Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 11, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:44

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #717

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Seaters.
	This is episode 717, and this is Friday, the 11th of August.
	I'm your host, Stelios, and we are joined by Harry and by Freya India.
	Thank you for having me.
	Very nice to have you here with us.
	And we are going to talk about young women being terrified of marriage, status lesbian versus autistic child, and the British censorship state.
	I'm really happy that you like this title.
	Oh, it is really good, to be fair.
	It's a fantastic title.
	So thank you very much for that.
	We started off well, because that's already given me a good laugh.
	Also, John, I can't hear a bloody thing you said because I think this is broken.
	So, I won't wait.
	Maybe talk into my ear now?
	You are incredibly quiet, but there is some audio there.
	So, as ever, we're an incredibly professional setup.
	So, we get straight into it?
	I think we should.
	Is there anything else you wanted to add?
	Freya, seeing as you're here, before we start, would you like to tell everybody where we can find you and what work it is that you do?
	Yeah, so I'm a freelance writer.
	So I write for a couple of different publications online, Spectator, New Statesman, places like that.
	But more recently, I've been writing about girls and young women and their mental health.
	So I've been doing a sub stack.
	Yeah, where I just talk about, you know, what it's like to grow up in the modern world as a girl and a young woman and the kind of challenges we face, but also how we ended up in this mental health crisis.
	Is there anything you've done recently that you would particularly want to point to?
	Yeah, I think just the substack in general.
	You know, Empowerment Feminism Failed Us is probably one of my most popular recent ones, which is just kind of talking about how modern feminism failed to deliver on a lot of its promises.
	And, you know, women on both the left and right feel disillusioned with modern feminism and why that is.
	Makes a lot of sense.
	Excellent.
	All right.
	Let me just say that I've read one of your articles on UnHerd.
	Yeah.
	It was brilliant.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you for writing it.
	Oh, thank you.
	There we go.
	So you can find Freya there.
	I'm sure we'll remind people by the end of the show, but for now, let's get on with it.
	Young women seem to be completely terrified of marriage.
	As far as I can tell, from the stats that I've seen and from some of the videos that tend to get shared about online, specifically on Twitter, I'm still not calling it X. You can try and say whatever you want, Elon.
	It's Twitter.
	It's not X. I'm not going to X something.
	I'm going to tweet something.
	That's how we came to love it.
	There you go, exactly.
	It's a load of birds tweeting at one another and nobody's really actually listening to anything at all.
	And also on TikTok, videos always get shared about women giving terrible marriage advice, generally from porn stars, which I don't know why you would take marriage advice from a porn star, but some people do.
	And also from, obviously, single women who seem to just be either afraid of commitment altogether or afraid, as we'll find out, for some reason that if you just get married, all of a sudden you have to start doing housework.
	Because you don't before you get married.
	No.
	Before you're in a relationship, everybody knows that everything just cleans itself up magically.
	That's how it worked when I was in university.
	I think when I was staying in university accommodation, I found everything would just clean itself up magically.
	There definitely wasn't, you know, a stench in most people's university accommodation.
	It would just go away.
	You would wish it away.
	That's what happens.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I'm glad it wasn't just me who found this magical thing happening.
	Yeah, it's only in marriage that life gets monotonous, never outside of marriage.
	Absolutely, and also people seem to forget that two people can't share a burden, it always has to go entirely on one person.
	Now, I'm going to preface this and say that what I'm not going to be saying throughout this segment is that all marriage is going to be a fairytale ending for people's lives.
	You don't just get married and then everything is perfect.
	You don't get married and then all hardship in life is going to go.
	You might get married, and if we're perfectly honest, Even if you're in a relationship, you'll notice some things might get more difficult because all of a sudden you do have to have a shared emotional responsibility with somebody and also shared practical responsibilities with somebody that create their own difficulties that you might not experience when you're single.
	So you can't just say that marriage is some kind of cure-all for any problem that you might experience in your life, but on a society-wide basis, as well as for individuals, Marriage is obviously a good thing.
	If you want a strong, cohesive society built up of what I consider to be the base unit of any civilization, which is the family, in an Aristotelian sense, as you would put, then you need people to get married and you need people to be unafraid of getting married.
	And what you don't need are spinster harpies, To put it in a very blunt term, online telling people that if you get married, the only thing that's going to happen is you're going to be married to Homer Simpson.
	And he's just going to be sat around on his ass all day doing nothing, eating and getting fat while you do all of the brain work.
	That's not what's going to happen.
	And we need to be honest about both sides of this.
	So before I go into any further detail, we've got lots of videos on the website as always.
	We've got lots of articles on the website.
	And recently Calvin came into the studio to do a podcast with me and Carl.
	And afterwards, Carl did an interview specifically with him where they were talking about society as we're discussing right now, and he was also talking about issues of faith, issues of atheism, and issues that are facing the country.
	I believe this one is free on the website, so if you don't want to have to shill out for a membership right now, although you should!
	You should, because it's only a fiver.
	It's only a fiver.
	You've got a fiver, probably in your back pocket right now.
	I know you've got a fiver on your credit card and on your debit card.
	So, you know, just throw something a little bit our way.
	Just, you know, contribute to the family a little bit.
