All Episodes
Previous Next
May 15, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:42
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #653
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon folks.
Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 15th of May, 2023.
I'm John Bestelios.
Hello.
And today we're going to be talking about why it's good to be a single mother, Biden's border crisis, and how to support woke fishing.
Because woke fishing is a real problem that we have to deal with.
Anyway, let's get into it.
So, it was Mother's Day in America recently.
It wasn't Mother's Day here, thank God.
And so my timeline lit up with people going, oh, you know, it's Mother's Day on Sunday.
I was like, Jesus Christ, what?
Because obviously I've got to get my mum a present, but I also have to get a present from the kids to my wife.
And thank God that wasn't my problem, because I thought, that was only a couple of months ago.
How has this come around so quickly?
It was an American thing.
It wasn't my problem, didn't have to deal with it.
Distance saved me, because yesterday was Mother's Day also in Greece.
Oh, is it?
Yeah.
Everyone said, oh, he's far away, so.
Oh, God, that's okay then.
I have an excuse for not getting presents.
Did you send her an email?
Of course.
Well, that's the thing.
It's Mother's Day in every other country, apparently, apart from this one, so I have no idea why either.
But anyway, so CNN of course did their due diligence and put out this article.
Advantages of being raised by a single mother outweigh expectations and outlast childhood embarrassment.
Are there any advantages to being raised by a single mother?
Well, CNN actually can't list any.
That's the problem.
I'm sure this did get community noted, but that seems to have disappeared at this point, which is a shame, because if anything deserves a community note, it's this bloody article, isn't it?
So they begin this article this way, right?
Roughly 24 million, or one-third of all American children under 18 are living with an unmarried parent according to a 2018 Pew Research Center analysis of the census data.
And 81% of those are headed by a mother.
So about 20 million single mother households in America.
That's a lot.
That's incredible.
Yeah.
I mean, that's more...
Again, if there are 20 million Scandinavians in existence, I'd be amazed.
And 20 million single mother households in America are...
I mean, the single father ones are doubtless going to encounter many of the same problems, because the problems that are generated by this basically come from the stress that's put on the single parent.
It's difficult.
As a married father of four, I'm telling you it's difficult when you've got two of you.
I can't even imagine how difficult it must be when you've only got one of you, right?
A single parent households have a male parent.
Yeah.
So it just can't be easy either way, right?
They say this has been a growing trend since the late 1960s.
The number of kids being raised mostly by single mums has more than doubled between 1968 and 2017.
Well, that sounds catastrophic.
It is.
That sounds like civilizational ending.
Do you think it has to do anything with the Great Society Project?
Yeah, absolutely.
Economic protectionism?
Absolutely.
It's because of social services.
Because of the fact that they'll get money from the government rather than from her husband.
But the point is, this is genuinely destructive for society as a whole, and we're going to start seeing, as we go into the future, this is just going to get worse and worse and worse.
But the author of this, they say, for the majority of my 12 years of Catholic school, I was the only student who lived with one parent, and for that reason, I was demonstrably the poorest kid in my school.
Well, that's the best argument, surely, against single parenthood right there.
You're gonna be poor, because you only have one income.
We lived off one paycheck, or paychecks when my mum held multiple jobs at once.
The modest child support went to school tuition.
So the first reason that single parenthood is bad is, of course, poverty.
And we've got loads of studies.
Loads of studies that show this.
This is just one study from 2017.
Single parent families are twice as likely to be in poverty than those with couple parent families.
with 67% of single parents reporting they struggle with finances.
Therefore, single parents must manage a number of stressors, including stigma, work and poverty." Well, I wonder where the stigma comes from.
Why would it be stigmatized that an obviously detrimental way of raising children would be looked down upon by society at large?
It's in no way surprising.
I think that there may be some few exceptions with some households that were particularly bad for children, but I think it's way too cynical to say that all most households are this way.
Yeah.
Well, the problem is, yeah, you are going to have those fraction of examples that are like, well, it was an abusive relationship, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, sure.
I'm not saying that it wasn't a good and necessary thing for that relationship to end, for the mother and the children, sure.
But that's a very small minority of why people break up.
Most divorces are elective, based on happiness levels, which is great.
But the thing is, these studies have shown that single parents also experience low levels of mental health and low psychological well-being with extensive use of mental health services.
So, it's not like you break up, you're suddenly a single parent and, oh, everything's roses.
No, these parents in this particular study, I think it was, in one of these studies I've got here, they just constantly go on about how they're anxious all the time because they don't know what the future's going to bring.
And they've got no one to help them, they've got no support, other than some bureaucrat who doesn't care.
I mean, having children is getting married to anxiety, but if you're one parent, it's even worse.
So anyway, getting back to the article, they say, like most kids, I didn't want to be different, I wanted to be normal.
Why can't we just be normal?
I was embarrassed by our car, which broke down.
I was embarrassed that we didn't seem to go anywhere for vacation, that I didn't have brand name clothes, or video games, or cable TV, or anything else my classmates had.
I was embarrassed that my dad, who lived in a neighbouring state, never came to any of the school events.
I was teased for it.
Why didn't you get a new car?
Why didn't you get new shoes?
It was always embarrassing, basically, is what he's complaining about.
It's like, look, embarrassment is really, like, that's a very niche issue for someone who went to a Catholic school in which all of the other parents there were married.
Like, that's a very, very niche thing.
Like, there are way more problems that come from being a single-parent household that, for some reason, CNN are completely skirting around.
And then they go to this segment.
The kids are all right.
There has been a lot of research over the decades that have shown that children of single parents report more family distress and conflict and live at lower socioeconomic status compared to those growing up in two-parent households.
Two-parent families usually have more income and are generally able to provide more emotional resources to children And that's also a reflection of how little the United States in general does to support working mothers with paid parental leave and access to more health services and quality education.
Although, isn't that just exactly the point?
Like, yes, there's a ton of research that shows this is bad for the parents themselves, not even talking about the children at this point.
And CNN have to accept that.
But the problem with things like health services and all these other things is these are a plaster that are being put over the gaping wound in society that is divorce and single-parent households.
I think that there's a very big danger with becoming a bit more paternalistic, and it seems to me that the big state mentality that is behind this is precisely based on the idea that people should be habituated into accepting more and more and more state interference, and also thinking that the state is going to solve issues like, you know, family.
That doesn't seem to be the right way.
We should focus more on a bottom-up approach into maintaining social cohesion that focuses on the family rather than trying to have a state-imposed... But then you would have to abolish no-fault divorce.
Okay, I don't know the details.
Well, divorces used to be, in America, that you would have to have a concrete reason for your granted divorce, right?
Simply just for no reason, but that's the point of a no-fault divorce.
Like, you know, if one partner cheated or was abusive or something like that, right?
But the point of no-fault divorce is just, well, we just don't feel like being married anymore, so you just get divorced.
Which kind of undermines the concept of marriage as some sort of sacred agreement.
But the point is, it's incentive, really.
There's a difference between saying that I'm fleeing from my bad household...
And, on the one hand, and saying on the other hand, no, the benefits are more if I go in a single-parent household.
Well, this is the thing, it's not they're habituated into wanting the big state, it's that they require it.
They require the money and if the option is actually there, the government's going to give you however much a month to pay for the house and pay for the food and whatnot, And my husband is annoying me, rather than working out the problem I have with my husband, I'm just going to get the divorce.
And it's like, great.
And so this 2017 study, however, looked at the long-term effects of single parenthood on kids and found that there was nearly no impact in their quote, general life satisfaction.
Right.
I don't believe that.
Yeah, I don't believe that either, right?
No.
The authors also found no evidence supporting the widely held notion from popular science that boys are more affected by girls by the absence of their father.
Again, it's not that they're more affected, it's they're affected in different ways, right?
Yes.
Everyone knows what fatherless behaviour in girls looks like and it tends to generate a lot of revenue on early fans, right?
But fatherless behaviour in boys tends to increase the prison population.
That's the issue.
What mattered most in terms of thriving, they concluded, was the quality and strength of the relationship between children and parents.
So actually, there's no problem here, according to CNN.
As long as the parent and the children love each other, then it's fine.
It's not that easy, though.
Are we told in the same article that single-parent households are associated with higher levels of parent anxiety and that children have no problem?
Yes.
So that's nonsense?
Yes.
That's complete nonsense.
You've got a totally overworked, emotionally frazzled mother with mental health issues who's taking depressant medication, but the relationship that she's having with her children is just as strong as ever.
No, no, no.
That's nonsense.
And not just that.
If a mum's working part-time with a dad working full-time, she gets to spend a higher number of hours per day with her children.
Whereas if she's working nine to five and then an evening job as well, you know, imagine what the... that's fracturing the relationship she's got.
Of course, yeah.
Exactly, and so it's, you know... And also children, the younger children are the more they get fed by the emotions of the parents.
Oh yes.
