Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 17, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:09

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #633

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music Hello, good afternoon and welcome to the podcast of Lotus Eaters episode 633 on today, the 17th of April 2023.
	I'm your host, Harry, joined today by my special guest, Stelios.
	Hello, hello.
	And we're going to be talking about how Cleopatra was not in fact black, sad to break it to you, Jeddah Pinkett-Smith, how the UN are going after your family, and we're going to be taking another look at this week in Rainbow, at the Rainbow Madness that is Ingolfing Society.
	And with that, let's get straight into the news, shall we?
	So, sad to break it to you Netflix, but it turns out that Cleopatra was not in fact black.
	This is not some ancient knowledge that has been held from people for thousands of years.
	This is not some secret conspiracy.
	This is something that has been well known for a very long time, ever since people were making paintings about Cleopatra or talking about Cleopatra.
	Because in fact, and I have an authentic Greek person here to confirm with me today.
	I confirm this.
	Was she in fact Greek?
	Yes, she was descended from the Ptolemaic dynasty.
	Ptolemy was one of the generals of Alexander the Great.
	You heard it here first, folks.
	So that's that first segment.
	Let's get on to the second one.
	No, no, we will have to address this a little bit further and give some more context to this.
	So before I do that, we've got some more premium content on the website.
	As always, this is going back a few months, though, to November of 2022.
	Because if you want to understand the origins of humanity and understand a little bit more about where we as human beings come from and where different races of people descend from, for instance, you would be doing well to look at this Contemplations on the Origin of Humanity.
	This is part one of a two-parter, so you'd best check out both parts.
	And if you want access to that, £5 a month, as little as £5 a month to access All of the premium work and all of the premium videos and articles that we've got on the website.
	So you'd be doing yourself a good favor doing so.
	But let's get into this.
	So what is it exactly that we're talking about?
	Well, Netflix did what Netflix always does, which is race swap iconic and notorious characters.
	Except, as we have become far more familiar with recently, they don't always have to be fictional characters that they are race swapping.
	It can in fact be historical figures.
	So Jada Pinkett Smith, who I can only assume has Had some backstage canoodling with some of the Netflix producers, perhaps, and on Will's approval, of course, to get this show ahead.
	She is executive producing a new show called Queen Cleopatra, which is a docuseries without much...
	document included in it, I can only assume, given that they are portraying her in all of the dramatized back... like, dramatizations of it as being black.
	And it says here in this particular article, so, it's a new documentary series exploring the lives of prominent and iconic African queens.
	And I think that's the thing that they always want to harp on, is the use of the word Africa, because to Americans, Africa is just the Black Continent.
	And they don't understand that there are different sections of Africa.
	There is Sub-Saharan Africa, and there is Saharan Africa, there's North Africa, Central Africa, West Africa.
	All sorts of places with all sorts of different people on it.
	But they hear Africa, they just go, da-da, Black place!
	That's where the black people come from.
	That's all they really think.
	And they don't understand that there is quite a bit of genetic diversity across the continent.
	Especially when it comes to the parts up north which are more Mediterranean and have a lot more intermixing with European and Middle Eastern people.
	Do you have anything to add or are you just nodding?
	Am I doing well?
	I think you're doing well.
	Thank you, Stelios.
	We're always here to support one another.
	I endorse your message.
	Thank you very much.
	And it says in here in this article, Theopatra's heritage has been the subject of much academic debate, which has often been ignored by Hollywood.
	Has it?
	Has it?
	Or is it just a bunch of activists showed up in the past 30 years or so going, we was pharaohs and I think the way I saw academia and the way it functions, it's very easy to come up with new things in order to just make a paper and to just make a new... If you want to be radical, you want to be coming up with the newest thing that's going to get all of the headlines, then you just make some random crap up.
	Yes, so especially when it comes to ancient times.
	It is easy for people to go and say none of the sources are contaminated, those who wrote it they had class prejudice, they had all sorts of biases.
	Why not?
	I believe the term is selective skepticism, where you would interrogate certain sources very very closely to the absolute minute detail, but then you go, but Cleopatra obviously was black then.
	Source, it came to me in a dream, obviously.
	Now our series reassesses this fascinating part of her story.
	A description of the new program stated on Netflix's YouTube account, Smith also serves as the narrator for the show, which sees the Egyptian royals as powerful black members of society.
	Doubt.
	X to doubt.
	Big X to big doubt, if we carry on.
	Of course, the people most annoyed about this are the people who you would expect to be, along with Egyptians, which we'll mention in a moment, but it's the Greeks.
	The Greeks in particular are annoyed about this, with this article from the Greek reporter called New Netflix Documentary Forgets Cleopatra Was Greek.
	I don't think they forgot.
	I don't think they forgot.
	I think they wanted to erase that, because media is a big way of how people form their attitudes and understanding of the world around them.
	I'm happy at least they wrote it because there are some Greeks nowadays back in Greece who don't care about it at all.
	They're ecophobic.
	Obviously we need to care about our heritage because our heritage informs our understanding of the present.
	But it's fun because I don't know if you have watched 300.
	I actually, I've seen bits and pieces of it.
	It wasn't particularly, you know, accurate in some cases.
	I don't think it was trying to be accurate.
	Yes, but it was fun that some people, you know, they were saying, no, no, they felt they had, there was the need to just say, no, no, those, those goats playing the flute, they weren't real.
	Just in case, just in case you thought, wow, what happened to those ultra advanced goats back in ancient times?
	People forgot about them.
	Maybe.
	Maybe they just got left out of the historical record.
	So the documentary has been criticized for blackwashing.
	That's not a thing that happens.
	Only whitewashing ever happens.
	I've never heard of this.
	This must be very racist.
	This is very anti-racist of the Greek reporters right now.
	Due to the decision to depict Cleopatra as black despite the historical figure being of Greek descent.
	And this is where I come to the most important question.
	Are you black?
	What do you mean?
	Well, according to this, Greek people are black apparently.
	It depends how you understand the notion.
	Okay.
	How do you understand the notion?
	You're asking me.
	Presumably you need to know what you're asking me.
	Just because you don't look black to me.
	Do you feel black?
	I think that's what most people care about.
	What does it mean to feel?
	How do you feel?
	I don't understand.
	What does it mean to say you feel black or white?
	Do you feel the need to abandon women at a moment's notice?
	Confirmed, not black.
	Cleopatra, it goes on for a nice little history lesson here.
	Cleopatra VII Philopater.
	Philopater, is that how you pronounce it?
	Am I doing it right?
	Belonged to the Ptolemaic dynasty, the Macedonian Greek royal dynasty that ruled Egypt during the Hellenistic period.
	She was descended of Ptolemy I Soter.
	Is that how I pronounce it?
	Sorry, where are you?
	Yes, you could say Soter.
	Okay, a Macedonian Greek general who served alongside Alexander the Great and founded the Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt after Alexander's death.
	Alexander, of course, notoriously blonde.
	Some online commenters have expressed puzzlement over the decision to inaccurately portray a historical figure in what is meant to be an educational documentary.
	One user who commented on the YouTube trailer and garnered over two and a half thousand likes wrote, Cleopatra was so Greek And so separated from what we know as Egyptian, that her being able to speak Egyptian along with Greek was a marvel.
	I think she was the only person of her family to speak Egyptian.
	That's what it says.
	If we carry on, the rest of this article, this first part is what's addressing the controversy.
	The rest of this article, because I assume the person writing this was furiously typing away, decided to give an entire history lesson of the Ptolemaic Kingdom and all of its dynasty and all of the people who were involved in it.
	It's very interesting, to be fair, but I don't have enough time to go through the whole thing right now.
	He ends with saying that Cleopatra, a direct descendant of Ptolemy, well, first of all, they also practiced interbreeding and sibling marriage because they wanted to keep their line pure, so if you wanted to say, ah, well, the rest of the Egyptians were black and they just interbred with them, no, no, they actively slept with each other to make sure that that didn't happen.
	A director, but she was a direct descendant of Ptolemy.
	She was the first Ptolemaic ruler to learn the Egyptian language, as all those before her spoke only Greek.
	She was also believed to have spoken Ethiopian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac, Median, Parthian, and Latin.
	So she was not native to Africa, likely not black, and was the first person to actually learn to speak African languages in her line in the first place.
	So where do you think the split is coming from with all of this?
	Could it be political in motivation, perhaps?
	I really didn't know this about how many languages she is thought to have spoken.
	I mean, once again, when it says she's believed to have, it's interesting.
	Maybe it's like, you know, learning to say hello in all these languages.
	Yes, I speak French.
	Bonjour.
	Yeah.
	Oh, actually, no, here's... You have people from all places, you know, trying to give you presents and gifts and ask you for favours.
	And you say, you know, you greet them all in their language and you say, check.
	There we go.
	Aramaic, Czech.
	Hola.
	That's right.
	What's hello in Greek?
	Syriac, Czech.
	Yasu.
	Yasu.
	I can speak Greek now.
	Confirmed.
