet, as listed in this article, are pretty intriguing.
So the app, which claims to integrate with Tinder and Bumble, has been in private testing since February.
According to a spokesperson, its success rate is 1 out of 16, the marker of success being a real-life date.
We focus on the dating lives of straight men because they suffer most from dating apps.
So although Cupid Bot can be used by anyone, we've built it with the average straight man in mind.
They say, claiming that of all people, straight men are the ones who most need their help.
You see the ideological contamination in this article.
God help a lonely man, of course.
Have no sympathy for those.
What they fail to mention is, however, is the disproportionate risk women face when dating men.
Okay.
Thanks.
Yeah, don't date abusive men.
That's why you shouldn't sleep around.
But they would endorse that, so thank you for your stunning hypocrisy.
The male-centric approach manifests in CupidBot's marketing.
On its website, the app promises to weed out attention whores.
Pfft.
Based.
Those who use Tinder as an elixir of validation... I like that word, I'll be using that in future.
Phrase, rather.
The team later says, clarifying they don't believe women themselves are to blame.
The problem is with dating apps, according to Cupidbot's spokesperson.
It's that the vast majority of users are straight males.
This, coupled with the large differences in behavior and motive, means there is an agonizing asymmetry in user experience.
Men struggle to obtain a single match after hours of swiping, while the average woman is inundated with them.
leading them to swipe right only on the top 5% of profiles, an upper echelon of men who are less likely to ask them out.
This creates a feedback loop in which, faced with the lack of matches, men relax their standards to increase their odds of a match, which in turn gives more women matches, further exacerbating the issue and driving them toward the same handful of highly desired candidates.
We don't think any gender is at fault here, the spokesperson says, claiming the dating app structure fails both men and women.
That seems like a very sensible, moderate take, actually.
The perverse incentives of curating a false version of yourself and marketing it to the rest of the world, and having these plethora of options, meaning that you never have to settle because you're always thinking the grass will always be greener out there, means that fewer and fewer people are finding an authentic partner to actually settle down with, and so we should change the dating game landscape, and it's not changing to actually service people, so how about we game the system a little bit and try and match people up?
That seems like a sensible motivation, really.
Yeah.
So, funny enough, when you said, uh, what happens if people are falling for this, well, we have an article here.
A woman has been wooed by ChatGPT, and she says, AI Romeo is scary.
This is in the New York Post.
Desperate men are turning to bots to do online dating for them and ensnaring unsuspecting women in the process.
The phenomenon was even echoed on a recent episode of South Park called Deep Learning that had been co-written by ChatGPT and depicted the show's main characters using the extremely popular AI tool to communicate with their girlfriends.
As an initial step, users are asked to describe their dream date to the AI.
But be it a sweet ice cream get-together, an intimate museum tour, or just a light-hearted chat over the phone, CupidBot takes over from there.
It automatically swipes on people that are congruent with the user's preferences.
It uses transfer learning with MobileNet 3 to discern a user's type based on their previous matches and swiping behaviors.
Sorry.
The bot also uses ChatGPT4, which is an updated version, to converse with matches via the dating app's direct messaging feature.
Our goal is not to saturate dating apps with artificial conversations, and it's certainly not to objectify women, said the spokesperson, but rather to force dating apps to reevaluate how they operate and to facilitate the dating process for some people in the meantime.
I must say, sorry, I mean, but with the swiping, a friend told me that, I haven't used these apps, but a friend was showing me a woman that he really liked.
And I said, just swipe, what are you waiting?
And I thought he was saying swipe left if you want to say yes.
Right, okay.
or right if you want to say no.
Right.
And I mixed it and I said just just say yes and I... So you did it for him?
I disqualified him.
And you ruined the love of his life, Stelios?
I disqualified him.
He will claim his revenge someday, I'm sure.
So this could actually minimize the amount of damage that people do to themselves before meeting the one eventually.
If you look here, there's some interesting information.
Sorry, I'm slightly losing my voice.
This says, I'm so sorry, that if you look at marital satisfaction, if you pull up the graphs please, John, Most men and women have the majority of lifelong marital satisfaction if they've only had one partner, and this tapers off pretty significantly with the more partners they get.