I can tell you now from first hand, if you go into the living room with a bad attitude, your children pick up on this.
A separate 10 year study on single parenting collected data from 40,000 households in the UK came to a similar conclusion.
There is no evidence of a negative impact of living in a single parent household on a children's well-being with regard to quote self-reported life satisfaction.
Quality of peer relationships or positivity about family life.
Right.
There we go.
Incredible news.
Actually, it's just as good to be a single parent as it is to be in a married relationship with the children there, apparently.
So do they go and they ask children, what's your degree of life satisfaction and the quality of your peer relationships?
Yeah.
And the thing is, OK, well, if you've never known anything different, maybe you would be satisfied with that.
But you notice they've got quite a narrow category here.
Well-being, a quite narrow and nebulous category.
I mean, there are objective metrics that we can actually use to look at whether this is good for children or not.
I mean, for example, IQ is something we can measure.
If we go to just one study, which just shows parents play an instrumental role in a child's life from providing financial support to emotional trust.
Most of us are probably unaware of an added bonus, but having two parents means production of brain cells, a new study suggests.
Our work adds to a growing body of knowledge which indicates that early, supportive experiences have long-lasting, positive impact on adult brain function, said Samuel Weiss, the senior author of a study at Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary.
As in, you are going to be smarter if you have both parents, on average, right?
This is just, children from single-parent households have lower IQs.
And of course, IQ is directly correlated with your earnings.
Therefore, children from single-parent households have lower incomes.
The next one is another study.
It makes sense if we think about it because each parent has different activities usually that they play with children.
So the more you exercise your mind in different activities, the smarter you get.
Yep.
And it's not just that, it's about the amount of emotional support you have, and the amount of different words you hear every day.
Like, I use a different sort of language to my wife when she's talking to the children.
She's like, I'm going to thrash you, and I'm like, I'm going to beat you.
So you've learned two... No, I'm joking.
They've learned extra words.
Some bad examples with very limited vocabulary in households came to mind, but I won't say it.
But the point is, they end up going into careers where they earn lower amounts of money, because of course they start in a poverty trap, and it's difficult to get out of that poverty trap.
And then you have an increase in psychopathologies, as one study showed.
They're more likely to have mental health issues, which is not good, is it?
You know, when they're reporting, oh yeah, my well-being's just as good, and now I'm going to take my depression medication.
It's like, you're 15?
Why are you on depression medication?
Has CNN said that the National Library of Medicine and all these journals are somehow... Are right.
Yeah, and phobic.
Probably.
Okay.
They don't get it, but... And also, of course, children of these single-parent families are way more likely to become juvenile delinquents, which is not good.
The International Journal of Science and Research.
Well-known right-wing think tank.
Obviously this is going to be the case.
A very real connection between delinquent behaviour and single parent families, in particular mother only families, produce more delinquent children than two parent families.
Absence of fathers from children's lives is one of the most important causes This isn't a terribly revelatory thing for me to be saying.
rates of juvenile crime, depression, eating disorders, teen suicide and abuse.
Monitoring the child is also a major contribution to the creation of delinquency.
There are many known factors that contribute to deviant behavior.
Parents having a set dinner time, checking homework can have a great impact on the child's emotional stability.
Studies have shown that a strong parent-child relationship can decrease child delinquent behavior.
Difficult if you've got to work two jobs, to be honest though, isn't it?
Yeah.
I mean, this isn't a terribly revelatory thing for me to be saying.
No, no, it's not.
What's revelatory is the CNN article.
Yeah, in praise of single mothers, why you've done nothing wrong, and why actually everything's just as good as if you had a secure and happy family.
And this is just obviously not true.
You know, all the children self-report.
Who cares what they self-report?
A, they're children, they don't know anything different, and maybe when they get older they'll be like, hang on a second, I was deprived of a bunch of opportunities?
I was let down by my parents and their family life.
And this is something that we covered in extensive detail in an episode of Contemplations with Josh on the website.
So if you want to support us, go and sign up for £5 a month.
And Josh is a psychologist, he has a master's degree in psychology, and he has done a much better job of collating the information on all of this.
this and in this episode we go through it in detail and all of these sources are listed in the reading list on the website so if you want to use them in future you absolutely can but it's just terrible it's just a genuinely like you are it's like deliberately starting your children on hard difficulty yeah you know it's deliberately handicapping them for future And they've got to be really, really lucky.
And of course, not everyone can be lucky.
So this is generally bad for them, and it's disgusting that CNN would be like, no, actually, it's all great.
I've cherry-picked these two studies that say, no, everything's fine.
No, everything isn't fine.
And not even getting into their ability to form relationships as they get older.
They've got bad examples to follow.
This is generally not good for anyone.
Anyway, I'll leave it there, because I'll just keep Complaining about it, but this is this is where like the actual liquidation of society is actually happening I hate to be the bearer of bad news Okay, so do we move forward to?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
So let's talk about Biden's border crisis.
Now, contrary to what Biden would have everyone believe, both within the US and outside, there is a southern border crisis and the crisis will become more intense now that Title 42 Now, Title 42 was a measure that allowed border agents to remove illegal immigrants quickly, and it was put forward by Trump in order to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Now, before we say more about this, you can visit our website.
For only £5 a month you can have access to all our premium content and you could watch videos such as debating classical liberalism, which is a really interesting debate that we had and it has generated really good comments.
And the debate clearly isn't over yet!
It isn't over yet, I'll be back.
We will be revisiting this.
Okay, yes, and I think it's really good and it's in a way really close to what we will be discussing because it seems to me that one of the main problems that some versions of liberalism had is with being in favor of unrestricted freedom of movement.
This is something that you could say that liberal cosmopolitans have completely failed the people with and they are actually putting forward completely illiberal tactics now.
Well this is also the point at which libertarians have arrived at.
They can't even conceive of the understanding of the nation-state as being collectively owned by the people of the nation and so they've arrived at such an atomized individualistic position that they can't understand why it would be desirable to not have mass immigration.
And I see libertarians arguing this point all day and I'm just like right okay well that's One, yet another good reason not to be a libertarian, in my opinion.
So basically, in a nutshell, my position is that in order for people in, you know, the center-right, right-wing to go forward, I think we need to understand more our values and we need to have a much more sophisticated understanding of what it is that we value and how to go about it.
One of the things, sorry to go on about this for so long, but this was a really important discussion.
One of the things I think is important It's for the conservative to be able to identify the liberal presuppositions in any of the arguments they're about to have.
For example, when it comes to mass immigration, that presupposes that essentially we're all the same and that we all derive from the liberal idea that there's a kind of universal human and we can all, via the magic of the blank slate, end up as being basically exactly the same.
Now, a conservative would say, no, that's nonsense.
And actually, there are a great number of social baggage that people carry with them and they can't understand.
And I think that the goal at the end of the day is to formulate a good idea of a community and how this integrates into a system of value.
Speaking of communities, how is El Paso doing?
I think that the goal at the end of the day is to formulate a good idea of a community and how this integrates into a system of value.
Speaking of communities, how is El Paso doing?
Let us watch the next video.
this is the crisis that allegedly does not exist.
This is liberal presupposition.
It's just being detonated right here.
Oh, all humans are the same, really?
No.
They're really not.
All of the cultural habits that these people bring with them, they're not going to get rid of them.
And you can see the difference.
Different value sets.
What do these people value?
They don't value clean streets, do they?
They don't value individual propriety.
Total nonsense that multiculturalism was.
Does it look like these people can maintain the United States?
I mean, the thing is, the whole idea is that we need to think about what communities are and how they can be maintained.
Now, one thing, if you go on Twitter and type border and go on videos and just scroll down a bit, if you can just walk and have some images of things like that, for instance, we can watch here the southern crisis that allegedly the southern border crisis that allegedly does not exist
if we can scroll down a bit and down here you you get an idea but just as a quick aside here i really mean about the the difference in cultural temperaments essentially i if this was germans trying to get in to the southern bottom us the streets wouldn't look like that right They just would not look like that.
It wouldn't be, like, just rubbish everywhere.
The Germans would be fastidious about the cleanliness of where they are, just because that's what the Germans are like.
German streets are incredible, actually.
I lived in Germany for eight years and I never saw any amount of rubbish on the streets.
We're not that.
Neat and tidy.
It's really annoying, actually.
But it just would not be like this.
But they are like that because they don't care.
They come from a culture where that's not of value.
And they bring that with them.
They don't care.
They didn't build the United States.
They don't care if they turn it into an absolute rubbish pile.
It doesn't matter to them.
We're not the same.
Let's click the next link please, which is an article by the European Conservative.
US record-setting migrant surge as title 42 ends.
I read just from the beginning of it.
The Biden administration and the left liberal press in the US have drastically downplayed, if not outright lied about, the surge of migration last week, which saw tens of thousands of migrants cross the US-Mexico border illegally as Trump's pandemic-related title 42 asylum restrictions expired at midnight on Thursday, May the 11th.