	Actually, I've just thought of another one for the checklist.
	Have you ever started a fight at a Waffle House?
	No, but...
	But you do want to.
	After the segment we did, I don't know, it just spoke to me.
	Or I would be there and I would just take a video of it.
	There was a part of your spirit calling out to the people in those videos, just going, I'm there with you, in spirit, I'm by your side, throwing things at these poor employees.
	But once again, this is entirely political in motivation.
	Media affects how people see the world, it especially affects how people see the past, because the past is something we're disconnected from in the first place.
	So if you see something portrayed as being factual in the past, especially if it's a documentary series, then you're just going to go, oh, I guess they were black.
	And that affects how people see reality right now, because there was the Polls taken last year that Karl covered, where English people were polled, how much of the population of England do you think is black?
	And they came out with ridiculous, like 20 to 30 percent, something like that.
	It's 3.4 percent, but the reason they thought it was so vastly over-represented in comparison to what it actually is, is because of the over-representation of black people within media.
	And that's the point, it's supposed to distort our understanding of the world around us, and in particular when it comes to things like this, that directly assault the past, It's supposed to distort our image of our own European identities.
	I want to say something because I don't know what Jada Pinkett Smith is thinking, but it seems to me to be very patronizing.
	Not to white people, but because I cannot think that there is no personality that they could have a docuseries about.
	There are.
	Okay?
	So I don't understand why they have to do this.
	Well, of course there are, but they weren't in charge of as impressive a nation or empire as Egypt.
	They want to take, you know, it's the whole blacks built America.
	They want to take credit for all of the most impressive civilizations that have ever existed.
	Because part of it is supposed to be, as far as I'm concerned, is supposed to be demoralizing the native populations or the native peoples, if you're talking about America, the descendants of Europeans.
	It's supposed to be demoralizing people of European descent so that, as far as I'm concerned, so that they're basically happy to step aside and let themselves be replaced.
	And how does it moralize someone if they are portraying something that any sort of historical book says otherwise?
	How are they sculpting?
	This is not the first time they've tried to portray the pharaohs and the Egyptians as black.
	I'm not accusing you as a representative of Jada Pinkett Smith.
	I'm just illustrating the questions.
	No, that's a good point, but I don't think that is the point.
	It's basically just trying to steal other people's history.
	is all it's about and uh Egypt as well Egyptians were not particularly happy with this because they can recognize that hold up this is a bit weird we're not happy about this they've had minister of antiquities they've had people saying it's falsifying facts etc etc and then if you actually go back and look at some of the genetic research and find out
	Who the ancient Egyptians were, not just the Ptolemaic dynasty because of course they were a ruling class that practiced incest so that they could maintain genetic diversity away from the people that they were ruling over, but what were the ancient Egyptians themselves?
	And they looked at some of the mummies before the Telemics, and they came to some interesting conclusions here, which was that they were very closely related to ancient Middle Easterners, which was hinting that northern Africans might have different genetic roots from people south of the Sahara Desert.
	This was published on the 30th of May in, I think, 2017.
	It included a study that took data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 BC during Egypt's New Kingdom and AD 425 in the Roman era.
	The findings showed that the mummies' closest kins were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan.
	Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from Central Africa.
	The genomic material they studied showed that ancient Egyptians shared little DNA with the modern Sub-Saharan Africans.
	Instead, their closest relatives were people living during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages in an area known as the Levant.
	Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians.
	Now, do you know who else looks a lot like Levantines being directly descended from them in the modern era?
	Many people, but... Many people, but in particular, for instance, we have Ashkenazi Jews, who are directly descended from these Levantine people.
	So we've got people like David Schwimmer...
	We've got people like Larry David, Jeff Goldblum.
	Are any of these people black?
	I wouldn't say so.
	I certainly wouldn't say so either.
	So it says here that the pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA came into Egypt roughly about 700 years ago.
	And modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can mummies from Abusir el-Melek.
	So that's just interesting little tidbits of ancient Egyptian DNA here that shows that even if they were trying to depict the actual reality of the Egyptian majority, it still wouldn't be accurate.
	Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the terms black and white nowadays are very much used in the other side of the Atlantic, and very in, let's say, in the US, and very frequently those who see the, let's say, the history of the US as sort of You know, the CRT thing.
	Yeah.
	That now says that the Project 1619 that the US started in the 1619 and that… Trying to reframe the history as being as soon as black people showed up on the continent.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	That was a very particular, let's say, rivalry or a very particular relation, but it doesn't exhaust all human beings on the planet.
	No, certainly it doesn't, and trying to apply those racial dynamics from America to the rest of the world is massively ahistorical.
	Exactly, and I think that it is very weird.
	Also, I don't understand why they're doing it.
	It could be lack of historical understanding.
	It could be lack of the proper, let's say, how should I say it?
	They may not care about it.
	They may be ignorant, but also they could have any agenda, as you were saying.
	Well, I think there is an agenda.
	I also do think that America is the leading global superpower, correct?
	And a lot of European countries in particular are essentially under the financial boot.
	I mean, this may not last for much longer if you've been following Dan.
	He's been covering a lot of what's been going on with the potential demise of the petrodollar and the Saudi Arabians making deals in the back rooms with China and then just coming out and saying all of this.
	But either way, what happens when you have a global superpower is they always try to impose their own culture on the places which are essentially vassal states to them.
	I mean, the British Empire was a bit more hands-off with all of this, but America is very hands-on and wants to transpose its own culture onto the other parts of the world.
	And so our own culture as Europeans is suddenly having to be portrayed in this very Americanized, black-and-white moral dichotomy of slave versus non-slave, etc., etc., everything that comes off of the back of that with all the CRT, despite the fact that's not our history.
	But it's being imposed upon us, and I would say for an agenda, personally.
	Because this does remind me of something else that was very agenda-driven at the time, which was back in 2018, in England, we had the discovery of Cheddar Man.
	Well, not the discovery.
	Cheddar Man was discovered in 1903, but we had the discovery of his genome.
	His genome being put through a model, through researchers, which determined he was blue-eyed, yes, but had dark skin.
	And this is supposedly an accurate representation of what Cheddar Man looked like.
	Now, if you're familiar with Cheddar Man, he would have been around 10,000 years ago, and he would have been somebody who was part of the Western hunter-gatherer tribe of people, which, apart from Cheddar Man, have always been depicted as, yeah, slightly darker skin than, say, I would have now as a modern Anglo.
	But still, very fair skin, fair hair, blue eyes, etc.
	This was a complete rewriting of what we were supposed to be expecting, and it was done under the auspices of being scientific.
	So if I read through here, it was a cutting-edge scientific analysis that showed a Britain from 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes.
	It underlied the fact that the lighter skin characteristic of modern Europeans is a relatively recent phenomenon.
	This combination might appear striking to us today, but it was a common appearance in Western Europe during this period.
	So here we see the nudging of our own ideas, of our own heritage, and our own history in England, certainly, of what the Britons were like, and what the sort of stock of people that we originated from.
	Stephen Clarke, director of the Channel 4 documentary, and this was done as part of a Channel 4 documentary, and as anybody who lives in England knows, Channel 4 is the place to go for subversive content that will tell you that you're an awful person, constantly, if you're a white male.
	He said, Unusually preoccupied with skin pigmentation, and Professor Mark Thomas, a geneticist from UCL, said it becomes part of our understanding, and this is about Cheddar Man and these new revelations that he was actually brown-skinned.
	I think that would be a much better thing.
	I think it would be good if people lodge it in their heads and it becomes part of their knowledge, and this is where the agenda comes in.
	This is why I see it as being very agenda-driven, because that's the whole point of telling this lie, and we'll Yes, this person is obviously applying a double standard, because if we are led to the idea that colour doesn't matter, then how would they feel if, for instance, there was a biopic of Obama that was not played by a... Ryan Gosling plays Obama.
	Ryan Gosling is MLK.
	That person in 4chan you mentioned would not like it, presumably.
	No, I would imagine not.
	It's not an issue of...
	Even at the moment, there is the most recent one.
	I've not included an article about this, but John, if you'd like to bring it up very quickly because you mentioned it, there was the adaptation, the film adaptation being done currently, of Lilo and Sitch, and there's all of a sudden a big controversy come around because one of the actresses who's going to be portraying one of the characters from the show She is Hawaiian.
	She's of Hawaiian descent, but she has slightly lighter skin than is depicted in the original television show.
	And apparently, despite the fact... Despite the fact... Here we go.
	She's Hawaiian.
	Okay?
	But she's not as brown.
	She's not got as much of a tan as this person on the right does.
	Therefore, everybody has to go absolutely insane and say, oh my god, this is so terrible.
	Because if you go from brown to lighter skin, that's whitewashing.
	That's evil.
	That's something you're not allowed to do.
	If it's the opposite way around, well, we're just trying to portray a more accurate representation of history.
	Or, This is one of the more insidious things that they do, and you can go and find documents from Channel 4 and from Ofcom, the regulators of media in the UK, and find articles of them talking about how we need to reframe history to make it more inclusive to a multicultural Britain.