So, if rather than trading sex for love in hookup culture, you can have AI allocate you a partner, you may have more long-term marital satisfaction.
It's weird though that, you know, there is a tendency to drop, a decreasing tendency, but you know, if you have more, you know, five partners is the worst, five and twenty, but between If you have 6 to 10 partners, satisfaction goes up.
But only for men.
Satisfaction goes up for men, not for women.
So men will probably feel accomplished in that time because they've been socially proofed by lots of women.
It's a weird thing.
Promiscuity is terrible for women because you get oxytocin desensitization, because obviously if you have to let someone in, that's a very vulnerable thing to do.
So the least satisfactory number of partners for women is 6 to 10.
Or even more.
Yeah, but it raises a bit.
uh to 11 to 20 yes oh yeah yeah the least satisfactory is 6 to 10 you're correct but you just accepted at one point yeah you're damaged goods unfortunately um don't don't do that ladies please have some dignity and meet a nice man that's that's my message for today because i'm a misogynist apparently we're going to the next one as well You can even argue with your future spouse if you don't pick the right one.
Because if we go to this image, this is a woman whose boyfriend decided to use ChatGPT to respond to her when she called him a narcissist.
If you go over to the next one, she immediately spotted it.
And ChatGPT was actually remarkably considerate.
And she said, I'm posting this on Twitter.com.
Tuck you.
Go f*** yourself.
The opposite of love is not hatred, but it's apathy, ladies and gentlemen, and nothing is more apathetic than using a robot to reply to your spouse in an argument.
But to be fair, she does sound delusional, and she did post her intimate conversations online, so probably not the best person.
Good luck with the robot, find you a better wife, mate.
Anyway, so Vice have obviously been crying about it, because that's pretty reliable.
Vice have said, the bot doesn't disclose it's a bot, the spokesperson said, so matches can chat with a bot extensively before they have any idea it's not a real human.
We do strongly advise our users to tell the woman once they've gotten their contact information.
The data shows that the first few back and forths required to get a woman's phone number does not tend to be particularly memorable, nor have any effect on a date occurring.
What really skews the probability of a date is how you build rapport once you have her number, so taking it off the app, establishing investment.
Why don't they want it?
made with straight men, that terminally underrepresented group do one, Vice, as its focus.
According to its website, the bot is founded by a team of ex-Tinder engineers dedicated to enhancing the dating lives of men and promises that it will match with girls that are just your type.
So, Vice is obviously complaining that this is going to get more men, hopefully, lifelong partners.
But, Vice is reliant on keeping you lonely, degenerate, Why don't they want it?
What do you mean?
Why don't they want people to find partners?
Because they have an entire website section of articles on butt plugs.
So they have to keep you contingent on degeneracy in order to have... I'm not joking about that, by the way.
Josh sent me the link.
Yeah.
Josh is doing some market research, apparently, so...
Whatever.
Anyway, onto the next link.
Also, apparently, asking women for their number is harassment.
So, that's according to The Byte.
Really reputable futurist.
March 16th.
So, unsurprisingly, the motives of CupidBot's creators are about as thuddingly dull and misguided as you'd expect.
The company claims straight men, and this is a real quote from a real spokesperson, suffer most from dating apps and that they're the most disadvantaged on Tinder, which is exactly what a straight man who hasn't had success on a dating app would say.
Clearly, they aren't familiar with the research consistently showing how the majority of women on dating apps have experienced some form of harassment.
As if the bot is going to be harassing you.
It's just going to be asking for your number and a date.
So, if anything, this would reduce harassment, wouldn't it?
Oh no, because you want to keep people miserable.
It would be fun if you had chat GPT or the bot say, oh, I love how you're doing.
Wolf whistling through the microphone.
Possibly because they're the exact type of people that believe they're correcting the net social detriment of dating apps by creating an app that uses AI to harass women until they date them.
So, like the Gillette advert, where the guy walks out of the shop and puts his hand on a guy's chest that's gonna go check out a girl, talking to women at all is now harassment, apparently.
Okay, women have harassed me plenty in my time, I suppose.
But what if the two AI date each other?
That's an interesting question, like you said earlier.
We're gonna get the Black Mirror scenario.
I don't know if you've seen this episode, Hang the DJ?