The US Customs and Border Protection Agency has reported that 83,000 migrants illegally crossed the United States southern border with Mexico last week alone.
In one week?
One week.
God!
This reminds me of Greece in 2015, when Syriza opened the borders and we had a huge influx of people, close to a million in a year, maybe more.
Now, let's click on the next link, please.
It's a video by Hakeem Jeffries.
Let's listen to him.
As is often the case with my extreme mega-republican colleagues, They create a fictional argument around what's happening at the border and then actually do nothing to solve the real problem.
And that is exactly what the Child Deportation Act is all about.
So I really don't know details about what goes on with child deportation, I must say, because I don't know them.
But there really is an issue with the border.
And I think if you type Borden on Twitter, you'll just see it.
So another thing, Biden had I'd like to stay on the topic of Jordan, if I could, Ms.
Lampert.
is Mrs. Yale Lampert, who was grilled by Senator Bill Haggerty of Tennessee.
Let's watch the next link.
Chairman, I'd like to stay on the topic of Jordan, if I could, Ms. Lampert.
Is border security important?
Senator, thank you for the question.
More security for Jordan or?
Border security.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Yes, Senator, border security is very important.
Do you support physical security measures like border walls?
In Jordan, Senator?
Let's stay on Jordan.
I think I would have to defer to the Jordanians whether they think that such measures would be useful.
Well, we're spending American taxpayer dollars.
for border security in Jordan.
Are you familiar with the President's budget request?
I am, sir, in terms of moving forward border security in Jordan, yes.
$110 million is requested in the fiscal year 2024 budget to include border security for Jordan.
And you request that, you support that request.
I just want to make this clear.
I do support that request.
Okay.
Hasn't the United States government built a giant wall along Jordan's border?
On the border between Jordan and – With the United States taxpayer dollars, has the U.S. government – government built a wall along Jordan's border.
The U.S.
government has worked with Jordan to enhance its border security in a variety of ways, Senator.
Let's be clear.
U.S.
taxpayer dollars have been deployed in this regard.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
And as our nominee, you'd be responsible for overseeing future funding in this regard.
Is that correct?
That is correct, Senator, if confirmed.
In fact, the Omnibus last year provides for at least $150 million for border security in Jordan.
It's a large amount of taxpayer dollars.
And if you think about the purpose of this, it's to provide physical security, to keep people from illegally crossing into Jordan.
Isn't that correct?
It is to provide physical security to stop drug smugglers to deal with the threat of Jordan's neighbor, Syria.
Obviously, the conflict there continues and it's a dangerous neighborhood.
Well, I would think that if the funding request that's been put in place for the coming year is the size it is, there must be a belief that this sort of funding is important and that this sort of physical security is effective.
Is that correct?
In the Jordanian context, I do believe that that is correct, Senator.
Well, you've been very clear to talk about this in the Jordanian context.
I just think it's an important lesson for us to learn as Americans.
That we're spending United States taxpayer dollars.
I think we could pause the video here.
Okay, that was amazing, right?
Yeah.
Like, all of the problems that she lists that Jordan may be having with Syria are exactly the same problems that America is having with Mexico.
Like, northern Mexico is cartel central, apparently.
drugs, guns, and terrible people come across that border, and you could see the total, total, um, weaseliness of that woman, where she's like, oh no, I have been completely caught.
The borders, in principle, are they worth having?
Well, yes for the case of Jordan, which means yes, of course, for everyone, and we are actually spending the money to build Jordan a big, beautiful wall, and of course, and I don't know why this is something that Americans have had to debate, obviously walls work, That's why we've been using them since, well, actually, Jordan.
The foundation of the city of Jordan, actually, which 9,000 years ago had a wall because walls work.
I've always known this.
I think it was a brilliant video.
It's amazing.
It's almost that I don't know what Biden picked when he picked her as a nominee because she seemed to have common sense.
At least you can see that she understands that what she says is the principle of it is correct that you do need borders but you know she tried to hide it but you know she didn't have the classic you know woke temperament that many of the people have so you know bad pick maybe for his purposes.
But you can tell she's been completely outflanked there and she's just like the contradiction is on bare display and she's a massive hypocrite and everyone can see it.
Yeah.
So, and also I think the Senator Bill Hagerty did an amazing job in not getting frustrated.
He's calm and flat and just state the obvious.
Okay.
Now, the thing is that you would expect people to protest about it.
And let's click on the next article by the Daily Mail.
So, ...says we need to be taken care of first.
Chicago community, where 97% voted for Biden, react furiously after finding out 500 migrants are heading their way.
Only 500 and they're furious.
This is another Martha's Vineyard situation, isn't it?
But hardly any of them arrived and they're livid.
as some claim they have been bumped off housing waiting lists.
Oh, the peak NIMBYism here.
Yes.
So the thing is, the next video we're going to watch is simultaneously tragic and comic.
I'll let you watch and we'll discuss it.
All these resources that have not come to us, now you want to overly compensate for people who've never lived here before and they need to be taken care of first and foremost before anything else happens here.
Why would any leader put our black communities already riddled with crime at further risk by placing unvetted non-taxpayers steps away from our seniors, our children, and our homes we've worked so hard on our own to secure?
We are at war, people.
Our communities are at war.
They are violating our communities, and we asking that we have, we across the country, we asking and we're demanding for Office of Black America, whatever you want to call it, to deal with issues like this!
I did get placed on the wait list, but I was told that the immigrants were taking priority.
That's a story that a lot of people don't know, and it just, it hurt me.
I'm like, oh, wait a minute.
I understand we need to be humanitarian, but these people are, that my participants are third and fourth generation Chicagoans, born, bred, fed, and raised here.
My grandmother, may her rest in peace, always said, Craig, charity starts at home first, and then it goes abroad.
Politically, having over 500 people in our community would completely wipe out any interest we have.
Many of these migrants have been dumped in our neighborhoods without a plan in place to monitor and house them long-term.
I'm not selling nothing.
And I keep telling people, you don't have to move.
If you sell, they gonna come in.
If we don't sell, we got to stand strong.
That's right.
We just get started.
I love the community spirit.
I agree with everything they're saying.
That's why it's a tragicomic.
You did vote for Biden.
Simultaneously, it seems to me that they're right.
They are in sync, let's say, with the spirit of most people nowadays who understand that it is community as a value that is being compromised by, you could say, liberal cosmopolitanism.
rampant and extreme multiculturalism.
But on the other hand, they voted for Biden.
Yeah, they chose it.
You cannot say that he wasn't exactly clear about what he was putting forward.
I'm going to end Trump's racist border policies.
Yeah, he did.
And now you've got 500 migrants living in your small community.
And one thing I want to ask, because this is imagine if The people who said the following list were actually white people.
So, the list is.
Well, then they'd be racist!
Resources should be given to us because we have been living here before them.
We need to be taken care of first and foremost because anything else happens before anything else happens here.
Why would any leader place our communities already ridden by crime to more risk by placing undocumented non-taxpayers steps away from our seniors, children and our homes?
Great question.
If only we had an answer, Lisa and Nandi.
I did get placed on a wait list, but I was told that immigrants have priority and it hurt me.
Wow.
It's almost like we've got a limited amount of resources that have to be shared amongst a set number of people.
And if you increase that number of people, the resources become more scarce.
Yes.
And when he talks about hurt, it's an issue of sentiment.
It's not just that it was a long list and I couldn't fulfil the chores of the day.
I got stuck with red tape.
It hurt me.
I totally agree with him.
They are being betrayed by the people who they voted for.
We all have been at this point.
So welcome to the club.
Nice to meet you.
We're the far right.
We just want our countries not to be subsumed in an unlimited number of foreigners.
And the argument at the end, because I think that this is, actually, they put the argument well.
They said, I don't know how many people are in that community, but I guess, especially due to being Afraid by the number, it's not a very big community, but one of the final claims that was put forward was politically having over 500 migrants in our community will wipe out any political interest we have.
Yeah, very interesting.
So imagine if we say, it's not the issue of 500, it's the idea of how many people you have from different communities, without cultural continuities, who are placed in a particular area.
Yeah, because if it was like 50, they probably wouldn't complain that much.
So what if people who said these things were white?
The answer is obvious.
Okay, now let's go to the next link.
We see that Texas governor sends migrants to Kamala Harris's home once again.
Good for them.
Yeah.
Next link, please.
And let's go to Florida.
Now, there was a new bill that Ron DeSantis signed.
And I don't know if everything is finished with it, or there are still steps to be taken.
But this is, you know, you can check the bill if you are interested in more detail.
Let's go on the next link.
What does the bill do, sorry?
So it does many things.
It tightens up Florida's immigration policy.
And as we will see in this article, I will just read down from the strengthening employment requirements, you will see exactly what it does.
It says, if we go a bit down, A bit?
Here, okay.