	I think there are many problems here, and especially I saw some of them in my travels in academia, because there is a presupposition that many people have when they are putting forward CRT and all those theories, that the students that Or that lesson to particular, let's say, lectures.
	They are going to feel more included if the person that is being talked about has some resemblances with them.
	And I find that to be completely mistaken.
	And I find that to actually create problems where there weren't any.
	And that frequently happens when we have people who are really much statist.
	They want to create a trouble in order to pose themselves as a solution as well.
	Oh yeah, I mean that's just something that's, even outside of the media, you can see a lot of protests and organisations that organise protests against the government, when you actually look into the funding, are basically being funded by the government or the intelligence services, so you find that what these governments are doing is they're funding their own opposition so that they can pretend like there's a ground swelling of support for a decision that they had already decided they were going to do.
	So, like you say, it's the statism where they go, we're going to do this thing but we want to pretend like we're populists.
	Yes.
	Essentially.
	And that's what happens a lot here and, you know, without even really looking into much of the rest of the information, all of a sudden you had the Guardian coming out along these lines as well saying that Cheddar Man changes the way that we think about our ancestors.
	The study of a 10,000 year old man surprised people when it revealed his blue eyes and dark skin and few predicted he would reshape our view of genetic heritage.
	Yes, except for the people Writing these headlines, writing these articles, who actively wanted to reshape the view of our own genetic heritage.
	National Geographic came out as well saying Britain's dark-skinned blue-eyed ancestor explained that has no pushback, no pushback against any of it except What do you mean no pushback?
	No one said... No one says, hold up, this is very strange, would a person with skin this dark have been able to survive very well in Northern Hemisphere where the sunlight wouldn't have provided them with enough vitamin D that their skin could absorb?
	Just very simple questions.
	They don't mention things like this, they just go, guess who was black then?
	Just guess he was black then.
	Except there was a problem with this whole thing all along, which was that... If you go to the next one, the New Scientist did this article saying, oh, it might not actually be true.
	It might not actually be true, so... They point out in here, our species reached Europe 30,000 years before Cheddar Man lived, so if you want to say that there were dark-skinned people who arrived in Britain, His ancestors would have had plenty of time to evolve paler skin, and also researchers from the actual study itself, including Susan Walsh at Indiana University, Purdue University, Indianapolis, read Cheddar Man's DNA.
	Walsh had helped to develop a model that attempted to predict someone's eye, hair, and skin pigmentation solely from their DNA, and the team applied this model to Cheddar Man, and that's what provided us with this idea of Black Cheddar Man.
	Essentially.
	And that's what all of the newspapers all picked up at once and said, I guess we're all black then.
	If you go far enough back, I guess we're all black.
	I don't like these slogans.
	It's like the slogan that once was mentioned, that we're all Keynesians now.
	Oh yeah.
	Was that Nixon who said that?
	I'm not certain, but... Or was it Friedman?
	It was Friedman or Nixon who said we're all Keynesians now.
	I don't think it was Friedman.
	I think if it was him who said it, I think he was saying it sarcastically and it just got picked up on.
	But either way, Walsh, however, stressed that the study doesn't conclusively demonstrate that Cheddar Man had dark to black skin.
	We cannot place such confidence in a DNA analysis, she says.
	For one thing, Cheddar Man's DNA has degraded over the past 10,000 years, so we're working with A pretty unreliable sample to begin with, is what she's saying.
	In fact, we're not ready to predict the skin color of prehistoric people at all just from their genes, said Brenna Henn at Stony Brook University in New York.
	That's because the genetics of skin pigmentation turn out to be much more complex than we originally thought.
	And Henn's team, in the past, had tested an older model that aimed to predict skin color from DNA.
	When they put it to work among South African populations, It literally predicted that people with the darkest skins would have the lightest skins.
	So we can just say this technology is very new, very unreliable in the first place, and the DNA that we're working from is 10,000 years old and was found in some cave somewhere.
	So it's very likely to have degraded over that time to the point where it's not going to provide an accurate representation.
	Despite that, they come up with this model of Cheddar Man, where they go, he's dark skin, and all of the newspapers immediately jump on it.
	But there was even One more problem, which is that we have a direct genetic ancestor of Cheddar Man, who, you know, is called Mr. Target, and he was confirmed after DNA was tested from Cheddar Man's teeth.
	Do you see a problem here?
	Do you see a problem here?
	Is there?
	Because he actually does look quite a lot like him in terms of facial structure.
	You've even got the same blue eyes.
	But, I see one of these things is not like the other.
	What is it?
	What is it?
	I can't tell.
	I can't tell either, but if you can tell, please help us by leaving a comment down under this video below and try and help us figure out what the difference between these two people is.
	But what have we learned today?
	So as far as I've learned, the historical record is Always up for grabs.
	People will always be trying to use it as a political tool to push their own agenda, and the agenda that's going right now is they want to demoralize and humiliate the native people of Europe, change their history, and make it so that they aren't who they actually are, so that they're more than happy to step aside while our elites replace us.
	Right.
	Let us now proceed to talk about how blue states in the US are targeting the family.
	Now, the institution of the family is the cornerstone of every society.
	A government that disrespects the family by downplaying the role that parents have to play and the challenges that they face when they raise children is just contributing to the social moral disintegration.
	And it seems to me that right now there is a very strong message that is being communicated that In general, government knows best what is in the interest of, let's say, children.
	Now, in some cases, there are exceptions in saying that all parents are good.
	Of course, there are horrible parents.
	Of course.
	But the problem is that right now, I think, we encounter a very strong message that tries to convince us that the default position is that government knows best and that government loves best.
	So that's where the whole thing is.
	And I think that in general this shows various attempts to destroy civil society and say that we always need a middleman, the government, that is going to be the boogeyman that will allow us to be good to one another.
	Without the government, we cannot, for instance, be good to one another.
	Parents can be good to their children, whatever.
	And the point is that it seems to me that this is a very wrong way to go about it.
	It's very disrespectful from the government And the state officials of a society to tell the members of that society that we know better than you and we love your children better than you.
	That's very much disrespectful, I think.
	And it's not what a society should be like.
	And after all, I want to say that it is an important issue because families raise the generations of tomorrow.
	And speaking of generations, you can visit our website.
	And have a look at...
	Harry and Rory's discussion about the Zuma generation.
	Also, for £5 a month, you can support us and subscribe and have access to all our premium content.
	Now, I must say that this is a very interesting conversation.
	It's nice to get Rory in front of the camera sometimes, because Rory is our editor, he doesn't always appear in videos, and he always puts forward very interesting perspectives.
	He's much more intellectual than just looking at him, but he does resemble somewhat the Kuma Wojak meme,
	um which makes it when he opens his mouth and has deepened intellectual thoughts about Nietzsche and other types of philosophers it makes it all the more surprising he's a very thoughtful man so it's good to have him in front of the camera and it was a very interesting discussion although i do think we only scratched the surface of this and we did only look at kind of the surface level of zoom so i think there is at least at the very least a part two in the making for this and watch it and definitely watch it if you want to see harry's territorial choices for that
	I have excellent fashion sense.
	Okay.
	Okay, now... You can be a bit more sincere about that, okay?
	We have news from Indiana and Idaho.
	If we can move to the next article, please.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, if we read a bit, it says, Republican governors in Indiana and Idaho have signed into law bills banning gender-affirming care for minors, making those states the latest to restrict transgender health care as Republican-led legislatures continue to curb LGBTQ plus rights this year.
	Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed legislation Wednesday that will prohibit transgender youth from accessing medication or surgeries that aid in transition and mandate those currently taking medication to stop by the end of next year.
	Now there was a blue state response to this because there had to be.
	Was it was it we're going to trans your kids whether you want it or not?
	You'll see and you'll tell me at the end, towards the end.
	Now that was Senate Bill in Washington State 5599.
	But let us watch a bit to get some context.
	I'm coming to you today because I've got some bad news and some good news.
	The bad news is that the state of Idaho has just banned gender-affirming care for young people in their state.
	The good news, though, is that here in Washington, we are focused on protecting our young people and protecting everyone in the state and people who want to travel here.
	It just reminds us all in this moment why we have to fight so hard to ensure that young people in our state get access to this essential life-giving care.
	We've passed legislation to do that.
	This year we're focused on making sure that young people have housing and other supports.
	That's our job not only as individuals but as a state.
	People should have the ability to make decisions for their own bodies and to consult whoever they want, whether it be a health care provider or their family member or they're a religious leader, in order to make decisions about what they want to do with their bodies.
	We want this for adults and for young people and we will not go backwards here in Washington.
	Trying every day to make sure that we assure that Washington State is the safe place for individuals to come If they find themselves needing health care, needing reproductive care, needing gender-affirming care and are unable to do that in their own communities.
	You're going to stand with the people of Washington State and with young people and others who are coming from other states to get services here.
	So that they can get the care that they want, that they need, and they deserve.