	I won't give you what's yours, you get what's ours, you get what's coming to you, okay?
	So there you go, capisce?
	But if you want to test it out first and see what great videos we've got on here, then you can watch this and see the interview that Carl had with Calvin, which I'm sure is very illuminating.
	So let's carry on, shall we?
	So there is the starting decline in marriage rates that have been going on ever since you would say maybe the second Wave feminism was that maybe in the late 60s early 1970s that a lot of people attribute that to but you can see from this article here from care.org where they're talking about marriage rates since 1972 a lot of these figures are and I believe that they are taken from the UK specifically The marriage rate per 1,000 of the population has fallen from 80 to 20.1 by 2018.
	So that is a vast, vast reduction.
	That has fallen by what, four times?
	Yeah.
	That's absolutely ridiculous.
	For women, since 1972, the marriage rate per 1,000 of the population has fallen from 63.5 to 18.6.
	by 2018.
	And in 2018 in England and Wales, 270,000 marriages took place, which you can compare with 480,285 in 1972.
	So almost half.
	It's almost completely halved as an overall figure And for the actual individual rates between men and women, it has fallen drastically.
	It's sometimes by a factor of four.
	That's absolutely ridiculous.
	And once again, the statement I'm making here is not that every marriage is going to be created equal and that it's going to fix every problem in your life.
	Just that if you want to live a stable life, that's going to have some kind of meaning.
	You're going to want to share that with people.
	If you want to have meaningful experiences and some kind of contentment in your life, you want somebody to share those experiences with.
	You can obviously get that from close friends, but at the end of the day, most people will find that sort of life within a stable relationship, which ends in marriage and children.
	So I don't see these sorts of figures and think, ah, women's empowerment finally worked.
	We finally got there!
	No, I look at this and see the civilization that I live within is crumbling.
	These are not good figures and it means that, you know, meaningful relationships are declining in number.
	What do you think about this?
	Yeah, I think you're right that women are only hearing one narrative now.
	This newer narrative which is telling you to delay it as long as possible and to spend that time focusing on yourself and, you know, pursuing your own self-actualization and self-discovery.
	But yeah I think you know if you buy into that for a really long time there's obviously benefits to figuring out who you are and pursuing your dreams but at some point you're going to want to share something more meaningful with someone and I think you know women are missing that narrative because we've got like you know all of the kind of Instagram feminist advice is that marriage is monotonous and you're going to get trapped Doing all of the chores and the housework and it's going to take away from your personal growth and development.
	We've also got like a therapy culture that's telling young women to focus on themselves, to, you know, heal themselves and be the perfect person before they meet someone and find someone perfect for them.
	And I think it's sad because I do think young women are being deterred from something meaningful and just pushed towards pursuing kind of short, shallow relationships instead.
	Well, that attainment of perfection is something that's never going to come in the first place.
	Nobody's ever going to be perfect.
	Nobody's ever going to be completely content with their own lives, no matter what you're doing.
	You could be working the most empowering girl boss job ever.
	You could be earning seven figures a year and there's still going to be parts of your life that you're not entirely content with.
	Yeah.
	And there's a further issue of when we talk about empowerment, there's a question, what do you empower someone to do?
	Do you empower people to pursue a career?
	As opposed to, you know, pursuing a family.
	Yeah.
	That's what it seems to me to be.
	I think it's the same with men because I think a lot of men are hearing this narrative of you need to be like a alpha male, like a lone alpha boss.
	And you don't take on any woman if she's going to bring any kind of discomfort to your life or sacrifice.
	And then women are hearing they need to be this kind of self-actualized girl boss who doesn't need a man.
	So I think it's both genders are hearing that they need to be to go off on their own and find themselves endlessly.
	I don't know if that makes sense.
	Propensity towards careerism.
	Yeah, and your own individual desires and aspirations, which obviously there's value in that, but I don't think it's making us happy on the whole.
	No, I certainly wouldn't say so, especially with women.
	I would say something that we'll get to at the end is there's the obvious problem of the women's happiness paradox, which people always bring up, which is that men's happiness has dropped a little bit, but women's happiness since the 1970s, the early 70s, has dropped drastically to the point where I believe before women were on average self-reporting as being happier than men.
	Whereas now it's well, well, well more the case that men are self-reporting as happier than women.
	For all of our faults, can just kind of get on with things, because that's what we're programmed to do.
	Women, when they don't take on the more nurturing roles within their own lives that are programmed into them, will end up still with those instincts.
	They just won't have a proper outlet for them.
	There's the problem that a lot of people point out, and I've seen a lot of the 40, 50-year-old single woman, no children, who has a baby surrogate, which is how you end up with the phenomenon of the crazy cat ladies.
	Yeah.
	You know, I love cats.
	My parents have cats.
	I grew up around them.
	They're lovely creatures and they can be an excellent add-on to any family.
	They're not a replacement.
	I have three cats and they can give me perfect advice.
	But I have a sense that you have to show us some... That's a nice little pun you put in there.
	Perfect.
	Very clever.
	I have a feeling that you are about to talk to us about someone who isn't so much qualified to give advice.
	No, no.
	Have you, any, either of you ever heard of Mia Khalifa?
	Yeah.
	How familiar are you with her work, Stelios?