Strengthening Employment Requirements.
So it says, several sections of the bill outline strengthened employment requirements, including employers are required to verify a new employee's employment eligibility within three business days after the first day the new employee begins working for pay.
Private employers with 25 or more employees must use the federal e-Verify system to verify a new employee's employment eligibility starting on July 1.
Public agencies are also required to use the e-Verify system to verify a new employee's employment eligibility.
Employers cannot continue to employ an unauthorized immigrant after obtaining knowledge that a person is or has entered the country illegally.
So, it has various penalties.
So, for instance, it says that there may be up to $10,000 fine for every undocumented immigrant on the businesses that they work for.
And it also increases penalties for human smuggling.
And it basically is supposed to work as deterrence for further immigrants.
And it's supposed to work from July the 1st.
Now, it's a complex piece of legislation.
These are the, let's say, some of its highlights.
But let's talk a bit about some of the issues that have been raised about it and some of the concerns.
So the thing is that from what I checked, there are many people who say that it's going to hurt Florida's economy.
Because there are around 500,000 farm workers, and estimates are that 60% of these farm workers are illegal immigrants.
And they say that this is going to create a massive hole in our economy.
And this is going to create, let's say something like food shortages and momentary instability.
Now, there are various things that people claim.
Let's watch the next video.
My conversations with anyone is not Are you documenting?
You know I mean that's not that's not at the but yet this law now makes it a priority for all of us not just not just law enforcement not just immigration people but all of us to be able to have to be to have to put that barrier that prejudice.
All right so Mexican man wants more Mexicans living in Florida.
Well The thing is, there are laws against...
Illegal immigration?
I mean, that goes without saying.
It's totally exploitive.
These people don't have access to any of the legal protections that employees have against employers.
They are literally at the mercy of these employers.
It's bad for them.
I think that the issue is that if we follow down this rationale, we will see that it eventually leads to the position that even asking for someone to be shown documents, that it constitutes a kind of disrespect.
I just don't see this.
No, I don't care if it does or it doesn't.
And there's a further element here, because the thing is that there's a question of what you may be about to take measures and implement measures that seem to be, let's say, anti-popular or something.
In this case, I don't think it's anti-popular, but let's take that scenario.
There are crises that need to be, let's say, dealt with.
So when you are about to deal with a crisis, the measures that you're going to take will not be, let's say, as popular as they would be.
Yeah, I mean, they wouldn't be popular in other circumstances, but that doesn't mean that there is no border crisis.
Yeah.
The problem is though, the Biden regime has been ideologically wedded to open borders.
Yes.
The whole time.
So now it's a total humiliating reversal.
Yeah.
Let's watch the next clip.
That is not the republic for which I served as a veteran and that represents liberty and justice for all.
And that application for all is not happening.
For all didn't mean for every human on the entire face of the earth, and for every person in America.
Yeah, that sounds a bit imperialist.
It is a bit imperialist.
Yes, it's like there is one state, there is one global government, and everyone is going to be treated as a subject of that global government, and if there are any distinctions, there's a problem.
Yeah, well I mean literally anyone who's not within the United States is now under the mandate, the future mandate.
What was, when they were conquering East West, what was the phrase they had?
Which, where?
In America, when they were, they had a particular phrase.
I can't remember.
Chat, I'm sure you're going to be screaming at me.
I know exactly what it is.
For some reason I keep wanting to say Mandate of Heaven, but that's not what it is.
Manifest Destiny, that's what it is.
What he's setting up there is the Manifest Destiny of the United States to basically incorporate the entire world.
So, you know, because the all has not been all American citizens, it's all mankind.
And I think that this is a problem with liberal cosmopolitanism is that it doesn't recognize communities.
And the point is that we have, let's say, elites of liberal cosmopolitans and radical leftists.
who embrace, you know, a very radical leftist progressive ideology, who are, they are in agreement with respect to communities.
They just don't understand why people value their communities for the very reasons that we showed you the people from Chicago talking about.
They just can't understand this and they're really hesitant to this.
And the thing is that with the media, the way that they have been using them for years, They are basically trying to say that no, no, anyone who could value community is a problematic person.
There is only the human community, the abstract human community.
But this comes back to our discussion about liberalism and how this is the presupposition, one of the presuppositions that underpins the metaphysics of liberalism.
They only view each person as an atomized individual and that is where everything is broken down to until you have a universal atomized human race that is indistinguishable, where one person cannot really be distinguished from another.
I think that to the extent that they do this, they're really problematic and that they cannot understand the complexity of human valuation.
But I think that's inherent in liberalism.
I think we can have liberalism with borders, but let's keep that for round two.
One final thing to say, because I think it's interesting here, is that we very frequently hear an argument about the economic impact of some measures that are supposed to aid communities.
And it seems to me that this is exactly where, let's say, the conservative side needs to get some It's affairs in order, in that if we are to value communities, we have to move past the paradigm that is just let's make the whole planet one market and don't understand this.
Divorce from neoliberal economics.
Yes, so even if some measures are going to cause economic trouble in the short term, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be carried through.
This is entirely my argument about Brexit and always has been.
I don't care if it makes us richer.
I don't care.
It's not about that.
And I'm very tired of our countries just being literally just economic zones in which lines must go up.
And in which every value is just going to be understood in monetary values.
Yeah, absolutely.
And these are the arguments that people like that put forward.
Anyway, let's move on, because there's a problem.
There's a real problem that woke people have when they're trying to date.
And that is, people pretending to be a member of the faith, while actually not being, in fact.
They call this woke fishing.
And if only they knew how to think better, they might be able to spot these people.
And if you want to learn how to think better, you can go to our website, sign up for a five for a month, and check out the latest contemplations that Josh did with Stelios about how to think better.
Because frankly, lazy thinking is one of the problems that we have these days, isn't it?
Yes.
Massive issue.
I won't spoil any of the excellent advice in this.
Let's get on to the problem of woke fishing.
Now, this didn't have... I was doing some research on this for this segment, because a particular article came up yesterday that I found was just amusing, so I thought we'd go through.
And so I looked at it, and it's hard to find anything about woke fishing before 2020, which implies that this is where you can see the graph where people start becoming woke in mid-2010s, and then it becomes the popular paradigm, ostensibly so.
And now you've got to gatekeep the paradigm.
Like, oh no no no, we've got to make sure that the people inside are properly awake, they're not just posers who are coming in for the clouds, right?
And this is absolutely what has been happening.
So this is one of the earliest articles I could find, which was Vice.
Wokefishing, put simply, is when people masquerade as holding progressive political views to ensnare potential partners, literally like it's going to church and pretending to be a Christian in order to get yourself a wife, right?
A woke fish may present themselves as a protest-attending, sex-positive, anti-racist, intersectional feminist who drinks ethically sourced oat milk and has a back catalogue of Audre Lorde twice.
So it's literally no different saying, you know, of Christ Fisher.
What might, you know, attend church, pretend to be chaste, you know, they don't drink excessively, and all these other, you know, the Christian canards.
It's exactly the same?
It's like people who pre... It's decades old.
It's like people who pretend to be left-wing to sleep with women.
Yeah, and that's exactly the problem they have.
To have the image of the rebel.
Yeah, that's exactly what they have.
And now these young men who are just like, Well, if I say that I support, you know, the latest feminist vegan activism, then she'll sleep with me.
And this is the problem they've run into.
But the point I'm making, though, is this is obviously a set of religious catechisms that they are patrolling against.
This is just honestly points of faith, right?
They say, a lot of us have been woke fished, maybe now more so than ever.
Crises such as the tragic murder of George Floyd.
See, here's a religious icon for you.
And the coronavirus pandemic, which is a kind of punishment of God in this serve you, have thrown societal injustices into even sharper relief over the past few months.
And as a result, there's been much greater emphasis on individual agency when it comes to the urgent dismantling of oppressive systems.
This is akin to the Christian view of sin.
It's akin to that.
As in, it's always with us.
It's always going to be with us.
And it's a constant struggle against sin on a personal, individual level.
I mean, they've actually arrived at essentially a remaking of Christianity with this.
It's no surprise that singles now consciously choosing partners are on the same wavelength as them.
Just as no surprise that others are adapting to circumvent this.
So basically what they're saying is Zoom has been completely corrupted by millennial religion.
That's what this is.
So we'll go for Tom23 from Bristol.
Has a lot to say about being wokefish.
I remember on my first date with this guy, we spoke about racism in the UK.
Oh God, can you even imagine?
You're on a date with this guy and he's just like, yeah, so race in the Britain.
That's not a good topic to bring up on a first date.
I'm sorry to say just.
Over the coming weeks, we spoke a great lot, a lot about diversifying the curriculum and issues surrounding the monarchy.
Sorry, I want to revise my statement.
I think it's an excellent thing to, it's an excellent topic for a first date.
Yeah, when you sit down the first day, you're like, look, how do you feel about diversifying the curriculum?