	Trans youth across our state and across the country, we see you, we love you, we support you, and we want to create a state and communities here in Washington that provide you the place you need to grow and learn and thrive exactly as you were meant to be.
	We know that sometimes that times are hard and that it is hard to hear some of this news coming from across the state but that Washington is a place where you can be safe and that's what we want you to do is to be safe, to feel cared for and to feel loved.
	You are loved.
	A lot of old creepy weirdos eager to mutilate children in that video.
	You have, you know, you have all this music behind, trying to give you the sense that people care for you.
	But I see in their phrases some things I want to, some questions that arise.
	So people should have the ability to make decisions for their own bodies and to consult whoever they want, whether it be in a health care provider, a health care provider, or their family member or their religious leader in order to make decisions about what they want to do with their bodies.
	Now, They said nothing about age.
	- Well, no, the only thing they said about age was young people. - How old, yeah.
	How old are these people we are talking about?
	How old are these people who, for some reason, feel they have to make decisions about their bodies?
	Well, according to some scientific experts, people know their gender identity in the womb.
	And I want to say that if we focus on the rhetoric and on the way that these messages are communicated, we see constantly an appeal to feeling.
	We constantly see an appeal to how people feel respected, how they feel about their bodies, how they feel about their identities, but we never hear about how people think.
	And I think that this is really dangerous because emotion is very much manipulable.
	And one of the things that this doesn't show is that I think in raising children, you need to teach them discipline.
	And to teach them discipline, you need to teach them that not every time that you shouldn't do every time what you feel like doing.
	No, absolutely not.
	There sometimes should be a distinction.
	And there is and should be a distinction between how you feel and what you should do.
	And this is what good parents do.
	When they see that their children are undisciplined, they try to tell them that, they try to foster a mindset of discipline to them.
	And I think that these kinds of rhetoric, they are at best, let's say, if I wanted to be charitable.
	I would say that these people are... they are very sensitive and they focus on sensitivity, if I wanted to be charitable.
	Now, I don't know about... I have long given up assigning good faith to these people, personally, but I respect that you're trying to be charitable.
	Okay, let's move forward to SB 99.
	To, yes.
	Is that SB 5599?
	Yes, sorry, excuse me.
	Sorry, sorry.
	Let's, okay.
	So, Washington state could soon require youth shelters to hide minors who run away from home in order to obtain an abortion or sex change operations without parental consent.
	And this is minors?
	Yes, this is also minors, and you will see how they do it.
	So, from my understanding, in Washington state there were some laws in place that said that when you have children seeking, let's say, shelter in particular institutions, I think in this case it's the youth shelter, that in some cases their parents should not be contacted.
	But this bill changes a bit the scope of a notion.
	So if we see here, if we read on this article says that the Washington House of Representatives this week passed Senate Bill 5599, which would eliminate a law that requires youth shelters to alert parents when their child checks in, unless there is evidence the child is being abused.
	Now, let's pause here for a minute.
	As we said in the beginning, of course, there are horrible parents.
	Of course.
	There are horrible parents.
	I've met some in my time.
	It's inevitable, sadly, that it will happen, but it's nowhere near as common as people in, say, Washington State or the people who passed this bill would like you to believe it is, because the immediate framing here is basically saying that if you do not go along with your child's whimsical ideas of gender identity before they're anywhere near mature enough to really understand what any of it means in the first place, you are being abusive towards them.
	Exactly.
	And the point is, though, that this is where the majority of the people who do not, let's say, have the time to read to this, because for all sorts of reasons, that they need to be a bit more careful.
	Because when we are looking out on the phrase that, okay, children should not be abused, of course, they should not be abused.
	But the question is, whenever we are talking about a legal things from a legal perspective, and whenever we talk about laws and law enforcement, we should always ask, what constitutes abuse?
	Now, of course, sometimes there is physical abuse, there is psychological abuse, there are all sorts of abuses.
	But if we check the, let's say the next link, please.
	Here, this is the Senate bill report, ESSB 5595.
	It says, title, an act relating to supporting youth and young adults seeking protected health care services.
	Brief description, supporting youth and young adults seeking protected health care services.
	Now if we scroll down a bit there on the side where it says brief summary of engrossed first substitute bill it says provided that a licensed shelter for runaway or homeless youth does not need to contact the youth's parents if there is compelling reason not to up so far that can make sense.
	But the question is, when we're talking about compelling reason not to, what constitutes as a compelling reason not to?
	The immediate answer is abuse.
	But then we need to ask again, what constitutes abuse, or what is involved in abuse?
	So if we finish the sentence says, which includes a youth seeking protected health services, and then allows host homes to house youth without parental permission, if a youth is seeking or receiving protected health care services.
	So, if I were to translate this from legalese, it's pretty easy to understand anyway, but I'm going to translate it into rhetoric for everybody.
	What this is saying is, the state of Washington is more than happy to let complete strangers steal and house your children, all on the basis of wanting them to access surgery which will irreversibly scar their bodies.
	There you go, that's what this is all in service and aid of.
	I don't know if we should blame this on progressive parenting or progressive parenting is something that comes after the main cause of the trouble.
	Of course, there is a variety of causes, but it seems to me that there is a problem, a cultural problem that many people face when they think that that the child should never feel bad, and that if we feel bad that there is something wrong with us.
	It's very natural and very human to feel bad, but if we... Feeling bad is often a sign that we're doing something wrong, so if children are feeling bad about the actions they're taking that might just be a moral response to their feeling, say if a child is misbehaving.
	I think that there is a difference between feeling bad, which is natural, and feeling guilty.
	It seems to me that what you're referring to is a sort of the first effect of moral conscience.
	I think that that's good.
	But I'm talking about the other feeling that, you know, when you feel a bit under the weather.
	There are many people now, let's say helicopter parents, for instance, who completely panic over some responses
	some equivalent responses of their children and they constantly start thinking no my child should never feel bad if it feels bad there's something wrong and i should do something about it and they keep on trying to brainstorm and they're creating problems where they didn't exist they bubble wrap the child's life which just leads them in a position later on in their own life where they won't be able to handle any amount of conflict or negativity Exactly.
	And to be fair, this isn't necessarily something that comes from the parents.
	Now that children have access to social media, there are many accounts, there are plenty accounts of people who put forward ideas of the sort.
	And they constantly try to create this idea of not feeling well.
	And that they try to say that if you don't feel well, you should do something.
	There's something wrong with you.
	Now, the point is that it seems to me that this, all of this is Focused again, at least if we are a bit charitable, it comes from a very extreme focusing on sensitivity.
	Now, let us watch the next video because we want to see the other side of it, the side of those who are harmed by the governmental, let's say, effort to withdraw information and shield information to parents about their children.
	Hi, for those that don't know me, my name is Aurora Regino and I am the mother that filed a lawsuit in federal court against Chico Unified for transitioning my daughter without my knowledge.
	I'm here today to tell my story so parents and the public know what is going on in our schools.
	Last year, my 11-year-old daughter was in elementary school here at Chico Unified, and her elementary school transitioned her from female to male behind my back.
	Shortly before this happened, my father had recently passed away, and I was diagnosed with breast cancer.
	My daughter was distressed and began questioning her sexuality, so she decided to reach out to a wellness counselor at her elementary school.
	The day my daughter shared with her guidance counselor that she felt like a boy, The counselor immediately affirmed this new identity.
	From then on, the counselor continued to have one-on-one meetings with my daughter without my knowledge.
	During one of those one-on-one meetings, my daughter told the counselor she wanted to tell me about her new identity.
	The counselor ignored her requests and did nothing to support her in letting me know what was going on at school.
	Throughout her transition, my daughter changed very quickly, was bullied, and as a result was very unhappy.
	And because her school kept this transition a secret from me, she was on her own.
	I'm a busy, working mother, just like the rest of you.
	Before this happened to our family, I would have not believed this was going on in our schools, especially at the elementary level.
	I want everyone to know, I understand that, I want everyone to understand that I want a space for our LGBTQ and trans community members to feel safe and supported.
	But the policy currently in place at Chico Unified has been damaging to our family.
	And I am not up here talking about what could happen if you continue this policy.
	I am up here telling you what did happen to our family.
	This was a time when she needed me the most and you kept it a secret from me.
	I understand that you are trying to find ways to create a safe environment for all children within our district, but keeping secrets from parents is not the way to do it.
	Treating every parent as a potential threat to their kids is wrong.
	I know it's easy to make up a narrative when it comes to my case.
	I know it's easy for people to judge and say my daughter must have not felt safe or supported.
	And that's the reason for telling her counselor.
	But regardless of what big people say, I love my children and there isn't anything they could ever do to change that.
	It wouldn't have mattered to me whether my daughter continued to identify as a male.
	I would love her the same.
	It's a slippery slope to allow any adult in our schools to keep secrets from parents for any reason.
	The actions the school board district took to immediately exclude me from supporting my daughter was very damaging to her and our family.
	She was very young and didn't understand what being transgender really meant or the obstacle she would face going through a transition.