I don't remember, but I've watched some weird episodes of that series.
All of Black Mirror is pretty weird.
The premise is excellent.
So what ends up happening is...
People are consigned people that they have to date for a certain amount of time and they see if they're the ideal partner.
And what ends up happening towards the end of the show is two of the characters break out and buck the algorithm and you find out that this is a scenario that's been war-gamed over time by the phone and it cuts to real life of where it matches them up with the other person at the party.
I think that it's weird.
I can see a dystopian scenario.
If we have a dystopian government that wants to interfere with people's liberty and they want to say that if you disagree with your artificially intelligent assigned partner, you are AI-phobic.
Possibly.
I can see an even more dystopian scenario.
You know how ChatGPT is really woke and says trans women are women?
What happens if it matches you up with a trans woman as your ideal partner?
Not great.
Not great.
But we're going to stay optimistic here, okay?
Might save the demographic collapse of the West, we just got our sources of computers.
So, it turns out we actually have an even better service, and it's called Keeper.
Now, this one...
It's been successful.
It's not on dating apps.
It's a matchmaking service that uses algorithms to bring people together, like a professional matchmaker or, you know, a community arm that pushes young couples together, like Mary Harrington keeps telling me that more women should be doing.
Keeper says, our matchmaking system combines the best of machine intelligence and human intuition using the latest in relationship science.
Casual dating apps only satisfy short-term instant gratification, the empty calories of relationships.
Keeper is for people who recognize long-term commitment is what matters most.
And in their values, it says, we don't deny nature.
Humans are the product of millions of years of evolution.
Evolutionary biologists have studied the way men and women act when seeking long-term partners.
They behave differently, they have different preferences, different communication styles, and different ways of seeking long-term partners.
Dating apps completely ignore sex-linked differences.
As a result, the way they generate so-called matches has helped fuel a culture of hookups rather than of marriages.
Keeper takes human psychology seriously, so we are realistic about how to match people for long-term success.
So there are both free and paid options.
For now, the whole process is handled via the website as well as text, phone calls and emails with our matchmakers.
But eventually, they'll build a fully automated self-service web app.
So there won't even be people behind the screen, the algorithm will just run itself and you'll be matched up with your wife.
It's quite interesting.
So, they've laid out their vision here, and this is the CEO talking.
And he says, the current options present limited information about each person, placing photos front and centre.
By reducing people to their appearances, they create a Pareto distribution where a few men receive almost all the female attention and vice versa, to a much greater extent than what's natural.
Keeper looks matter to Keeper, but so do hundreds of other things, and they present him as a whole person, including everything that's important for evaluating a long-term partner.
Says that current options obfuscate intentions and allow people to seek short-term relationships, even on serious dating apps.
But on Keeper, everyone is already looking for a serious relationship.
Anyone who isn't gets the boot.
So it's, it's like Sharia dating, but with...
You don't sound too optimistic, Stelios.
You're laughing.
You should... Hey, look, some of us out here are suffering.
Some of us haven't got a wonderful woman like you do.
So this might be really helpful to our audience, if you aren't all dating each other already.
Which, if you do, invite the Lotus East cast to the wedding, I suppose.
Current options.
Uniform and unisex profiles ignore individual preferences, sex differences, and the nuances of attraction psychology.
But on Keeper, profiles are sex differentiated, how transphobic, and tailored to each user's preferences, emphasizing the traits that each individual cares about the most.
So it seems actually this has built off some sensible, biologically rooted, traditional values.
And so it's not the intersectional AI that is going to ruin all civilization, but this might actually help people?
Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but it would be nice?
I don't think there's anything wrong with optimism in general.
But yeah, I mean, if it helps, it helps.
It only allows you to match one option at a time as well.
So, you can't just keep swiping and scrolling and talk to multiple people.
You can't multi-date.
So you have to be invested in one person.
It's a commitment.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, yeah.
See?
See?
We're giving you a white pill on a Friday.
Anyway, on to the next one.
This is just, if you just scroll down, there's going to be some images here, John.
There's going to be some graphs during this.
You call that a white pill?
Well, you know, you might get a wife out of it.
Who knows?
After what you showed me on the first segment.
Sorry.
You're welcome.