And they're like, what?
It's brilliant, right?
Yes, exactly.
What were you watching on TV yesterday?
Red flag averted.
But so apparently the guy that Tom had been seeing definitely did not put his words into practice.
As much as he would talk about being progressive, he would laugh at racial slurs.
It sounded like you used being a social justice warrior as a personality trait, but did the exact opposite.
Yeah.
Imagine that being your entire life.
Imagine that being the thing that you think about all day, every day.
Zara23 was wokefished too.
Again, this is Zoomers getting wokefished, right?
After being in a relationship with her ex for a year, she realized that his views seemed really off in a way they hadn't been to begin with.
Initially, he was very philosophical, artistic, and well-read.
He was passionate about the environment and staunchly opposed to the likes of Jordan Peterson.
However, he would want to debate every argument and play devil's advocate the whole time.
So he's a big fan of John Beeson then.
He didn't accept that some things are fundamental to people's identity and not up for questioning.
As in, you can't question that in the beginning there was the Word.
And the Word was God.
And Jesus is the Son of God.
And He died on the cross for the remittance of all mankind.
So you can't question this.
This is beyond questioning.
It's a point of religious faith.
And you can't change also.
It's like, OK, you're not the same person you were a year ago.
Exactly.
I don't know who you have become.
Once he tried arguing with my queer best friend that straight people were as oppressed as gay people.
I found the incessant need to debate exhausting and often upsetting and he never even acknowledged his own privilege.
And she ends by saying, oh, he didn't realistically have enough in common with me, as in he wasn't a member of my religion.
That's what you're saying.
He doesn't adhere to the good book of Andrea Dworkin.
So in 2021, so a year later, Cosmopolitan, like how to spot woke fishing.
Well, good question.
What are the red flags of woke fishing?
It can be a variety of things.
Someone claiming to be a feminist, or anti-racist, or vegan, or something else that aligns.
Again, I love that they know.
It's literally a dogma.
It's all of the same things.
Or a polygraph test.
Put the hand and see if the pulses are rising.
But it's all the same topics in exactly the same way, with completely orthodox opinions.
I mean, literally, as if there was some progressive council of Nicaea.
They've determined the orthodoxy for the faith.
Faith, right?
But, yeah, so someone who up front espouses their feminist ideals and they're dating by or offers you a woman-oriented cookbook or book, sorry, in recommendations is definitely cringy, but they could just mean well.
Instead, look for other signs.
They might not 100% stand by their views.
Do they claim to be a feminist, then reel off non-feminist views?
Do they claim to fight for racism, but actually just seem to fetishize people of color?
Do they talk over you on issues that actually affect you, but not them?
Sorry, who writes this?
Honestly, these people just want to write an article.
Well, Phalion Media Outlet's Vice and Cosmopolitan.
Actually, I don't know how Cosmopolitan's doing, but I do know that Vice has definitely failed.
So, not good for them.
So, what can you do to avoid being wokefished?
And the answer is talk, talk, talk.
I've got to talk about social justice, non-stop.
Just to ensure that we are being... I mean, imagine if you'd went on a date with a woman and she's wearing a cross.
Like, okay, I don't mind you're a Christian.
And then she's like, right, so we need to talk about Jesus.
It's like, okay, I believe in Jesus.
And so, no, no, no, no.
All the time.
We need to talk more about Jesus.
And more, and more, and more.
And you'd be like, oh my God, I want to talk about Game of Thrones.
It gets people into being interrogators.
That's what this sounds like.
The grand woke inquisitor.
Exactly, that's exactly what it sounds like.
If someone seems to be faltering or lying about an issue, ask them outright what their thoughts are on it.
If someone is skirting around how they voted, ask them to their face.
They're unlikely to be able to lie if you just ask.
Having real, meaningful, lengthy conversations...
Again, it sounds like being processed in a cult, doesn't it?
With people that you meet, before you meet is an easy way to determine whether their politically woke chat-up line or bio is cringy but truthful or sleight of hand designed to get you into bed.
Decide where your line is and if you feel uncomfortable, then just leave.
This will backfire.
Well, yeah, because the constituency of woke people is about 8% of the population.
Yes.
Whereas the constituency of people who are prepared to lie about being woke just to get someone in bed is probably a lot higher.
The thing is that this is a guaranteed way for people who are, let's say, really good liars to end up sleeping with woke people.
Yes.
That's the effect.
Yes.
Sophie adds too that not rushing into anything and trusting yourself will help.
If you think someone is pretending to be someone else or something else, my advice is to slow it right down, date other people and when you feel sure, end the relationship.
Right.
First question, are you you?
Or are you someone else?
Well, what I find interesting is like, just date someone else, bro.
It's like, yeah, well, I mean, that is the answer, isn't it?
But when is a wokefish not a wokefish?
Well, when it doesn't matter to you.
If someone says that they're vegan, but you find out they occasionally eat a box of fried chicken and they're very drunk or very sad, they're not necessarily wokefishing you, they're just human.
Right, so hate the sin, not the sinner.
That's where we've arrived at there.
They're just human, everyone's human, everyone sins by eating that box of fried chicken, even though they claim to be vegans.
I love it.
It's just a religion.
It is literally a religion.
I think it's a good thing that it happens.
Obviously, I don't agree, but I think it's ultimately good because people will get so bored of it and they will see that what we are saying and many, let's say, people are really averse because they don't like change, they don't like to listen to bad news and they don't like to say no, no, they say no, no, there's no problem with the woke, you're magnifying it, all this.
I want them to see this on, I want them to see it on their dating life.
I want the I want every conversation they have with every prospective romantic partner to be an interrogation into Black Lives Matter.
Yeah.
So, May 2023, Forbes put out this article.
Again, this is apparently still a persistent and on-running problem for members of this progressive faith.
Wokefishing is still an issue and three dead giveaways you're dealing with a wokefisher according to a psychologist called Mark Travers.
Well, this will be interesting.
Number one, they seem to agree with you on every aspect of every issue you are passionate about.
Wait a minute.
The first one, she was going on about how... He keeps arguing the case with me.
I'm sick of him arguing... Zoe was not happy about this.
Sorry, Zara was not happy about this.
He keeps arguing with me.
And instead... Okay, so you get to the other side.
No, he just agrees with everything.
It's like, oh my god, I can't even agree with you now.
For now, I'm a woke fissure as well.
Right?
You're just guilty.
That's it.
Exactly.
That's narcissism at play.
Again, point one of the Catholic Church, you were born sinful.
Yeah.
This is a way in which they want to be narcissistic and manipulate their dates.
Quite possibly.
They say, what you want to look for in a romantic partner is compatibility that is not overly dependent on agreement.
Good luck.
You want to look for someone who you can have productive discussions and help you explore different unique perspectives on the issues you care about.
But there are no unique perspectives on these issues.
In the same way there's no unique perspective the Christian has on whether Jesus rose after three days.
There's no unique perspective on it.
All Christians agree that that's the case.
All woke people agree that gay people are being oppressed by systematic structures of systemic systems.
There are these points of faith on which there is no unique perspective.
For instance, if you are someone who cares deeply about equal pay... It just sounds weird.
I can't take any of this seriously anymore, right?
A compatible partner would also likely believe that people need to be compensated fairly for their work, regardless of gender.
Is that really a political position?
I think that people should be compensated fairly for their work.
Well, the slave owners disagree, but I don't go on many dates with slave owners.
It seems to me that basically they have nothing to write and they want to basically rephrase the current problems, perennial problems.
Like, how do you know the person you are dating actually wants you or is lying to you?
And they're completely rebranding it and rephrasing it In terms of catchwords that sell.
So that's what a normal person will do, is have a nuanced argument with you.
A woke fisher, on the other hand, is likely to simply agree with you and not offer their real experiences, thoughts and perspectives on the issue of equal pay.
Maybe they just agree with you.
Maybe they're just a zealot feminist and they totally agree.
So if you say no, you're not eligible for dating, but if you say yes, you're a woke fisher, Like, just be happy you got the win that you wanted, right?
Additionally, it's not necessarily the level of agreement between partners that determines a successful relationship, although previous pieces of advice have told us exactly that, but rather the ability to communicate and navigate disagreements in a healthy manner.
Ah yes, and if there's one thing that woke people are absolutely famous for, it's navigating disagreements in a healthy manner.
Yeah, you're gonna be protesting your own partner by the end of this.
Number two.
They seem to only have a superficial understanding of the issues they claim to care about.
That really does summarize a lot of woke people, doesn't it?
They're going to ask many questions.
They will.
Woke fishers may try to impress you.
I love that they use woke fishers as if this is a constituency, as if there's a community of woke fishers.
You get around every Sunday and like, look, how can we fish the wokest, right?
Because they're so sexy, we just have to try and sleep with them.
But we don't, we need a strategy, guys.
There's a good strategy, right?