	I mean, I've just heard that she had an Oxford Union address, and she went with bimbo nails.
	Oxford Union address?
	Yeah.
	They'll give that to bloody anyone these days, won't they?
	Dear God.
	So if you're not familiar...
	You know, and I don't blame you if you're not.
	Mia Khalifa, is she an ex-porn star now?
	Yeah, I thought she stopped, although she went back or something.
	I remember there was a big controversy a few years ago where she basically made it sound as though she was forced into the industry and was abused in the industry, but then she's gone back and done an OnlyFans and a lot of the things that she was saying are very contentious and people weren't entirely sure how much they could trust her.
	She, being the most qualified, having been married twice and engaged three times, decided that as an ex-porn star with a string of failed marriages, it's my turn to give out some advice on TikTok after this person said to her in a comment, this Nikki Jones comment, facts, married at 80, divorced at 20.
	So let's see what Mia had to say on the subject, shall we?
	Oh, we're comparing stats.
	Baby girl doesn't know that I am Tom Brady at this game.
	Married at 18.
	Divorced at 21.
	Second marriage.
	Married at 25.
	Divorced at 28.
	Third engagement.
	Engaged at 29.
	Ended it at 30.
	But I kept the ring.
	I'm still keeping Tom Brady on his toes.
	We should not be afraid to leave these men.
	We are not stuck with these people.
	Marriage is not a sanctimonious thing.
	It is paperwork.
	It's something, it's a commitment you make to someone.
	But if you feel like you're not getting anything from that commitment and you're trying, You gotta go.
	You gotta go.
	You have to go.
	I know it's difficult to fill out paperwork and to make appointments and to do all of these things, but this is your fucking life.
	Do you want to be stuck with someone?
	Period.
	Do you want to be stuck with Insightful.
	Highly, highly insightful.
	So, would either of you take her advice?
	After she prefaces it, all of her advice that she's about to give with... By the way, I've got a number of failed marriages.
	By the way, did I mention I'm a former porn star?
	Here's my advice, which is basically, if you get bored, you should leave.
	That's all marriage was to her, but at the end of it is paperwork.
	At the end of the day, it's not something meaningful that you've built up there.
	You're going to try and develop a life together.
	Yeah, if you go into it thinking it's paperwork, then it's not going to work because you have to go into it thinking it's going to be full of rough patches and sacrifice and compromise.
	So having that mindset in the beginning is not conducive to a happy marriage.
	I think it's not, but this is a case where, you know, you have a messenger.
	Anything she's going to say, people are going to disagree.
	Yeah.
	So I disagree with her on the idea that marriage is not a sanctimonious thing because it's the basic relationship, arguably.
	Oh, yes.
	Socially speaking.
	And I mean, marriage has a link to the family and you have people within the family.
	The relationships that occur within the family are the basic relationship.
	Yeah.
	But there's something that she says that I think, if we abstract the fact that she's saying it, has some merit in it.
	And this is that, you know, you don't owe unconditional.
	Yes.
	Oh, I agree with that.
	Yeah, I agree.
	So if you marry someone and eventually you find that they're a horrible person, yes, of course, it is a sanctimonious thing, but you should leave because it is a sanctimonious thing.
	Yeah.
	And the other person is not honoring it.
	Well, I wouldn't say that you should leave immediately, but obviously you need to put effort in.
	You need to put effort in on both sides.
	And if somebody's not pulling their weight in a relationship, you should speak to them about it.
	I think you need to put effort into giving the benefit of the doubt to the other person to see whether they're horrible.
	But once you understand that they're horrible, then I think you should leave ASAP.
	This is true.
	You could also put it down to poor judgment on her side with the people that she was going with for marriage in the first place.
	After a certain amount of marriages failing, you've got to wonder, am I the problem?
	Potentially, I will say this.
	But yes, you have to put effort in on both ends.
	Yes, that's all I really want to say about Mia Khalifa.
	Let's get her face off of the screen, shall we?
	Just a bit of advice for anybody out there.
	If you're getting advice from someone, maybe consider who you're getting the advice from, and that will actually show you what the advice is directing more than the advice itself.
	If you understand what I'm saying, I put that slightly poorly, but basically, Sometimes advice can say more about the person giving it than the quality of the advice itself.
	So this is something else that I saw going around which was this TikTok of this girl who's being presented with an engagement ring and as she's going to accept it all she's seeing is visions of herself in the future doing all of these basic menial bits of housework that I assume she has to do anyway.
	Sorry, she seems like Gollum trying to put his hand on the one ring.
	So this is showing that obviously to her, the idea of a marriage is none of the positives that can come with a good relationship.
	Presumably, if she's being presented an engagement ring, she's already been with the person presenting it in the first place for long enough that he's decided to try and get married to her.
	And she's just assuming that as soon as that ring goes on, any benefits that she gets from it, material or otherwise, are just going to Go!
	Out the window and she's essentially going to be free house labour for him.
	And I can understand that worry.
	But I think it's sad that, you know, why do young women view marriage that way?
	Who has taught them or what have they seen growing up that they think that this is what all marriages are?
	You know, it's sad.
	I feel sorry for her.
	Do they not have their own parents to refer to when they look at these situations?
	Well, maybe not.