	The school transitioned her and left her to figure it out on her own.
	It seems to me the district is getting it wrong on both sides.
	You don't know how to handle these very serious and sensitive situations.
	Because once you transitioned her, you left her to handle it all by herself, the bullying and the staff even outing her.
	Thank you.
	Okay, this was a long video, but I thought that it was, let's say, very important to show all of it, the entirety of it.
	I'm sorry, I just caught a glimpse of what's going to be coming up next.
	But on that particular video, I will have to say, and I'm not saying that what's happened to her daughter is excusable or anything like that, but she did, partway through that, she affirmed the
	Primacy and importance of LGBT trans blah blah blah and then I looked it up and this Chico district that she's from Within is in California So I can only imagine that this is a woman who up until it suddenly showed up came knocking on her doorstep doorstep was fully in support of this and all of a sudden the reality of it has come crashing down in front of her and
	Now she's getting up, she's still having to go through the ritual, she still has to affirm her allegiance to everything that's going on, but she's come face-to-face with the reality that, no, this is children being manipulated.
	And I can feel sorry for her, but I don't feel sorry for the fact that she is still trying to show her own allegiance to these incredibly damaging ideologies.
	I really don't know what to say about this and I really don't know whether she does this on, let's say, on rhetorical grounds or because she is talking to an audience and she, maybe she thinks... It will be a captured audience, she being further.
	Whatever, but I mean, whatever, wherever she comes from, I think what happened to her is monstrous.
	No, of course.
	And it's very, it shows very Well, how dangerous a slippery slope we're in right now, because we have people at schools trying to, let's say, use the rage of children, that many children feel rage towards their parents, or confusion.
	They try to use it against their parents, and they try to become, let's say, I don't know, is it a savior complex?
	They want to somehow say, no, no, I know better than you how to raise your... They want to become almost surrogates for these children.
	Yes.
	Because, let's be honest, a lot of people who are pushing this sort of stuff aren't the kinds who will have children of their own.
	So they will look for something to replace that hole elsewhere, and if that means taking other people's children and then moulding them in your image, making them more like you, making them believe in the things that you do, So, there were some responses from the people from that school, and there was an article from the Daily Mail that shows some of them.
	So, what this mother said, the day my daughter shared with her guidance counselor that she fed like a boy, the counselor immediately affirmed this new identity.
	My daughter told the counselor she wanted to tell me about her new identity.
	The counselor ignored her request and did nothing to support her in letting me know what was going on at school.
	Oliver Phillips, an educator supporting student privacy policy, claimed: "We as educators and service providers, we as educators need to cultivate an environment where students feel trust and safety and acceptance, to be unapologetically themselves without repercussions of to be unapologetically themselves without repercussions of backlash." So, again, the same question comes in: Why do you think that these children are not trusted?
	Why?
	Because their parents disagree with their assessment or interpretation of what they feel.
	I think, again, that's terribly dangerous.
	Now, we can look at the next video, please.
	Squeaky St.
	Francis.
	One of the first things we learn in a healthy family is trust, and unfortunately some parents don't trust their children when they say, this is me.
	And they make that decision for them.
	That may make the child fearful from the people that claim to be trying to protect them.
	These children may see the hate and prejudice at home for people just like them and feel the only place they can truly be themselves is at school.
	Okay, I'm just going to say this person did not come from a healthy home and has no right to be talking of a healthy home.
	You can see the insufferable women with their rainbow badges, their badges of allegiance, nodding along in the background.
	The very fact that this crowd has so many people still wearing masks, I think demonstrates the character of people that they're speaking to here.
	The fact that this person can get up and not be immediately laughed off of the podium is a travesty.
	Yes, and the message is very harrowing because growing up is difficult.
	Growing up is difficult.
	Almost no one has an easy time growing up.
	And I think that what this person says is very much, I would say, disgusting because Why do you take the testimony of children as sacrosanct?
	And it's not an issue of testimony, it's an issue of how they interpret their own experience.
	They haven't developed yet the conceptual capacity to give a good interpretation of their experience.
	So, what this person says is that parents who are not affirming or are not playing along with whatever their children say about themselves are harmful and abusive.
	And if we link that with the Senate Bill 5599, this person would say that, well, these people should leave their home and their parents are abusive.
	And we all know that when a segment of the population is being presented as necessarily abusive, the road for depriving that segment of the population of their right has been paved.
	Once again, if you in the audience, I know you don't, if you're watching this right now, if you're watching this video, we know that you're a sane person with your head screwed on.
	If you trust this person to be able to accurately describe what an abusive parent looks like, you need to get your head checked.
	And now we could go to a new ICG report.
	We could skip that.
	So there was the International Court of Jurists published a report.
	It's called the 8 March Principles for a Human Rights Based Approach to Criminal Law, Prescribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, homelessness, and poverty.
	Now, this is a group of jurists who had this, let's say, document, who put forward this document, and they are saying that criminal law and law enforcement has consequences that are, has adverse consequences for structural equality.
	And that, you know, minorities are, let's say, harmed by existing criminal law and its enforcement, and they are trying to put forward a new kind of rights-based approach.
	And they're presenting all these principles.
	Now, if we go to page 19 of 32, we could see that principle, the harm principle, I wouldn't say that on its own it says much, but it's very easy, it's very harrowing when we have a report like that, that took years to be completed, if it's so vague.
	So what it says there, criminal law may only prescribe conduct that inflicts or threatens substantial harm to the fundamental rights and freedoms of others or to certain fundamental public moral interests, namely national security, public safety, public order, I believe that's public health, or public morals.
	Criminal law measures justified on these grounds must be narrowly construed and the assertion of these grounds by the state must be continually scrutinized.
	So Again, this seems to me to be like Mill's harm principle.
	It comes from there.
	No one would say that it's okay to harm people, at least in contexts that don't involve self-defense.
	But again, the question is, what constitutes harm?
	We should constantly ask what constitutes harm and the final sentence that says criminal law measures justified on these grounds must be narrowly construed and the assertion of these grounds by the state must be continually scrutinized.
	This leaves the discussion open for ever more strict Or at least, you could say, ever more liberal understandings of what harm consists in.
	Because if we take that report, and let's say someone, a politician says, no, no, my position is backed up by the International Court of Jurists.
	What they can essentially do is the following.
	They can say, who is my political opponent?
	Who are the groups that might vote for my political opponents?
	X, Y, and Z. I'm going to portray them as harmful.
	By definition.
	And for me that opening... Because it also needs to be continuously scrutinized.
	So the thing is that it's fine to say it would be a bit more honorable to say X, Y and Z actions constitute harm and that's it.
	That would be more honorable.
	By keeping it open they are allowing room for ever more Well it also just, yeah I understand what you're saying, but it also just opens up with the human rights legalistic framework with the substantial harm to fundamental rights and freedoms.
	Well the fact of the matter is that for the past 80 years fundamental rights and freedoms have just been continuously expanding one after the other to encompass anything that is basically a leftist principle.
	Like 10 years ago you didn't have, well maybe 10 years ago at this point, I need to reference it, but 15 years ago you wouldn't have people posting on social media saying trans rights are human rights.
	10 years ago you might have had them saying that but you wouldn't have had all of the courts of the law, all the courts of the land agreeing with them.
	Now you do have, in places like Washington state, you do have legislatures which are more than happy to prescribe that yes, Trans rights are human rights so if we're just going to be protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms and those have to be continuously scrutinized this will eventually just come to encompass everything that isn't social conservatism.
	Yes and there is a double standard there because on the one hand the language of human rights is supposed to be universal and it's supposed to imply the idea that every human being has these human rights but on the other hand we really know how in application and how it's going to play out.
	Human rights has always just meant whatever leftists want at the time.
	Yes, because now, for instance, now you don't have a right to, let's say, not play along with... You don't have a right to protect your children from this.
	Yeah, okay.
	And if we can go on page 26 of 32, in principle 16, it talks about consensual sexual conduct.
	Now, I will read this.
	It says, consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status may not be criminalized in any circumstances.
	Consensual same-sex as well as consensual different sex sexual relations or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary, and other gender diverse people or outside marriage, whether premarital or extramarital, may therefore never be criminalized. whether premarital or extramarital, may therefore never be criminalized.
	With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum of age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner.
	Now, this puzzles me.
	I think these are inconsistent propositions.
	And what does non-discriminatory manner mean?
	Enforcement may not be linked to the sex gender of participants or age of consent to marriage.
	Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex Maybe consensual in fact, if not in law.
	So that's where the non-discriminatory manner will come.
	Because if you get testimony from the seven-year-old saying, I consented, whether or not this is due to under duress or anything like that, as long as you, being non-discriminatory, you being the person enforcing the law, say, well it's fine, then I guess it's just fine now.
	I guess it's just fine.
	If you get a groomer who actively grooms the child into thinking that they wanted it and they will testify as such, then you're screwed.
	Then congratulations, paedophilia is now legal.