Anyway, so there are some graphs on here, actually, about how, if you keep just scrolling, please, John.
Otherwise, just keep going.
Just scroll as I talk, please.
There we go.
So there's a fertility rate here, there's marriages per 1,000 people, and they're all on the decline.
So if you use this resource as a reason as to why we may need our AO overlords to step in and have us start doing the baby-making process, especially after lockdown, it might be uplifting.
And the reason it might be uplifting, and I want to end with this, is because we have our first AI-arranged marriage.
I wasn't lying.
This couple used Keeper, and they got engaged, and they owe it to AI.
So they say, this is Jake Koloski, who's the founder of Keeper, it's partially inspired by the pronatalist movement, we are firm believers that more people is a good thing, generally speaking.
There we go.
It was this aspect of the project that attracted Sarah Morris, a 29-year-old Florida-based real estate developer, to Keeper.
The company's mission statement of picking up birth rates, that was an idea that really appeals to me, she told The Star.
Having nuclear families is a net good and makes people happy.
Her now-fiancé, 36-year-old software developer from Hollywood, Florida, shares her views.
Neither expected anything going through the app.
I thought I'd die alone, Noah Milstein said.
So, turns out that we're going to outbreed the left, thanks to AI.
I think that's pretty uplifting, really.
So, turns out, AI is returning us all to tradition.
Go out, sign up, worship our AI overlords, and be happy, ladies and gents.
Onto the video comments.
Utopia 2.0.
Available now on Amazon.com.
Part 5 depicts the abuses of power that this nation has allowed and ends with a plea for those that love their nations to do what they can to preserve its values.
Utopia 2.0.
What do you mean it's been like this the whole time?
Well, what are you gonna do about it?
No.
You made this mess.
You should have to clean it up yourself.
What do you mean he's on holiday?
Fine, I'll do it myself.
I like the do-it-yourself attitude.
I'm very confused.
If anyone's endorsing books, I will say Stefan Molyneux is releasing chapter by chapter his audiobook of The Present at the moment, and it's very good, so go and look at that on his website.
It's my reading recommendation of the week.
Anyway!
Name me one person who has died for someone else's free speech, despite them opposing their position.
Just name one.
Would you bar the authorities from storming Hitler's beer hall in 1920?
Would you hold fast the doors against a rampaging mob set to destroy Marx's manifesto at the printer?
Of course you wouldn't.
Only the things that we're willing to die for have value.
Free speech is an abstract myth, a luxury good of modern civilization.
People don't die for abstractions, we die for our home.
We need the self-governance and force of authority to keep our home a place we recognize.
The problem is that libertarians ask us to stand by on principles so we can be primed for a subversive conquest.
That's our problem with them.
Absolutely nothing he said there was wrong.
I can test that.
I'm not a free speech absolutist.
I think you're always going to have standards, it's just the prudentness of those standards and how you enforce them.
On to the next one!
So I was talking with someone about the game Deus Ex and we realized that a lot of that game is coming true.
It has come true.
I don't know who made that game.
I guess we should look into it.
I can look into it.
But it's starting to scare me because there's more stuff in that game that hasn't happened.
Maybe we should be asking what comes next in the plot.
Yeah, one game that I think is actually quite pressing is Final Fantasy VII, which was... I don't know if you've played that.
No.
No?
Okay, it was the first game I ever played and I played it for like two years straight from the ages of five to seven.
I haven't played the remake, but...
It's about a group of eco-terrorists who hire a former super-soldier who hallucinates a weird, sexually amorphous guy who worships a demon, who wants to destroy the world for Mother Earth, and how evil corporations are taking over and draining the lifeblood from the planet.
Seems about right.
Anyway, onto the comments, and I apologise to everyone for my voice.
I am slightly coming down with a cold, so... Michael Mu...
Why am I struggling reading that name?
It looks Greek.
Megois?
Yeah.
Body positivity is just slang for accepting fat, smelly communists that should actually be bullied into exercising.
Couldn't put it better myself.
Base 8.
Oh look, the lefties are getting naked to show kids they don't need to change anything about themselves to be comfortable with who they truly are, while also telling them they need to ingest hormones of the opposite sex and get full body augmentation surgery to be who they truly are.