	Because, I mean, a lot of young people today have divorced parents.
	They don't come from, you know, stable facts.
	Maybe this is their vision of, you know, what a partnership between a mother and father or a husband and wife is like, because they haven't seen it.
	All they've known from it is the narrative they're being told, which is usually, you know, delay it and avoid it, because you'll end up in this situation.
	Perhaps.
	I worry when I see this that some men will watch this and decide to tailor their own behavior and their own relationship expectations to go in the complete opposite direction to this.
	Okay, women are afraid that if we get married and if I get in a relationship with her, Then I'm just going to be this weird domineering figure in her life, essentially going to turn, once again, into unpaid house laborer.
	So in that case, I'm going to become as submissive as possible to try and tailor my own behavior to what I think women want.
	And from my experiences seeing people put themselves in that situation, one, it's very damaging for the men in general because they end up seeing themselves as pathetic.
	And you end up with, uh, Callum's been covering it a lot recently.
	I don't know if either of you know about the iDubbbz situation.
	Are you aware of that?
	So he, he has a very clearly domineering wife to the point where he took her surname, which is not something that you typically see.
	And he is basically being ritually humiliated by her on a daily basis on social media.
	And she is the one who's in charge of a lot of the projects that they undertake together.
	But whenever anything goes wrong with them, like for instance they put on Creative Clash 2, which in the build-up he had been constantly saying she's the one in charge of all of the management and organization, making sure that people work together.
	It fails, makes no money, they lose 250 grand on it, he's the one going out in front of the camera apologizing and explaining it, she's nowhere to be seen.
	So he's been turned into a ritual humiliation beating stick On her behalf.
	And I can't imagine that she would find that particularly attractive after a while.
	So if you make yourself too submissive in response to videos like this as a man, you're going to end up turning yourself into someone that women aren't going to be attracted to in the first place.
	Yeah, you can't win either way, I suppose.
	Men are going to think, you know, that's the sad truth is that if you do make yourself submissive and you do do everything that you think a woman wants you to do, she might not find you attractive anymore.
	There might be Part of that dynamic might need to have some, you know, level of dominance from the man.
	So yeah, I do feel sorry for men, you know, what do they take from this?
	How do they approach marriage and get the balance right?
	Yeah, don't let her cut off your balls and put them on the mantelpiece, is what I'm saying here.
	And also, I shared this out, pointed out the obvious, you still have to do all of these things, perhaps even get pregnant and have a baby, but on your own.
	You still have to do housework, and I got a load of people who were the sorts of people who had cat mum, Um, no minors allowed and other such things on their Twitter bios saying like, well, yeah, exactly.
	But that's the point.
	Don't you understand if you get married, all of a sudden the workload that you have to do at home quadruples?
	I don't believe you.
	It can be bad if you find the wrong person, you get married to the wrong person.
	Perhaps these people are just going off poor examples that they've been given, but that's not going to be the rule.
	Marriage is a risk, isn't it?
	Everything's a risk.
	You could end up in that situation very easily if you're with someone lazy who's not respecting you, but you could equally end up in a situation that's so meaningful and you could do this montage of amazing moments in a marriage equally the same.
	It just depends who you end up with.
	Exactly.
	I mean, these people are taking the exceptions and turning them into the rule.
	Whereas, like you say, there are going to be some people who will have a marriage that's not going to work out for them, but they're going to be a smaller percentage than those who are mainly just going to end up in a marriage and relationship that's like most of them, which is that, you know, you're not fairy tale prince charming into the sunset for the rest of your life, but it's something meaningful and stable that gives you something It gives you a rock to hold on to.
	I think marriage requires a degree of practicality and the fairy tales that are so widespread in society, they tend to create unrealistic expectations.
	When these expectations are not met, many people think that this is not going right and they're not fighting for it.
	Well, it's like the self-expressive marriage.
	They think that marriage is there to fulfill their desires and their personal ambitions and everything.
	And sometimes, you know, a partner will get in the way of your own self-expression and your own desires because things happen.
	You know, people get ill or there's a rough patch in your marriage.
	And I think now we're being told, you know, as soon as it threatens your personhood or your personal fulfillment, then leave, which is really sad.
	Yeah, and it's not something that's just exclusive to women either.
	Men, especially if you've got kids, you're going to have to put aside a lot that you probably would have wanted to do in your life anyway so that you can hunker down, earn the money and supply for your family.
	Women can also help with that, but at the end of the day, it is mostly true that women will be the ones doing a lot of the child rearing.
	So if you want to have a good division of labor, then the man's going to be the one who's doing most of the labor outside of the home.
	Yeah.
	Because you've got to split that to be fair.
	The man can't just then come home and do nothing all day and sit in his ass like Homer Simpson.
	But at the end of the day, you've got to split these things relatively evenly, especially if you don't want to have resentment spilled out.
	Otherwise, you've got to be smart about these things.
	You can't expect the fairy tale.
	You also can't expect the nightmare.
	You've got to be realistic because we live in the real world, guys, and nothing's ever perfect.
	But don't base it off of some random TikTok You found on there that confirms your stupid biases because you're an idiot.
	And I did have some people coping in this and responding to it just saying that, oh, most single women are actually way happier than all married women.