	I really don't know whether this is the right way to interpret this, but I don't... honestly, I don't think it's... I don't think it's too far off.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what it is, because it seems to me that it is inconsistent.
	On the one hand, it says, first sentence, consensual sexual conduct, and it says that it involves people below the age limit.
	Irrespective of the type of sexual activity, may not be criminalized in any circumstances.
	And then it says, with respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner.
	To me, this sounds the opposite, that it says that whoever disrespects the minimum age of consent to sex should be prosecuted.
	And therefore criminalized.
	But on the other hand it says no consensual sexual conduct may be criminalized.
	So I think that what we're giving here is confusion.
	We can't make sense of it because it seems to be inconsistent.
	It's not meant to make sense.
	What I can tell for certain here is there is absolutely, other than the incredibly vague harm principle, there is no actual moral principle underpinning this law.
	And I'm sorry, When it comes to something as important and as damaging as sex can be for many people, especially the choices that they can make in regards to their sexual health and their sexual organs in many cases, there needs to be something moral underpinning this.
	And this is basically just saying, go crazy!
	Do whatever you want!
	If you want to use the demented knife dildo from Seven, if you've ever watched Seven, you just go ahead and that's absolutely fine.
	Seven times.
	I'm sorry, that must have been a heavy dose of depression that you suffered there.
	Yeah, it's basically just saying, if you end up killing somebody, I don't know, if they consented to it, and if it was as long as it was during sex, I mean, what if the sexual encounter is, my sexual fetish is to be murdered during sex?
	Okay, do we criminalise that?
	Is that, does that change, is that over a line?
	What's going on?
	And the last thing I want to say before we finish this segment is that I think that in a way, you know, there can always be legalistic play with the idea of consent and whether consent is informed consent, how much information... So is this an actual UN document?
	It's by the International Court of Jurists and I think the UN is publishing it also under the name of UN AIDS report.
	I mean they say this report is AIDS.
	I'll give it that.
	And the final bit is that I want to say that if we just focus on consent and the idea of understanding what is going on, we also miss, we may miss, the idea of the consequences of something.
	Okay, because there's on the one hand that which an agreement may be struck, however, highness, and however, you know, disgusting, but there are also the consequences.
	And if you want to check about the consequences of, let's say, particular, if we move forward on the Congress interview, please.
	Yep.
	Yes, if you want to see the consequences of, let's say, modern gender affirming care, whatever that is, you can check Conor's interview with Richie Herron called The Reality of Transcript.
	Yes.
	Very, very sad.
	And even beyond all of that, I've got another question.
	What if the person... I'm sorry, I've just got so many questions as a result of that UN thing.
	Right.
	What if the person consents to be given HIV?
	What then?
	Well, they consented to get a sexual disease that's going to end up costing who knows how many people so much in just the medical care that they're going to have to take.
	Is that okay?
	Is that fine?
	I mean, it's...
	Absolutely ridiculous.
	So it's the International Committee of Jurists along with UN Aids and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
	So these will all be people who have a decent level of influence within the world legal order.
	Brilliant.
	Fantastic.
	Have we got anything else for that one?
	No.
	No.
	So there's a nice one to end you all on.
	Give me a moment.
	Alright, we've not got much time for this one, so I will speed through a bit of this.
	So let's talk a little bit, very quickly, about Rainbow Madness.
	This is just going to be a roundup of some ridiculous stories regarding the Rainbow Mafia that came out recently.
	Just a reminder of the clown world that we live in.
	Before I go any further...
	Check out a recent live hangout that Carl and Callum did talking about the Grooming Gangs and going through the actual timeline of the Grooming Gangs.
	So obviously a lot of what we get about the Grooming Gangs and what a lot of you may have had access to is very fractured headlines here and there, news reports here and there.
	This is going through a comprehensive timeline of when they started, what was going on, how they happened, when it first came out that it was a scandal that the police had been covering it up.
	All of that information so for five pounds a month you can access that and everything else that we have on the website so please do so.
	So Connor did this big interview last week that he covered on a segment where he spoke on GB News to the... he mistakenly put it down as naked attraction but I don't know what's going on with the edit button on Twitter so I can understand that he made the mistake.
	It was naked education participant Liam Halewood where he debated the fact that he'd gone on to this channel 4 television program once again channel 4 very subversive channel um and stripped off in front of a bunch of children and liam halewood was basically saying oh they do it in the schools anyway yada yada yada they get all of this information this is just meaning that somebody actually gets to do it in front of them which is weird enough in the first place because it's one thing having it be on a diagram or a screen there's another person having
	Stripping off in front of the children because I think that adds an entirely new dynamic to it and also I'm not entirely happy with what most of these kids are being taught in schools in the first place but Connor had the debate with them he covered that he mentioned as part of that that you know this opens up a massive massive gateway for Actual paedophiles to be able to basically exhibit themselves in front of children.
	If we go to the next link, he found this one.
	It's translated from Dutch, but basically the headline was...
	And the Dutch television channel that did this removed that particular episode of the program.
	So this is just where a pedophile was able to sneak in and strip off in front of a bunch of children for his own jollies.
	So that's fun, Connor mentioned that.
	If you go to the actual website page for Naked Education that says their aims, it's all about body positivity.
	Anna Richardson, Yinky Bikini, and Dr. Alex George go on a mission to normalize all body types, champion our differences, and break down stereotypes.
	None of these...
	Inherently are good things.
	And the excuse that I constantly see, I'm sorry for the fact that you're having to see arses on screen, by the way, for this, but none of these are inherently good things.
	And the excuse that we always see is, well, Instagram damaged a generation of girls.
	I know Instagram damaged a generation of girls, and young men as well.
	Unrealistic body types, whether it be too skinny, all these filters, etc, etc.
	They're very damaging for young people who don't get a realistic understanding of what a beautiful person looks like, or an accurate indication of what these people look like in real life.
	But it's entirely the opposite.
	That doesn't mean we have to swing the pendulum all the other way around.
	And I would argue it is explicitly subversive and undermines traditional beauty standards and body norms, and actively promotes unhealthy lifestyle, to then turn around and go, if you're a big fat blob, that's absolutely fine by me.
	And just following up on that, the man himself, Liam Hailwood, did this interview.
	This interview.
	And you might notice there's a bit of a difference.
	He did an interview with TalkTV as opposed to the one on GB News.
	You probably thought that the GB News audience wouldn't have been as happy with him doing this, but TalkTV were perfectly happy with him to do it.
	So this is Liam Hailwood doing an interview... Did he lose on a strip poker?
	Uh, perhaps before they went live on air he just lost a few hands and that's what happened.
	No, of course that's not what happened.
	He decided he was going to come on here and TalkTV, who are open to free discussion and free expression, decided it was perfectly okay for him to conduct the interview, presumably naked.
	He might be wearing socks, I'm not entirely sure, but for all intents and purposes, as far as I can see here, he's naked and I am Subjecting all of you to this video clip as well, because I had to see it as well.
	I'm not going to play anything off it, because the main important thing that he says isn't noted in the actual description on the tweet itself, where he explains after the channel 4 show Naked Education received 1,000 complaints showing adults stripping for children, he explained why he did it.
	Going on this show made me feel liberated.
	Made you feel liberated.
	Oh, so it's not for the children.
	It's not for the benefit of the education of the children, then.
	It was for the benefit of your self-esteem.
	Okay.
	I don't care if this is a crime or not.
	Straight to jail.
	Straight to prison, as far as I'm concerned.
	I'm sorry.
	Sex education is not for the benefit of the people participating in the education to feel liberated in stripping off children in front of children.
	It's not for the purpose of exhibitionism.
	It should, for as far as I'm concerned, be for the benefit of making sure that children are able to make intelligent decisions when they're in a sexual situation and know what to do and what not to do and maybe even be under the right frame of mind to be able to say no if they don't want to have sex.
	Because that's the thing that none of this even considers, which is the idea that a child, or a teenager, or young adult, might not want to have sex.
	Maybe they don't feel ready, maybe they don't feel it's the right person.
	Obviously they always talk about consent, but it's never from the frame of mind of, you're not ready.
	It's from the perspective of, you just don't want to do it with this person.
	We know, just take it for granted, that obviously all teenagers just constantly want to be having sex and going at it like rabbits, constantly.
	But no, it's not always the case.
	There might be some people who are just like, I'm not ready yet.
	And this guy just decides that he wants to go and strip off in front of kids and then subject all of us to it.
	You know what I find really repulsive here?
	Because Conor presented this also on Friday and I was with him and I was furious with what I was watching.
	It seems to me that, you know, we never know what people have in their minds.
	And it's a dark place.
	And all we have is signs.
	So whenever we see repeated signs of, let's say, weird behavior by some people, we start being, let's say, somehow a bit apprehensive and careful.
	We're put off just a little bit by it.
	Yes.
	So the thing is that we see, you know, all these behaviors and we say, something is really going on here.