And so you can identify the woke fishers who have been coordinating against the woke.
They need a flag.
The flag of the woke fishers.
Yeah, they do need a flag.
I will put that flag in my bio.
And they need to have a flag protocol.
Yes, absolutely.
I want a woke fisher flag.
I assume it's going to be literally like a Christian fish with the trans flag over it.
But anyway, woke fishers may try to impress you with buzzwords and slogans without truly comprehending their meaning.
God, so every woke person has never been rendered a woke fisher?
Like, buzzwords and slogans without truly compounding their meaning or having a surface level understanding of complex issues such as systemic oppression or privilege.
They may only engage in superficial activism such as posting about social issues on social media or attending protests without actively participating in social justice efforts or contributing to meaningful change.
So every single activist online is a woke fisher according to this rendering question are you blind to your your group prejudice if you say yes you're not eligible but this if you say no you're lying yeah exactly heads i i win tails you lose invasion of the woke fishes yeah but look they may engage in superficial activism such as posting about social medians on social media on social issues on social media or attending protests
well that's literally all any of them do yeah so So, like, the entire movement is now a bunch of woke fishes, right?
Takes one to know one.
Yeah, exactly!
So, they say, genuine social awareness requires more than just the knowledge of popular terms and ideas.
I love this gatekeeping as well.
I'm a big fan of gatekeeping.
I think everything needs to be gatekept to keep the normies out, to keep the fakers out, those people who are just doing it for clout.
It requires deep understanding and commitment to racial equality and justice.
If someone seems to be faking their woke persona just to get with you, it's important to be extremely cautious and take things slow.
Number three, they are obsessed with their social media presence and inconsistent with their opinions.
Every woke person.
Every woke person.
It's 100 out of the 90.
But also the inconsistent with their opinions.
That's quite a difficult thing to maintain when your doctrine changes every five minutes.
It's a constant, roiling, like, cauldron of change.
Like, what was woke five years ago is now right-wing extremism to those woke people.
Like, there are so many different constituencies of woke who have been salami-sliced out of being properly woke.
I mean, the Turfs are the best example, obviously.
Insane radical feminists, right up until only a couple of years ago when it became apparent that actually the concept of woman is abolished in woke theology.
Unbelievable.
You've got to be consistent with their opinions.
No one, no one on the left is consistent with their opinions.
I think it's not even their fault.
It has to do with the groups in identity politics being completely incompatible.
Yeah, but it's not just that.
The constant sort of roiling nature of the ideological debate that's happening is constantly thinning out, like the strata of the ideology.
I saw a couple of years ago, I saw someone post It's transphobic to have gender confirmation surgery.
But hang on, no, no, they're right.
They're absolutely right, because if they aren't, if gender confirmation surgery is appealing to preconceived traditional notions of what it is to be a man or a woman, right?
You want breasts because you want to be more like a woman, but what makes you think, and we're at the point now, well, we're birthing persons now, You know, we're uterus havers now.
There's nothing intrinsically woman about having a uterus or having breasts, so a woman can have a penis now, and that's just as much of a woman as anyone.
So anyone who has had trans surgery will eventually get to the point where they're like, hang on a second, I was actually participating in a reactionary
uh fetish or ceremony in order to seem like a traditional thing which is totally now anti-woke so you can see the salami slicer of progress has got yet more people are now you know on the floor and so like confusion is the end goal absolutely well the abolition of all categories the end goal right and so those people who transitioned well that inherently presupposes categories that are immutable or established by nature, which is very reactionary and anti-progress.
So, like, I just feel bad that they're now expected to have consistent opinions.
I feel kind of bad for them.
I mean, a normal person living a normal life has inconsistent opinions, that they change over time.
I used to believe that then, I don't believe that now, because they've learned and grown.
But the problem that the woke have is that the ideology is changing at such a rapid pace that even if you feel that you've been consistent, you're no longer woke, and so now you're a woke fisher, and now that person has to break up with you.
It's just bad luck, right?
I'd feel bad for him if it wasn't so comical and stupid.
But yeah, we'll leave that there because, well, the last bit.
The conclusion is, being aware of the signs of a woke fisher can help you avoid potential heartbreak and disappointment.
How long do woke relationships really last when all you have in common is your religion?
You know, really.
Remember that genuine social awareness and progressivism is about more than buzzwords or surface-level activism.
By keeping these dead giveaways in mind, you can better navigate the world of social justice dating and find a partner who shares your values and commitment to social justice.
I'm so glad I'm married.
There's nothing other of value in their lives.
No.
I mean, it's just all of it social justice.
There's nothing else of that.
I'm getting frustrated.
But as I said before, I think that it would be a good idea if this article was a bit more influential in the woke camp, because it will make them ask more, demand more out of the people that they want to date.
And finally, they would be doing our job for us.
They would be convincing people that, you know, we're insufferable.
But they're already basically undateable, right?
Because, like, there's a remarkably high number of woke people who are just deeply unattractive, and then they're like, ah, but that's fatphobic, how dare you?
Or whatever, right?
And so they marginalize themselves out of the dating pool.
I mean, like Dylan Mulvaney was complaining the other day that no one is messaging him to go on a date with him.
It's like, I mean, don't know what to tell you.
Don't know if I can help, but best of luck.
Anyway, we'll leave that there.
Let's go to the video comments.
Regarding your segment on Friday, May 12th, 2023, the Irish government going insane, what's to stop someone from simply emailing hateful material from a burner account to somebody and then accusing them of possession of hate speech stuff?
It's like the easiest political assassination you could possibly do.
Literally nothing.
Nothing, unfortunately.
Nothing.
Karl's Friday section on the madness of Canada hit home with me.
As someone who moved here 15 years ago, I have been able to watch a large portion of the slide.
Trudeau is currently trotting out the specter of abortion rights to try and recover in the polls against the Conservatives who have said nothing about restricting access.
Trudeau could make a law guaranteeing it, but he needs the uncertainty to use as a cudgel.
He wants Canadians to clamour for state control.
Everything within the state, nothing outside of the state, nothing against the state, is a workable description of the doctrine of fascism.
Trudeau is a fascist, just like his darlings of the Chinese Communist Party.
I would like to hear more about an Englishman's experience in Canada, actually, if you would care to send us any more video comments on it.
Because like I said, I've never been to Canada, and I view it very much from the outside perspective, but my God, it looks mental.
I've been to Calgary for a conference, and it seemed, in the beginning, I thought it wasn't very woke, but then all hell broke.
Really?
Yeah.
And it had a lovely zoo, I must say.
Militias Compliance says, Question.
I'm seeing a growing trend of leftists attempting to debate again.
In the early days of Don't Debate the Right, many seemed to implicitly understand that this tactic of not debating was because they knew they couldn't win the debate.
Now though, there are people having grown up in a bubble believing their ideas are actually legitimate and thinking they can argue to victory.
Is this a positive sign in your opinion or just short-term tactical blunder on the part of the woke cult?
Right, so I've been seeing a lot of this too, and I view this as them perceiving that there is a kind of social wind against them, right?
There are people who are just, they're being just called woke, right, you're woke, and I'm not having anything to do with it, and so they are locked out of whatever they were trying to achieve.
You know, it's like, we're not going to hire a woke person.
Pronouns in your bio, like people, in fact, that's a great example.
People with pronouns in their bios tend to get hired less.
So why?
Because someone sees that and thinks we're a problematic person.
Gone.
And actually, we're allowed to discriminate on those grounds.
That's the last ground we're basically allowed to discriminate on.
Are you a woke prat or not?
And we don't have to hire you, you know?
If you're woke, right?
And so I think that what they're seeing is their general sort of marginalization from normal people and access to wider society.
And the things that they want to have are being essentially just ignored by people.
And, you know, I think they're finding themselves isolated.
And I think they want to try and argue their way into normal circles again, frankly.
I think that's what they're aiming for.
I think they feel there's a loss of influence on their part.
And I think they think by debating, they're going to get it back.
um Thank you.
I mean, personally, I say argue with them, because their positions are effing stupid, and everyone knows it, and they know it.
You are exactly right.
They stopped debating because they knew they couldn't win the debate.
Like, all of the debates they had just made them look stupid, and made their position... Like, even if they didn't defeat the person they were debating with, their position... Like, Lance of the Serfs on Tim Pool the other day was just like...
Lance may have walked away from that feeling like he'd won or something, but 90% of the audience says, oh my god, this Lance guy's a freak!
What an absolute lunatic!
This can't be your average leftist, can it?
And it turns out that it is the average leftist.
I think, in general, I'm in favor of debating, but I think there are some issues that shouldn't be debated.
I don't agree.
There's one question I have, and I haven't made up my mind, that sometimes, even in ridiculous issues, sometimes I don't know if it's good to let the other person embarrass themselves.
Well, I mean, I suppose it depends what the issue is.
Yes.
But generally, I'm okay with that.