	And sent me some sent me this as a response, which was that why so many single women without children are happy.
	And I thought I'd just take a look at this to examine some of the data that's in here.
	This is from Wendell Patrick.
	Uh, say who's a some JD and PhD.
	I looked into her and she's some kind of criminal prosecution or criminal psychologist or something.
	She's someone who obviously has the kind of job and career that is really interesting and engaging on a day-to-day basis.
	That means that, yeah, you've probably got enough on your plate day to day that you are engaged all the time and don't have to worry about these things.
	So maybe it does work out for some women.
	But once again, let's see what data we've got in here.
	So she's saying that women tend to have stronger social networks outside of their romantic relationships compared to men.
	This is true.
	Everybody knows that there is the problem, especially Connor, Charlie, and I covered it yesterday, of male loneliness.
	A lot of men are very, very socially isolated because we have the understanding that the abstract forces of nature don't really care about us for the most part.
	There's that famous Nora Vincent book where she dressed as a man for a year to get an experience of what it was like and she realized that, hold up, nobody cares about men on a day-to-day interpersonal basis unless you have a strong group of other men who you are close with around you.
	Nobody cares about you.
	You're just dirt on the street that most people pass by.
	So that is true.
	She also says single women may be more selective than single men when choosing a partner as they may enjoy their freedom.
	This is also kind of true, but once again, this isn't proving to me that women are better off without marriage.
	This is proving to me that women feel better being single.
	Because, yeah, single women are more selective.
	Obviously they are, because a lot of men find themselves in a situation, I've seen it happen, beggars can't be choosers.
	Sometimes, no offense to the guys out there, but a lot of people see themselves in that situation.
	I've seen men go out with people who have been absolutely terrible for them, purely off the basis of, well, I don't know if I'm not with her, if I'm going to get with anybody else, or if anybody else is going to treat me the same way that she does.
	That's the road to hell.
	Exactly, yeah.
	Because you're together, not because you like the other person, but due to insecurity.
	Yeah.
	And if you don't have friends, if you don't have a solid social network, then you are going to just stick with someone because you're going to think it's the only place I can get any kind of comfort from someone.
	So I can see why, you know, especially lonely men would be more drawn to just picking whoever.
	It can happen sadly.
	According to happiness expert Paul Dolan, we've got experts on happiness now, guys.
	What we've been able to do, we've been able to take the abstract knowledge of happiness being something out there in the abstract, and we've quantified it down to the scientific measurements of happiness.
	That's utilitarianism.
	Yeah, we've got a unit of joy.
	How many joy do you have today?
	I have more than you.
	You probably do, you're such a chirpy guy as well.
	Yeah, I'm very joyous.
	There you go, see?
	He's just so happy.
	That's what sunshine by the sea in the Mediterranean will do to you.
	Happy guy.
	But Paul Dolan, who is a professor of behavioral science at the London School of Economics, said that women who are single and with no children are the happiest in the entire world.
	Dolan explains that while men derive benefits from marriage, the same cannot generally be said for women.
	Women tend to be more involved with social networks as compared to men, who often rely strongly on their wives.
	In other words, once again, just a reaffirmation there that women are better at coping outside of marriage.
	Also, that idea that women don't derive the same benefits as men from marriage might be true in some cases, but you can't just take it as just point rote for blank that all relationships everywhere are going to end up that way.
	And once again, like you say, it's utilitarianism.
	If you're basing everything off of the pure pursuit of happiness as this abstract concept, you're never going to be happy.
	And also, you're going to end up with a civilization that destroys itself.
	Because if we all just focus every pursuit that we have in our lives on the individual pursuit of happiness, that basically being a Obtaining pleasure in the moment.
	We're going to end up with the horrible dystopian transhuman future where everybody is in the coom pod.
	Just having, as Carl has described before, wearing the helmets where they're in virtual reality orgasming 24-7 while civilization crumbles around them.
	I know that's a somewhat vulgar image, but that's what it all comes down to.
	But it's like Brave New World, Huxley's suit of pleasure.
	But I also think marriage is not really about happiness.
	Happiness is like the byproduct of marriage, but marriage is more about unity and having someone to do life with.
	Like, I don't think thinking of marriage as a source of happiness is a good thing.
	Obviously, your partner has to make you happy.
	You know, you shouldn't be in a relationship where you're constantly sad and lonely, but happiness shouldn't be the ultimate goal of marriage.
	And when you aim for happiness, it usually doesn't come.
	When you don't stop aiming for it, it comes.
	You're right, happiness is kind of a byproduct that you stumble onto.
	Once again, in an Aristotelian manner, if you pursue the things that you know a good life consists of, then happiness and contentment will be a byproduct of that.
	Whereas marriage in general should be a stable basis for forming a family, for having children and doing those things that will continue a society on.
	That's what it's for.
	You can have your life, you can still pursue things that are Nietzschean and life-affirming as well, but generally if you want to live in a society that's stable and presents you with the boundaries that are necessary to pursue happiness elsewhere, you need something solid to base all of that on.
	And I decided to take a look at these sources that the article uses because I was like, okay, Paul Dolan.
	I've never heard of him.
	He's a happiness expert.
	I don't know how you get that qualification.
	Is it like becoming a tickle expert?
	It sounds like a motivational speaker.