	For some reason, all right now it is portrayed as sort of racist or or whatever sexist homophobic yeah homophobic whatever phobic if you just say no i don't like this i think that's a bad sign that's a weird sign of behavior i want i want to be careful Yeah, our society has been completely gaslit to distrust its own gut instincts.
	Yes, and that's a problem with a sort of egalitarianism that tries to level down everyone, morally speaking.
	We certainly live in radical egalitarianism.
	Yeah, it tries to boil down everyone, so it creates a mess, let's say, that there is no distinction between morality and immorality anymore in that society.
	We can't detect those signs As well as we could before.
	And you mention all of the signs.
	Well, there's plenty of signs going on constantly all around us.
	And there are the three articles that I wanted to highlight here that show just all of the nonsense that's constantly going on around the the Rainbow Mafia.
	And this is the first one, which is the former Planned Parenthood director.
	Now, Planned Parenthood isn't necessarily directly adjacent to the LGBT movement, but They absolutely are.
	They say all of the taglines, they show all of the affirmations of faith to the queer movement, etc, etc.
	So it's close enough as far as I'm concerned, and also Planned Parenthood facilitates a lot of the hedonistic, degenerate behaviours that we see cursing humanity and the West right now.
	So this one is interesting because the former Planned Parenthood director committed suicide days after his apartment was raided by police in a child pornography investigation.
	Now the police did a terrible job here.
	Because they didn't just raid his apartment, they raided the wrong apartment.
	Let's go through this.
	The Office of the Chief State Medical Examiner confirmed that 35-year-old Tim Yergao had died as the result of suicide on Tuesday.
	Yergao had previously worked as the Director of Strategic Communications for the Planned Parenthood of Southern New England.
	Police botched the raid at Jirgo's apartment on April 6th when they accidentally went to the wrong residence and broke down the door to his neighbor's unit.
	The neighbor, Stacy Wentzner, said that they raided her apartment and placed her in handcuffs before realizing they were at the wrong apartment.
	Brilliant!
	Genius move!
	Five days after the botched raid, Jirgo was found dead in his apartment.
	So they gave him the opportunity to basically remove himself from the equation.
	So, you know, who knows if he was implicated in all of this?
	I mean, suicide, to me, doesn't scream innocent in this situation.
	So, without trying to defame the dead, which I don't think you actually can do, to be fair, I'm going to say he probably was guilty of being involved in some kind of child pornography ring, and they gave him the opportunity to remove himself from the equation before he could maybe give other names that were involved in this.
	So that's absolutely ridiculous.
	Yirgau had a large social media imprint and left behind many posts on his Instagram account devoted to liberal causes including the LGBT movement.
	Unsurprisingly.
	In the next one we've got this ridiculous woman who is, who I think I might have covered before, a Sid Gallagher, have you heard of this person?
	Yeah.
	Yes, sorry to expose you to this, who promoted a eunuch gender identity for kids.
	Sorry, what does this have to do with it?
	What does this have to do with what?
	We live in clown world.
	It all comes into the black hole that is clown world eventually.
	Everything.
	No longer do we have to have the idea or the excuse, you could say, of, I'm trapped in the wrong body.
	You just look down and you go, don't fancy them anymore.
	Pop them off, please.
	Wasn't gender supposed to be different from genitals for that camp?
	Well, not for the eunuch gender identity, evidently.
	So, she released a video where she said, let me see here, she explained that a eunuch is somebody who is assigned male at birth, but may not be comfortable with masculine features.
	Now, from my understanding, those are just called femboys.
	But this is apparently a completely different thing.
	So, Gallagher classifies eunuchs as gender diverse individuals and explains to her young viewers that there is an entire chapter devoted to people who identify as eunuch in the most recent standards of care released by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
	Yes, this is a real organization.
	Yes, they probably have a certain level of influence on medical practices in America and elsewhere across the world.
	Yes, they have an entire chapter dedicated to eunuch gender identity.
	WPATH's decision to include eunuch in its Standards of Care 08 was met with intense criticism.
	The chapter defines eunuch as the oldest recognised gender outside the binary, and even goes so far as to claim that children can identify as eunuch.
	I heard someone laughing in the background there.
	Like other gender diverse individuals, eunuch individuals may be aware of that identity in childhood.
	All adolescents.
	So once again, just immediately taking any child at their word, knowing what they're talking about.
	Absolutely ridiculous.
	Due to the lack of re- This has got to be a joke.
	I feel like I'm being memed on even covering this.
	Due to the lack of research into the treatment of children who may identify as eunuchs, we refrain from making special suggestions.
	While there is a 4,000 year history of eunuchs in society, all by choice, I'm sure, every single one of them asked for this surgery.
	I just need to be a fir- Please, Mr. Torturer, Affirm my identity, please!
	The greatest wealth of information about contemporary eunuch-identified people is found within a large online peer-support community that congregates on sites such as the Eunuch Archive, which was established in 1998.
	And the chapter provides a hyperlink to the Eunuch Archive, which contains child castration pornography.
	Child castration pornography.
	Interesting, interesting hyperlink, although I will say I do know some men going out with very strict women who might as well identify as eunuchs, so perhaps I can refer them to this sexual care.
	So that was reported on by Redux, that if you actually go on that website that you can find some very questionable imagery.
	And then, the group Beyond WPATH formed shortly after the release of this particular handbook that they did, which included the eunuch chapter.
	When Sweden broke ranks with the organization last year, pediatrician Matt Reimer stated that the decision to include eunuch as an innate gender identity even children can possess was a sign that the organization was no longer a scientific organization, but instead an activist group.
	So this was what did it for you.
	This is the thing that really tips you off that you're working with activists and not medical professionals.
	This was the first indication that you ever had.
	So, on your dichotomy of signs, the signs that we're allowed to recognize and ignore, you know, everything up to but not including eunuch is absolutely fine, and then as soon as you go, Maybe we should just castrate the kids.
	That's where you draw the line.
	That's the sign that we're allowed to recognize.
	Alright, so if naked attraction, sorry, naked education starts talking to these kids of, have you ever wanted to have your bollocks chopped off?
	That's when we're allowed to start noticing.
	I'm glad that we finally found this out.
	The eunuch session...
	The eunuch session at the 2022 WPATH conference offered a glimpse of the type of person that Gallagher has chosen to advertise her services to.
	Johnson's co-presenter, Dr. Michael Irwig, told the story of the first eunuch patient he ever treated.
	A 19-year-old eunuch... no, sorry, a 19-year-old who was living in his parents' basement playing video games, he wasn't working, he was spending all of his time online, and may have been on the autism Asperger's spectrum.
	This is the sort of person I think is completely... there's no medical difficulties with chopping this man's bollocks off, obviously.
	Erwig observed the young man, wanted to be pre-pubital.
	I don't know if he got this testimony from himself or if he just decided this man wants to have no testicles.
	He wanted a low testosterone level.
	It sounds like he already had one.
	And so despite not identifying as eunuch, Erwig decided that he, well, deduced that he fell into that population.
	Very interesting.
	Very interesting.
	Elementary, my dear Watson.
	He is a eunuch.
	I have ascertained.
	I have ascertained.
	If you look at the man's posture and stature, you see the Pepe memes that he is putting out at a record rate.
	He is obviously a eunuch.
	And then the last article that I just wanted to cover because it is absolutely ridiculous.
	How gay men saved us from monkeypox.
	Were you at risk of monkeypox?
	I don't think you were.
	And neither was I. But let's read through anyway.
	But why?
	But why?
	Well... Maybe we need to check our historical privilege.
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	Or maybe it's just because I don't like taking it up the bum.
	But that's a subject for another time.
	It was July of 2022, last summer, and an outbreak of Mpox, formerly known as monkeypox, because presumably monkeypox was far too racist a name for it, was in full swing.
	From a handful of cases in a few cities in early May, the outbreak surged to more than 16,000 cases in 75 countries and territories just two months later.
	It was terrifying.
	In the early May of 2022, it found its way to gay raves in Spain and Belgium.
	Huge annual parties that drew men from all over the world.
	Clothing was scant, grinding was plentiful, and when the parties were over, everyone flew home, and presumably gave it to their boyfriends.
	Within weeks, mpox cases resulting from human-to-human transmission began cropping up in cities worldwide.
	The outbreak became an epidemic, perhaps even... a pandemic?
	You do the Doctor Radio thing.
	Luckily, we were wrong.
	While mpox could live on surfaces, it turned out not to spread that way.
	The virus required close, sustained contact to spread, which is why it was fanning out overwhelmingly through sex.
	So this outbreak started in gay and bisexual communities, and mostly stayed in these communities.
	Ah.
	But not for long.
	Oh sorry, carry on.
	Is it a phobic article?
	No, this is very much an affirming article.
	So we don't need to worry, there's no homophobia coming from this article.
	They're just saying the quiet part out loud, which is, yes, gay men can never control themselves from having a ridiculous amount of sex with other gay men, even when their own personal health might be at risk.
	If AIDS couldn't stop them, if you remember when this story first came out, it's just funny that this is coming back and defending it, and saying that apparently we were saved from this outbreak as well.