That won't be confusing.
It's almost like the confusion is the deliberate point.
Sophie LePeterson.
I don't think these people have to be pedos.
It could also be that they feel horrible about their own botched bodies, so they're desperate for affirmation that they are beautiful, even if it has to come from children.
Yeah, exactly.
I agree with that.
Robert Longshaw.
Connor, a simple yes or no question to ask that weirdo would have been, did you enjoy exposing yourself to children?
Would have been fun to see him squirm.
So, not to drop chibi news in it, but in the UK we have Ofcom regulations.
And so, I asked the producer if I was allowed to say that his hard drive needed checking on air, and I was told I could not insinuate in any way whatsoever that the man was a paedophile.
Okay.
So, if you're asking, why didn't you say this?
There are certain things you're not allowed to.
But you are allowed to on LotusEaters.com, so keep paying us £5 a month and we can keep the lights on.
Thank you very much.
Alpha of the betas.
These are lost taboos.
Connor's absolutely right.
It's gaslighting and a gateway, not just to grooming children, but grooming society to normalise paedophilia.
Kevin Fox.
Yeah, I'm sure the boys felt better seeing a naked guy with a...
Mmm.
Or the girls felt better about their body seeing a woman with big boobs when they have next to none.
This series was all about exhibitionism, and as you said, Connor, exposing the kids to gender transition.
I mean, honestly, I don't understand any other explanation.
Just makes no sense.
This is actually a really good point that I'll end on for my section of the comments.
LaFrenchToast, I don't even look at myself in the mirror.
I don't care.
I've got things to build and a kid to raise right, so he in turn builds things of his own.
If you feel wrong looking in the mirror or watching other people's pictures on social media, stop doing that and go build things.
This is spot on.
The mouse utopia in the last stages before demographic collapse, you had lots of men who were grooming themselves and masturbating all the time, they're called the beautiful ones.
It's image self-obsessiveness.
Because if you have an abundant of resources and you don't have any responsibilities, you're so focused on the self you become neurotic and ultimately castrate yourself by being narcissistic.
Okay, let's go on the comments for the persecution of Riley Gaines.
Baron Von Warhawk.
Imagine being part of that mob, beating a woman and holding her hostage for women's rights.
You can hear them laughing and celebrating when they made her cry.
I shudder to imagine what these sadists would do if they ever got actual power.
It's modern Maoism.
That's it.
I mean, if you hear the chants and the way they were screaming, it's like, you know, they were trying to summon something.
Demonic possession.
Do you think they qualify as civilized?
The way they behave?
Not even remotely.
yelling and attacking woman.
These barbarians have not been civilized.
Do you think they qualify as civilized?
The way they behave?
Not even remotely.
I think it looks like a scene out of the Warriors.
Free Will 2112.
Again, the hard left shows us is its true face, a rabid dog of the leash.
And I think I want to add to this, it shows us people who are willing to downplay that and to say that, you know, no, no, okay, these are not the majority of the people on on the left or on these groups that they try to treat in a preferential manner, like the video we watched on the Young Turks.
Again, 21 12.
Again, free will.
Again, the hard left blames the violence on the victim of their violent intentions.
Classic doublespeak.
Exactly.
An American isolationist.
That case-by-case basis is going to be expanded to cover all trans athletes and the pushback is going to glorious to behold.
How does it feel, feminists?
How does it feel that the insanity that you helped create is now destroying what you helped created?
So the thing is, I think that that's correct because it is going to create the bureaucracy.
And very frequently we see in these institutions that there are people who take that place in the bureaucratic structure and they want to actually justify their salary.
And if their job is to invent problems or find problems, they will just create problems out of nowhere.
Yeah, never trust an activist to solve a problem.
They've got too much of a financial interest in seeing the problem prolonged.
AZ Desert Rat.
Biden is in the executive branch of the federal government.
He should not be making laws.
Stay in your lane.
Separation of powers.
Lord Nerevar.
The Riley Gaines thing is real fall of Rome material as far as I see it.
Women are subjected to literal street violence for pointing out a known and ancient fact about our actual biology.
And the people who protected her are shamed en masse.
This is the part of the collapse where we slowly forget basic things, like the definition of woman, and it becomes a radical act to believe and obey reality.