	It really does.
	You have an audience and assemble them and say, be happy.
	Say yes to happiness.
	No to misery.
	This is the article they were citing here from The Independent, and it says in here that, so, Mr. Dolan has his latest book, Happy Ever After, which cites evidence from the American Time Use Survey, which compared levels of pleasure and unhappiness in unmarried, married, divorced and separated and widowed individuals.
	Study discovered levels of happiness reported by those who were married was higher than those who do not have spouses, but only when their husband or wife was in the room.
	This all seems very, very tangential and a little bit spurious, if you ask me.
	I'm sure that the people who take these surveys do a good job.
	I looked at the American Time Use Survey and it seems to be a part of the Bureau of Labor in America or something.
	Most of their job seems to be Getting surveys on how people spend their time over the phone.
	So you just ring somebody up.
	How are you spending your time?
	You've agreed to do the survey.
	Also, how happy are you?
	Is your husband or your wife out of the room?
	You can be honest with me now.
	Don't worry about it.
	Seems very strange.
	This is the kind of information that you're going for.
	And once again, as we've already discussed everything to do with the happiness.
	And once again, these surveys are conducted on limited numbers of people.
	You can't control for whatever else is going on.
	in their life at that particular time anyway, if they're going through a rough patch or whatever.
	Mr. Dolan also said that having children can be harmful to people's wellbeing.
	And there we go.
	I think that's kind of the base point of where a lot of this leads to.
	Yeah.
	Which is that if you do things that are good for society, they're not good for you, though.
	Yes, it's all about you, isn't it?
	It's all about the self.
	Obviously, there are going to be times when your child is not good for your well-being, like they're not good for your individual happiness.
	But the whole point is that all of these things that you think are going to make you happy, usually it's the things that you don't expect to make you happy that actually do.
	Like the sacrifice and the compromise.
	That usually makes you happy in a way that you never thought it would.
	Happiness is usually not where you think it's going to be.
	Exactly.
	And also, I just noted this down here, scientists make shocking discovery that having children is difficult.
	Nobody had ever heard of this before.
	I'm glad that we live in the 21st century where we can make these groundbreaking discoveries.
	And also... They get money, taxpayers money to do these studies.
	Yes, yes they do.
	And so my only solution is that we all need to start listening to Mia Khalifa on her advice on what will make us all happy instead.
	I forgot to mention as well, in that video earlier, she was smoking a spliff.
	Just smoking weed, just like, stoned out of her brain, performatively putting on this- Adds to the credibility.
	Yeah, that- you know, when I think, who am I going to take my life advice on?
	I think the crack addict in the corner of the street.
	And I think he's got- he's got something going on.
	I don't mean to gesture in your direction, you know?
	I know you're not a crack addict.
	And there was another article they went to, which seems to have deloaded, so if you wouldn't mind loading that for me, John, thank you very much, where the information they gave was just, once again, reaffirming elsewhere that women are happier than men when they're single.
	This is not telling me that men and women shouldn't get married, this is just saying that women have better friendship groups around them when they're single.
	Everybody knows this.
	And none of this data can explain this, the happiness paradox.
	Which I explained earlier, which is that as women's rights have become more and more extensive, as they've gained more and more freedoms, civically, their self-reported happiness seems to have gone down and down and down.
	So, once again, I mean, this may not even be necessarily accurate, because this, again, is self-reporting, and you don't know what else is going on.
	It's from The Guardian.
	Well, no, this is something that's not just The Guardian, it's lots of people, it's just The Guardian had the first article that showed up on Google.
	Yeah, but they've pointed this out.
	Everybody points this out.
	So who's, which data am I going to go for?
	And am I going to base all of my decisions purely off of what's going to make me happy?
	Or am I going to make my decisions based off of something that's less expedient than that and something that's more to do with, you know, maintaining civilization around me and what I know is going to bring more meaning into my life.
	I think that's something that we should do.
	Is there anything else that you guys would like to discuss about this before we carry on?
	Well, I just think with self-report, you know, some people would say they're happy.
	If they're not happy, there was still self-report being happy to try and, you know, how do we know people are being honest with the people serving?
	How do we know they're being honest with themselves?
	Exactly.
	After a certain point, are you just saying that you're happy right now because you're trying to convince yourself?
	Yeah, it might be that the men are being more honest about being unhappy single.
	You know, we don't know.
	It's just so subjective.
	Okay, let's move into our second subject.
	Now, if you don't want to be arrested, there are some things that you should never do.
	Like, for instance, committing murders.
	Well, depending on how rich you are, you could get away with that.
	Like stealing.
	Yeah depending on demographic factors you might be able to get away with that.
	Yeah but you must never ever ever under any circumstances say that a police officer is a lesbian look-alike.
	Now this is where Wokeness takes us because unless it stops, we're led into a situation where, in a sense, laws and policies do not support us, the people in general, anymore, but they support actually some police officers and the minority groups or the groups that are protected by governments that want to play divide and conquer against the people.
	Because I don't care.
	And this leads to disastrous and unjust policies and laws.
	Now, speaking of just and unjust laws, visit our website.
	And you know, for five pounds a month, you can support us.
	It's good to have your support and it's very good.
	I mean, it's warm.