I'm quite happy to hear the argument for almost anything.
I must say also that there are some traps that they do and Conor faced one.
Oh, did he?
Yes, because Conor went to debate some people on the issue of coronation and who was it?
The Bridgerton actress.
One of the actresses who played in Bridgerton, who is, by the way, just incredibly low quality.
It's just don't watch it.
She said that it's a terribly white family and he went to debate some people about it and they cut some of his responses.
It was a pre-recorded debate.
I mean you're never going to get honesty out of These people and the media that supports them.
But no, I think having the debates on social media yourself is actually one of the best ways.
Because you don't know what's going to go viral, right?
And I see a lot of like, you know, three or four post exchanges that get screenshotted and then go viral because they just express the insane mindset of these people.
And it's worth having that out there.
It's worth the people being able to see it.
And honestly, I find it quite fun just to watch them get to a point where they know their position's indefensible.
Yeah.
And they've got nowhere to go.
Anyway, Joan of Arc says, from abortion to no-fault divorce, children are the sacrifice of the selfish desires of adults.
This is why I'm a female who absolutely despises feminism.
Yeah, but that's exactly right though, isn't it?
You know, that's exactly right.
Like, it's... The children are the ones who suffer from this.
And now you've got a bunch of post-hoc, like, studies going, oh no, actually everything's fine.
The well-being of the children is fine.
It's like...
No, they end up with worse life expectancy, worse outcomes to be expected, they've got lower IQ, they've got more mental health issues, they have trouble forming relationships, all these other things, but they self-report a perfectly normal level of well-being, so like, you know, 1 to 10, they report 5 like everyone else, but they don't know what they've lost.
It's an extreme emphasis on autonomy because we hear many people saying, oh no, I don't want family because it sacrifices my autonomy, it violates it.
They don't understand that the very idea of human relationship involves, let's say, the choice, in some cases, to become dependent to other people.
A family is an institution where everyone depends on everyone else in all sorts of ways.
We should resist the tendency of watching only money and saying, oh, I'm, let's say, financially dependent.
So I'm completely, the other person is not dependent.
I hate this, oh, I can't afford to have children as well.
It's like, no, you can, right?
Because you spend, you know, however much a month, a large section of your budget on each month, going out, doing this, doing the other.
But you don't want to do those things when you have children.
Your priorities change.
Like, I don't want to go to clubs.
I don't want to go Spending my money on drinking or takeaways every night and stuff like that.
That's just not a desire that I have.
You know, the amount of, like my children aren't actually a great expense.
Anyway, Dan says, My five-year-old has started coming up to me recently and telling me that she never wants me and mummy to split up.
It turns out one of her little school friends' parents are splitting up and it's affecting the kid enough that the distress is now being transmitted second-hand.
Yep.
Maureen says, Fun fact, in single mother households, the effects of a missing father on the child are clear and awful.
In single father households, however, the percentage of children who turn to criminality is about the same as in households with both parents.
Well, that's because the father is the lawgiver of the house.
and he is the one who keeps the children in line with the voice.
All fathers have the voice.
From Dune.
Yeah, no, it literally is.
It literally is the voice.
And when you... Stay out of jail.
Yeah.
I mean, like, you don't even notice that you're doing it.
And I can't do it artificially either, right?
But as soon as my kids start misbehaving, It just comes.
It just flows.
It's literally like from Dune.
It really is.
And honestly, women just can't do it.
It comes from the chest.
Your voice goes down a register and it becomes harsh and deep and you can feel the power of the voice.
Women just can't do it.
It's a man thing.
Men do the voice.
I'm sure that's 90% of controlling children is the voice.
Laurentum says, I've been a single father of two teenage boys since my wife succumbed to a rare terminal heart disease toward the end of 2019.
I'm sorry to hear that, then.
It's worth bearing in mind that not all single parents have chosen to be so.
Yep, that's correct.
To coin a phrase, a room full of single parents can be diverse.
That said, as much as some proportion of single parenthood is inevitable, it can rarely, if ever, be as effective as dual parenting.
As to put it simply, two sets of hands are better than one.
Yeah, well, I was trying to make it clear that I was talking about elective divorces, right?
That's why I brought it up.
Obviously, Tragedy notwithstanding, right?
There's nothing you can do about it.
And we said in the beginning that it doesn't mean that there aren't some cases where there are some problematic households.
It's probably better to not have the alcoholic, abusive father there than have him there and struggle on.
But that's just not the majority case of single-parent households, unfortunately.
And that many governmental policies try to create the idea that the default position is that all these positions are like that.
Sophie says, the advantages of being a single mother with a work guide.
One, you get to demand child support from your baby daddy, but he may not pay.
So, two, you get to demand social security from the government.
Three, you get to call yourself a victim on social media, but also be a strong independent woman who's dependent on baby daddy and daddy big government.
Yeah, very deprived.
Yeah, it's mental, isn't it?
It's mental.
Well, that's why they complain about the stigma, actually.
That's what the stigma was for.
RJ says, I think single parent households affect children in different ways.
My wife was brought up with just her mother and she was in no way delinquent and her grandmother insisted to look after her.
That said, she does have social anxiety, so I can understand it, if it did have some kind of impact, but it's definitely not something that's black and white.
Yeah, I totally agree.
It definitely affects boys and girls differently, how it affects them.
They're different.
And of course, she didn't become a delinquent.
But, like you say, she has anxiety.
Whereas, a young man may not have anxiety, but he's much more likely to become a delinquent.
Read the day says let me tell you hardly anyone.
I knew who grew up in a two-parent household And my god does it affect us there were rich kids with a single mother who turned out even worse than us who?
Walked in shoe school and gaping shoes money is not the issue here.
It may not be the only issue.
I think it is an issue But it's not the only issue Someone online says single mothers raise criminals by and large They do for the boys I was one of the only people in my school with a mum and dad, and I was the only one not drinking and smoking weed and getting syphilis.
Yeah, I know.
Andrew says, note the bias of the author, trying to validate their childhood as being the product of a single parent household.
I guess author bias doesn't matter if it pushes the narrative.
Good point, good point.
I should have picked up on that actually.
Matthew says, Lord forbid anything have a negative stigma attached to it these days.
You might offend someone by rightfully calling out their bad choices.
Except being conservative, as we all know, anything to the right of Bernie Sanders is a white nationalist in the MSN now and should be condemned as an evil abomination.
Yes.
Barrenville Moorhawk says 20 million single mothers raising the entire family after their deadbeat husbands ran out for cigarettes.
No wonder civilisation is crumbling.
George says unfortunately there are financial benefits of being a single mother and I tell you what right this this is so Preposterous right that Tony Blair's Labour Party.
Yeah, did not have a cap on the amounts of money They were prepared to give single mothers.
Okay, and so they would give them like a certain amount and then 500 pounds a month for every child that they had and You're going to get loads of fatherless children.
And this is something that women on council estates, coming from a very working class background, women on council estates are very aware of this.
They know if they just get pregnant, the government will give them a house.
If they have another baby, the government will give them 500 extra quid a month.
They know this.
So it incentivises this.
And that is just atrocious.
The Conservatives actually capped it at 25 grand a year.
25 grand!
That's the cap.
I hate this country so much sometimes.
Let's go to comments on the second segment.
Alpha of the betas.
Chicago voted for no border wall.
Chicago voted for mass immigration.
Chicago voted to become a sanctuary city.
Chicago didn't vote for the consequences of its actions.
It's like the statement that, I don't remember who said that, you can choose to evade reality but you cannot choose to evade the consequences of, yeah, evading reality.
Again, I'm not a Randian, but that is a very fine quote.
Yeah, that's a good quote, yeah.
Bleach Demon.
The left bringing back slavery, one illegal immigrant at a time.
Ignacio Yunquera.
Don't come into my country.
Take advantage of my system.
Take a job in my community and diminish my political voice to then have the audacity to cry because I demand you to be documented and legal.
Oh, it's mad, isn't it?
Baron Von Warhawk.
Do you know what the worst part about the Chicago video is?
After everything that has happened to them, and no matter how much illegal aliens are dumped into their neighborhood, they will still vote for Biden again.
Yep.
They are going to.
You know they're going to.
It's insufferable.
It's the same as in this country, though.
It's just, this area votes for this party, and always has and always will.
I think, generally speaking, it seems to me that people vote for whatever they think that it's going to affect them positively.
So I think that if they think that Biden's position is going to affect them, they may... I don't know.
Because it's not ultimately about I don't think it's about what beliefs are ultimately.
It's about perceived self-interest.
I don't think it's that complicated.
I think it's literally habituation.
I think it's just habit.
I think that they've just always voted Biden.
They can't imagine.
They've got an emotional revulsion to voting for the Republicans.
Because for some reason, they bought into the idea that the Democrats actually care about them or something.
And so even if the Democrats are ruining their lives, ruining their communities, crimes through the roof, economic prospects are down, house prices are down, everyone's leaving, communities falling apart, they're not going to be like, well, I'm not going to vote Trump.