	If you remember when it came out, the whole argument I heard was, well, AIDS didn't stop gay men from having ridiculous amounts of promiscuous sex, so monkeypox won't either.
	Brilliant logic.
	Gay men with mpox were turned away from urgent care clinics and emergency rooms.
	Phlebotomists refused to draw their blood.
	Like its predecessors, COVID-19 and HIV, MPOX had all the markings of a public health disaster.
	It took nearly two months into the outbreak for testing to become widely available.
	A dearth of vaccines created hunger games like scenarios in cities throughout the country, with vaccine clinics opening and then shutting their doors for lack of supply.
	Cases began to appear in a small handful of transgender people, and cisgender women and children, raising alarm about widespread... Wait, children?
	Wait, children, I thought you said that it was only prolonged contact, mostly involving sex.
	That sounds suspicious.
	I can understand how transgender people and some women, you know, if it's a guy, a bisexual guy who caught it on the weekend and then has sex with a woman, maybe.
	But why children?
	I'll just leave that hanging in the air.
	Very interesting.
	But while health officials and journalists hesitated, gay and bi men sprang into action.
	Young men with lesions covering their faces took to social and mainstream media, telling the public that they were dealing with the worst pain I've ever experienced in my life, and perhaps the most telling, I would rather have COVID.
	That's right.
	I would rather have the sniffles.
	...than having these incredibly painful pox all over my face.
	Difficult choice.
	Benjamin Ryan, a gay journalist, and Carlton Thomas, a gay doctor, risked cancellation, e.g.
	being yelled at on Twitter, to dish out what Dr. Thomas referred to as tough love advice for their community.
	Slam the brakes on sex outside of committed relationships, seek immediate medical care for symptoms, and get vaccinated as soon as possible.
	And the gay community listened.
	So the brave message that was being spread was gay men, please stop being hoes.
	Stop being a hoe, keep it in your pants for five minutes and get vaccinated and then return to being a hoe.
	That was the tough love advice.
	That was the tough love message, yes, that was very brave to say.
	Communications teams at the CDC made great strides during this time.
	They acknowledged the realities of gay sexuality and its breadth of expression, using the actual language that gay men use when discussing sex with each other.
	The word fetish gear appeared on a CDC website for the first time.
	The clinical term anus became the more user-friendly butthole.
	And instead of public sex environments, the CDC spoke frankly about back rooms and sex parties and the risk of contracting mpox in these spaces.
	Now, I used to remember being told that, you know, gay people, they just keep it in their bedrooms, they're just like you and me, they have all of these relationships, they're perfectly wholesome and well-committed.
	And I know people who are like that, I know plenty of gay people who are just normal people.
	But the wider gay culture, the more I learn about it, The more I am honestly disgusted, and I cannot deny it, because this is incredibly degenerate stuff which is coming to light, that I think a lot of us weren't aware of before all of a sudden this became accepted and normalized in wider society.
	So while an early and frankly honest public health response could have blunted the outbreak, resulting in far fewer cases and far less suffering, the swift collective action of gay and bi men prevented catastrophe.
	How?
	I just don't see how.
	But where in this equation, I need to ask you after I've read this article, where in this equation have you or I been saved from monkey parks?
	Because it seems to me that it was just gay guys and a few stray children for some reason.
	I think that they have in mind that no one is No one is truly straight.
	Yeah, 100% straight.
	That's what the author of the article may have in mind.
	The author's just there like, well, who hasn't sucked a cock here or there?
	Come on!
	That's the... Maybe this... I mean, it's the New York Times, and I know that New York is a very metropolitan and accepting city, so perhaps... It's like Tropic Thunder, where, you know, you have Robert Downey Jr.' 's character telling to others, no, it's Hollywood, everyone's gay once in a while.
	That might be true, but yeah, I just thought I'd go through a few of these ridiculous stories that come out in the news every so often just to remind everybody that the Rainbow Coalition is completely mad and we exist constantly in the deluge of clown world.
	Let's go on to the video comments, shall we, while we've still got time.
	So what you are looking at here is England.
	This is Australia, and this is Fiji.
	You're probably wondering what on earth this is all about, and it's pretty simple really.
	I have something called synesthesia, which means I can see colour in taste and smell.
	When I went to live in these countries, these are the first smells I associate with the country.
	First starting was Fiji, had a garden root smell.
	Whilst England smelt like lily flower, and Australia smelt like sea salt.
	It also affects temperature, so the hotter the climate, the darker the colour.
	Oh, that's very interesting.
	I had heard of that before, but I didn't realise that it went so far.
	Thank you very much.
	So it's official.
	The, uh, the slippery slope being just a logic fallacy is completely defeated, and P is now officially in the, uh, in the alphabet.
	You're welcome.
	Thank you very much for your contributions, as always.
	Wow!
	needs to be nuked to remove this Slaanesh infection.
	And finally, thank you, Lothys, for being the infinite black pill machine. - You're welcome.
	Thank you very much for your contributions as always. - Whoa, you learn something new every day.
	Ancient Egypt had glitter eye makeup.
	And shiny lip gloss!
	If the Egyptians used to be black, and the Egyptians had slaves, and they had a lot of Hebrew slaves, blacks need to pay dues reparations right now.
	David Baddiel has entered the chat.
	Absolutely true.
	Very good observation there.
	Living in China in 2022 was like hell on earth with like daily COVID testing and the constant fear of being locked in a container if by any chance you test positive to this very benign disease and of course there was mask enforcement everywhere and I just treated it like a game as in I would like count my streak like a nofapper or like a junkie who went sober I would count like oh I've been like 58 days without putting on the little face diaper of shame so yeah
	Oh, well, I'm glad.
	You said living in China in 2022.
	If you're still living there, I hope it's got better.
	If you've managed to move out, I hope you're living somewhere that is nowhere near as strict on such things.
	All right, today we've got a member of the Ancinkias, which are called commonly fiddle-necks.
	These ones are kind of a weedy growing one in California, but they're still a native.
	And what's kind of nice about them is they actually have kind of this stickiness to them, and that's in order to hold on to moisture.
	And they've got, of course, their iconic fiddle-shaped neck, hence the name.
	That's really lovely.
	Thank you very much for that.
	Alright, and on to the written comments, while we've still got a few minutes, I will go through one or two of mine, and then we can check some of yours out.
	Someone online starts out saying, it is weird that they actually seem to believe that white people just appeared from nowhere and then started ruining everything.
	Jakob is real in their minds.
	Do you know of the story of Jakob?
	No, but is it the Mormon?
	No, no, no.
	It's the Nation of Islam.
	In the Nation of Islam mythology, everything was going great, black people ruled the world, and then Jacob was an evil rogue scientist who decided to invent white people as revenge.
	Against all of his black friends who bullied him.
	Very strange.
	Kevin Fox, you cannot reframe history to make it more inclusive.
	History is history.
	It happened.
	Get over it.
	British history was not littered with black characters.
	What's next?
	Laurence Fishburne playing Henry VIII?
	Probably, to be honest.
	And the fact is...
	You can say that history is history, but history is a very active thing in modern society.
	History is always an active thing.
	Everybody always wants to claim on some part of history as their own, so that they can control whatever narrative that they want.
	Let's go through some of your comments.
	Yeah, okay.
	So, Kevin Fox.
	So, Washington State says you can't be trusted with beer until you're 21, but you can cut your TTS or DCK off at any age.
	Now add that to the UN, now saying there should be no laws against these relations so long as the child consents.
	WTF is happening to the world.
	We are being taken over by people who seem to think children are things to be used, like an iPhone, to make us happy in the moment, regardless of the effect on the kids.
	Yes, I think it's the outcome of identity politics.
	The population is so much divided into groups, to the mind of politicians, and they're trying constantly to say, how are we going to wreak havoc upon those groups that do not support us?
	So, yeah.
	Someone online.
	Grooming, inappropriate exposure, sterilization and mutilation seem pretty abusive to me.
	Yes, but there is also this communist idea that whenever you decry someone as being bad, you do it and you just put an anti in front of it.
	So they're going to say it's anti-abusive.
	Yep.
	Casey Darling, why don't we call it gender denying care or gender ignoring care?
	Gender affirming care wouldn't be telling a confused boy that he is in fact a boy.
	Spot on.
	Couldn't agree with you more.
	That's very true.
	Yes, and Supreme Duck, care is a strong word when the subject is about mutilation of genitals.
	AZ Desert Rat.
	Interesting.
	She keeps saying young people instead of children.
	Nefarious word play there.
	And she links it also with adults.
	So I think that, I mean, she must be meaning something different than adults.
	When we say people, person, we think of somebody kind of fully developed, fully formed, somebody who's a rational actor and can make their own decisions, whereas child we implicitly know doesn't mean that.
	This is true.
	Anyway, I think that's all the time that we've got for today, so thank you very much for tuning in.
	We'll be back again tomorrow at one o'clock.
	Until then, have a great time.

▲