	Are you trying to do a Harry salesman?
	No, I'm not doing a Harry salesman.
	I'm not talking down to people.
	I'm saying that this is very rewarding.
	Thank you very much.
	I'm not talking down to people.
	I'm just telling them, listen, I know you've got money.
	Okay.
	So give us some of the money.
	Watch our latest Symposium with Bo if you're interested into the fall of the Roman Republic and one of the major figures who played a role within that era, Cicero.
	Watch this marathon of a discussion.
	And if you want to talk about ancient Rome, Bo is the person to chat with.
	Three hours long.
	Nice.
	Yeah.
	It was like Lord of the Rings 3.
	You need to rewatch those films again.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Now let's move back to our topic.
	Yeah, okay.
	So, something really weird happened.
	It has gone viral and many people talk about it.
	It has made a lot of us angry.
	And let us look at this article from Daily Mail.
	Moen Seven, officer's drug-autistic girl, 16 years old, kicking and screaming from Leeds home for committing a hate crime.
	After she told Female Cup, you look like my lesbian nana.
	So she was arrested just telling to that cop that you look like my lesbian nana.
	If we scroll down just a little bit more, I think we can get an image of the... Now, I don't want to get arrested, but there is a particular look that this police officer has adopted, which means I can understand the comparison.
	But I think mainly the most important question is, what does the lesbian nana look like?
	That's the most important question.
	Probably like this.
	The autistic girl probably did not mean any insult by it.
	It was just a comment because autistic people don't understand social situations.
	So, we have two short videos to show you and I want your, let's say, criticisms and your feedback on it.
	I've seen these, so they're not very nice.
	It's good to see them, to watch them.
	Let's watch.
	She's made a comment in her own house.
	She hasn't said anything to you.
	Don't matter.
	She's getting arrested.
	I've got Eunice Cummins, don't worry.
	She hasn't done anything.
	She's autistic.
	I don't care.
	She's autistic.
	I'm telling you, I've got Eunice Cummins.
	She's autistic!
	She's autistic!
	I'm telling you, I've got Eunice coming, she's gonna be arrested tonight.
	I'm gonna beat you!
	You've been picked up me if I get put inside my head!
	That's why we got her on at first place.
	You've been picked up me if I get put inside my head!
	She's autistic.
	Can you stop staring at her, please?
	She's got autism.
	Can you just stand there?
	She's in her cupboard.
	She can't go anywhere.
	She can't go anywhere.
	Stand there, Ian.
	They're going to remove her for what?
	She said the word lesbian.
	Her nana is a lesbian.
	She's married to a woman.
	She's not a homophobic.
	Look what you've clenched in your face.
	Go away from my teenage daughter.
	There is something wrong with you, mate.
	She didn't aim it at the police officer.
	So, before we show the next one, I want to say two things here.
	- She said, "I think she's a lesbian like Nana." - She called me. - If you wanna bully people, you'll just get one of them badges there.
	That's what you do.
	- Yeah, exactly.
	- Where did you go?
	- Where's this, does it go to the right number there? - She's autistic.
	She don't like people touching her.
	She will have a meltdown. - So, before we show the next one, I wanna say two things here.
	So, at some point, the mother says she's autistic and the reply is, "I don't care." That's one thing that the officer replied.
	Now, I think that generally speaking, police officers should be trained to be calm and not to have sort of feuds with drunken teenagers.
	Yes, I agree.
	I think police officers should be a part of the community.
	But let's say that she was really, really, let's say, angry and whatever.
	It's her job not to be angry in these cases.
	But there's another issue here.
	The other policeman, no one focused that on him.
	He's very calm and he tries to calm things down.
	And he's saying basically, she made homophobic remarks to my colleague.
	And he's calm when he says it.
	He doesn't say it when he's angry.
	I think that no one has picked up on this, and it's something to talk about, because it seems that right now the police is more interested in the DIE agenda, the diversity, equality, inclusivity and equity agenda, than actually policing the UK.
	Well, this video comes out around the same time that in London we get scenes of mass gangs of ethnically diverse teenagers looting the streets with nothing being done about it other than bystanders having to film it as it goes by while the police time and time and time again show that they're not interested in policing actual chaos in the streets, actual crimes being committed.
	What they're more interested in is policing people's speech and policing people's thoughts.
	This is ridiculous.
	Even if the girl wasn't autistic, even if she wasn't drunk, even if she was fully cognitively aware of everything that she was doing, just calling a police officer, saying that you look like a lesbian should not be illegal, should not be something that you are putting this family through this level of distress for.
	Because they say during the video, they say, well, if you just calm her down and get her to come out here, no, you shouldn't be arresting her in the first place.
	This is absolutely disgusting and vile.
	And the fact that the police are being complicit in it, I don't care if the gentleman involved is being calm.
	He shouldn't be part of this in the first place.
	The police should be, they won't, but they should be turning around to their commanding officers and saying, we're not enforcing these laws.
	Yeah.
	But isn't also the, you know, the push for tolerance and avoiding offense.
	I thought mental health was a big part of that, you know, not to stigmatize mental health.
	There's a hierarchy though.
	Yeah.