Buckle up.
I want to say that we have a saying in Greece that wherever we do not have the province of the logos or of speech, it's the province of brute force.
And I think that One of the reasons why speech is attacked, and basic notions are attacked, is so that we cannot basically talk together.
Immediate conflicts, yeah.
And they just think their side's going to win.
I was going to say on the separation of powers thing.
Sure, great idea.
It's going to be a fallacy if one side believes there is no truth but power, so they believe power is a totality, and they just want it.
Grant Gibson, for as often as Anna Kasparian has had to backtrack on previously deeply held convictions about crime and economics, you would think she would have an iota of intellectual humility.
I was very frustrated at the end where they put that in.
Sometimes it's good if you listen to stuff from the other side and you say, okay, that's a moment of lucidity, but then they had to destroy everything.
Of course, know thy enemy.
Esh Silver.
Gaines was actually falsely imprisoned by those lunatics in the university and threatened with demands before she was released.
Not only that, but the school then defending the crazed students means they must be sued for this gross compliance with criminal harassment and imprisonment.
And this presupposes that there has to be law enforcement there.
Yeah.
And that there has to be a police that wants to enforce the law to protect citizens.
Kerek Ghetto.
There is only one thing to say to this.
You voted for this.
You were not prepared.
No, you voted for this.
Well, Riley Gaines didn't.
Not her fault.
Joan of Arc.
After a certain age, women do not have many options on dating apps.
I capped out on around six on any app I tried, simply because I'm in my late thirties and not interested in men who are significantly younger.
Yeah, because female beauty is tied to fertility.
That's just a fact.
And this is the great shame, the lie that women are told, is that you can have the world when you're younger and have absolutely no consequences trying to put off having a relationship and a family when you get older.
No, if a good man comes along, And you still have ambitions, you still have a career, you still want to travel, you still want to see your friends.
It is your personal responsibility to secure that good man and have it so that you can live your life while living in a relationship.
And there are some sacrifices you're going to have to make in order to have a family younger, sure, but then it is better to have 40 years after 40 with a loving family and die with your hand in someone else's than be alone all that time just because you wanted to go to Bali when you were 25.
And that is a message to both men and women out there Commit.
Buckle up.
Right.
Lord Nerevar, on the bright side, I'm totally single, so an AI intervention may actually end up helping me.
Well, in the meantime, if any of our Lotus Seaters community members want to date each other, I mean, good luck.
At least you've got shared values in mind.
You could do worse, I suppose.
I've seen some of you folks, and I'm sure you'll be lovely together.
There's a value of belonging to a community.
Yeah, that's why you're better off meeting someone at a church or a political event.
You're actually, you know... Give it your best shot.
Meet in the comments.
Go out on a date.
Get coffee.
Get married.
Have kids.
Save the West.
Go for it!
Yeah, sure.
"Rue the day: Being a woman who's not been single a day in my entire adult life, looking at the state of young'uns in the mating market, I'm completely convinced we should bin everything that introduced us, introduced to us starting at the 1990s." Yeah.
Sure.
Weird decade.
Yeah.
Friends.
I blame it for everything.
Last couple.
Yeah, I agree.
Mary Harrington says much the same thing.
We should play a more active role in bringing people together.
There's a reason the grandmothers would give women a lunch when they're starting to put on a few pounds or, you know, they're getting to the end of their fertility years.
It would encourage you to have a lifelong and meaningful bond.
And the last one I'm going to read out...
I'm not going to make any altar boy jokes.
I was brought up in it because I've got an Irish family and my family went to church after my uncle died and they found it a really galvanising community thing.
I went away from it for a while and I came back because I like the structure of it.
We don't have a big Baptist tradition over in the UK so I can't speak to that but The Church of England has been ideologically captured and it's also significantly less beautiful than a lot of the Catholic churches.
Also, I really like my local priest because he's a based Canadian man who watches the show.
Hello, Father Alan.
That's all we've got time for today.
If you are still sticking around, if you haven't subscribed yet, you've still got time to pay £5 a month and leave some comments on the Hangout.
The Hangout goes live at half past three.
It's Carl and Callum talking about the Grooming Gang.
▲
Export Selection