He's racist.
It's like, okay, well, then just... And that is why Biden went on a university lecture now, not a ceremony, not a lecture.
And he was saying that the enemy right now is white supremacy.
But the thing is, I always want to ask them, what would be the effects of racist governance, in your opinion?
Would it be deprived communities?
Would it be high crime rates?
Would it be a lack of law enforcement?
Would it be a lack of security in your own life, economic opportunities?
And if you have all of those problems in your communities now, well then, is that not the racist administration that you were fearing?
But of course, you don't get to raise those sort of questions, do you?
Sophie Liv.
Yeah, I keep saying that.
If anyone should be against open borders, it should be the black communities.
Because yeah, when people celebrate that whites are being replaced, blacks are too.
The people coming in are Hispanic, and they don't care about blacks.
All those You're racist and Black Lives Matters have no effect on the Hispanics, so opening the borders are spelling the dooms of black people first.
That's a great point.
The Hispanics aren't susceptible to white guilt.
I will make an analogous point.
It seems to me that I can't understand why really woke people are in favor of mass immigration, especially in Europe.
Because they think there'll be a persistent controllable underclass.
That's why.
Yeah, and maybe they think that, for instance, the other groups are going to tolerate them.
They're going to make them tolerate them, but they think that the immigrants will always be controllable and dependent on the government.
Whereas, of course, we're seeing in France at the moment that these people aren't controllable.
And not only that, but there's an issue that was again explained by the video that it's also an issue of numbers.
If the numbers of the group, the host group, dwindle, and the numbers of other groups rise, and especially when there aren't cultural continuities, significant cultural continuities that have to do with respecting tolerance for the last 400 years after the Reformation in the Western world.
When there is a lack of this, let's say, cultural background, It's just a recipe for disaster.
Well, it's literally like the Spartans being surrounded by the helots.
Like, have you not noticed how few Spartans there are and how many helots surround you?
You know, it's like, oh, good point.
You know, actually.
Yeah.
OK.
Jean of Arc.
Sorry, Chicago, you made your bed.
Now lie in it.
And then try and navigate the massive amount of gun control laws you also voted for so that you can use your 2A rights to defend yourselves and your families.
I've heard that it's particularly bad there at the moment.
It's always particularly bad in Chicago.
Alpha of the beaters.
Juicy... Juicy Smollett.
Sorry.
Juicy Smollett was a prophet.
Chicago just became MAGA country.
Build that big beautiful wall.
Maria Manzi.
How to destroy a high-trust and high-responsibility society.
Allow or encourage mass migration.
Yeah, that's the quickest way.
Baron Von Warhawk.
Karl, these people were not betrayed by those they voted for.
Biden and his minions told them up front what they wanted to do, and they did it.
That's a fair point.
These people should have read the election promises, but they voted blue no matter Who and now must live with the consequences.
Next time don't vote for the leopards eating people's faces party if you want to keep your face.
No, I agree.
This is what I mean.
It's not even about the policy.
It's not about, like, self-interest.
It's literally just habitual.
Oh, we all vote for Biden.
We all vote for the Democrats.
It's just habitual.
Diogenes Nods.
Chicago communities just learned how their politicians see their minority voter bloc.
Why wouldn't they screw you over what you're doing, what you're going to do?
Vote Republican!
They have immigrant votes to buy, they don't care about people who are going to vote blue no matter who.
Exactly right.
I think this illustrates that even within the camp of those who play identity politics, there is a notion on communities.
They actually don't care about communities.
No, an actual like rooted community.
Yes.
Like the one we saw complaining.
They don't care about them at all.
Yes.
Because to them, community is an abstract collection of people that could exist anywhere in the world.
Yes.
You know, the global LGBT community, the refugee community.
So they frequently talk about indigenous communities, about the black community and stuff like that, but they don't, they cannot understand what it, what is involved in a community.
A culture, a way of life.
There are some bonds of sentiment that people want to maintain.
They don't care about it.
They can't conceive of it.
Let me grab a comment here because it's important.
S.H.
Silver says, Carl, I would push back on your definition of the comprehensive liberal.
For an ideology to be comprehensive, it would be totalitarian, and it would be definitionally anti-liberal.
You would do better to differentiate liberalism from neoliberalism, the latter of which is a perversion, blah blah blah.
I didn't coin that term.
That term was actually coined by other liberal philosophers and was used by a philosopher called Claire Chambers, which I'll be commenting on her piece.
And it's not that it's not totalitarian, it is totalitarian, but that doesn't definitionally make it anti-liberal.
Actually what it is is the application of liberal values to every aspect of life.
Which means the non-liberal things, such as the family or private associations, they end up getting dissolved on the altar of liberal values, which is one of the problems that liberalism has, actually.
And this is, as we're going to continue further debating.
But anyway, let me go to the final section in a second.
Alistair says, hey guys, wanted to finally comment after a few years.
Say thank you all for the quality work you do on reporting events, the topics you cover in Contemplations, and the other series.
Special thanks to Carl, though, as I've been watching since as far as I can remember during my formative years, and a lot of your content has shaped who I am today, especially being a stoic and contributing to your community.
Thanks to this, I just got engaged five years after five years to my soon-to-be wife, become a dual tradesman, and now Finally earning a fair chunk of coin out on the gold mines of Western Australia.
I've been lifting for 10 years and joined the Army Reserves.
Thanks for everything.
Man, that's amazing.
Congratulations.
Well done on all your hard work.
Ilovick L says, regarding woke fishing, whoa whoa whoa.
I thought no one knew who woke was, or what woke was.
Despite no one being able to define it, people are able to seek it out while dating, and others are effectively able to fake it.
Great point.
You know, suddenly we don't need to define what woke is, do we?
Kevin says, what utter bollocks.
What woke person is open to debate on their views?
That's the thing, isn't it?
It's not debate on the views they want.
What it is is essentially ideological refinement.
Like, I need a greater understanding of Christ's sacrifice.
Not whether Christ sacrificed himself or not, right?
That's what they mean.
um brian says woke fishing is nothing new i told the missus i didn't like football and didn't uh and didn't watch much telly in my defense she was wearing a low-cut top tight shorts so i would have said i was an astronaut if he'd been to mars if i thought it would have worked i worked yeah well that's men for you isn't it ignatia says god i am grateful for getting together with my girlfriend back in 2014 after knowing each other from school and bypassing the entire dating game because i'd rather be alone try and find a partner in today's climate i I can't even imagine.
I can't even imagine how awful it'd be.
I think dating apps are the worst thing that's ever happened, to be honest, to human relations.
Like, you know, when I was, like, single, like, a decade ago, I used dating sites before the apps became a thing, and they were all terrible.
I've never used them.
It's useless, because no one's what you think they're gonna be, and there's never, like, the expectations are too high, because everyone polishes their bio, and so, you know, they take the best photo, and so everyone's always disappointed with the person they actually get to sit opposite of, and so it's just a terrible, terrible thing.
Meet someone in real life, that's the only way to do it.
HR Slave says, when I was in uni, me and my friends always said the Blue Hair Brigade were the easy targets.
Conservative and right-wing women are too modest and have too many standards to bother if you're just looking to hook up.
That's true, actually.
You know, when they're like, oh, well, you should slow down and take some things out, come on.
Look at your constituency.
You know, they're uber-feminists who don't understand that that's, uh, they view that as essentially a form of oppression.
Um, Bleach Demon says, give a date to a wokefish and it's a cheap lay.
Teach them to wokefish and it's a lifetime of salt.
13 Transylvanians.
Um, Omar says, I think wokefishing is stupid sexy conservative cope.
Chances are the anti-racists are actually against racism, but the dictionary uses definitions that aren't self-referential.
Alternatively, they are correctly identifying the hypocrisy of the leftists but aren't able to connect the dots.
Quite possibly.
Lord Nerevar says, Wokefishing is easy because you just need to know a few buzzwords and how to use them in a sentence.
I do it all the time on account of having been once in the Woke cult myself.
It's honestly a good way to move around an organisation.
I've been offered jobs in my sector because of my firm commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.
Well, I don't doubt, actually, that there's every incentive to do that, and if that's the metric by which they're going to promote you, I do not blame you, and I in fact fully recommend that you advance yourself as far as you can and make as much money out of the diversity, initiative and inclusion agenda as you can.
Screw it.
Now, people are... it's mandatory.
Yeah.
Almost every job application says you need to fill die statements.
Yeah.
And finally from AsDesertRat, regarding Dylan Mulvaney, just because you think you look sexy in a dress doesn't mean the rest of the world thinks you look sexy in a dress.
And who would want to date a ridiculous political exhibitionist?
Great question.
Anyway, we'll leave it there, folks.
Thanks for joining us.
We'll be back tomorrow, same time, same place.
▲
Export Selection