	So there's a clash there, you know, they've, they've, they're more offended at the homophobic remarks, but you know, I've, I would find it offensive if they were saying, I don't care that your daughter's autistic because that genuinely does impact how you speak to people and how you interpret situations.
	So why has the homophobic remark caused more offense in that instance?
	No, it's definitely much more of a factor to me that somebody is not completely cognitively aware of the social circumstances they find themselves in than somebody might consider the remark homophobic.
	And actually the police officer is homophobic in this case because if she got insulted by being called that you look like a lesbian nana then most probably she thinks that being a lesbian is a bad thing.
	That's why she took offense.
	Well, the statement isn't offensive in and of itself.
	It's not like she was saying, you look a certain way.
	It was kind of a neutral statement.
	You just look like my nan.
	I don't even necessarily think that she is interpreting it in a way that is homophobic.
	I just think this is an exercise of petty tyranny.
	That's all this is.
	Let's at least feel useless to do anything.
	So let's just terrorize our own constituents.
	Let's watch the next short clip.
	Can you stop staring at her, please?
	She's got autism.
	Can you just stand there?
	She's in her cupboard.
	You can't go anywhere.
	Look what you're clenching your fists at.
	Go away from my teenage daughter.
	We're trying not to do this, aren't we?
	We've been trying for a long time.
	But she hasn't done nothing, no.
	That officer out there has assaulted me for no reason.
	She's got autism.
	She's autistic, now.
	The issue is, if Alex decides to arrest her... She won't arrest it.
	They brought her to us.
	No, but she was going upstairs.
	She's just standing at the side while the men do the work.
	Absolutely disgusting.
	Right.
	Now, everyone has an opinion on this incident.
	I think the best thing to do is to actually look at what the police said about it.
	So let's have a look.
	Yeah, this one.
	one.
	So West Yorkshire Police Assistant Chief Constable Oz Kan said, we are aware of a video circulating on social media, which, as is often the case, only provides a very limited snapshot of the circumstances of the incident.
	Officers had their body-worn video cameras activated during their wider involvement with this young girl, which provides additional context to their actions.
	We have received a complaint in relation to this incident, which is currently being assessed by West Yorkshire Professional Standard Directory.
	While that ongoing process and the active criminal legislation limit our ability to fully discuss the incident in detail, we feel it is important for people to have some context about the circumstances.
	So this is where it starts, according to the police.
	Active criminal investigation.
	From 12 past 12 a.m. on Monday, August 7, police received calls from a family member of a 16-year-old girl who was reportedly intoxicated and putting yourself at risk in Leeds City Center.
	So we are at Leeds.
	After...
	Just after midnight, and someone calls the police from that person's family.
	And she is reportedly intoxicated.
	So it's not just, it's not even the remark or the insult of a 16-year-old.
	It's the remark of an allegedly drunk 16-year-old that caused all this fuss.
	And in Leeds City Centre, and Leeds is not exactly the safest place in the UK, especially at night.
	Now, officers attended at about 1am and drove the teenager to her home so she could be appropriately looked after.
	Upon returning her to the address, comments were made which resulted in the girl being arrested on suspicion of a homophobic public order offense.
	The nature of the comments made was fully captured on body-worn video.
	When the girl was eventually fit to be interviewed, that interview took place with an appropriate adult.
	And then it continues.
	But I want us to look at the formulation.
	The whole problem is the suspicion of a homophobic public order offense.
	And one thing, because again, I take issue with it.
	I take issue with people who want to constantly sugarcoat what they're doing and change language because, oh, we don't want language to hurt their feelings, but we don't have an issue with doing what these officers are doing.
	They're talking about an interview.
	Now, when people get arrested, they're interrogated.
	They're not interviewed.
	I mean, I don't care about whatever context they want to dress all of this up in.
	At the end of the day, you put a family through an incredible amount of distress for no particular reason for a crime that shouldn't even be a crime in the first place.
	The public order offence, I've looked into a little bit off the back of researching this, It's ridiculous, it's just another way of criminalising what should be legal speech in the UK and then the amendments that were made to that that add on to sexual orientation and such make it such so that just saying an inconsequential aside like this young girl made towards a police officer means that you can do this to someone's family.
	Whilst at the same time I can understand why the police do this rather than do their actual bloody job.
	Because you get videos I covered recently from London where the police are shown constantly actually responding to real crimes and doing, I must say, a piss poor job of it in the first place.
	So they go out and they go and respond to actual crimes that are going on and there's like two Somali teenagers who are tiny, skinny, no muscle on them, no fat on them, they must weigh maybe five stone tops, obviously I'm exaggerating, but And you have like three fully grown men failing to even get them down so they can put cuffs on them.
	There's a question to be asked here and I would like to hear your opinion that if social media were silenced, we would not know of that incident.
	Yeah.
	We would hear a completely different view of the story.
	We would hear that the police is tackling homophobic crime and hate crime.
	Yeah.
	Well, that's kind of a benefit of social media because, you know, we talk about cancel culture, you know, things getting caught on video and things, um, you know, the anxiety of thinking someone's going to share something about you, but there is a benefit that we have full context and we're able to see it because I wonder how many times this has happened before and it's not been caught on camera and we've not seen and we've heard a completely different story.
	Um, so I'm pleased for the family that they at least have some footage of it.
	Yeah.
	Well, this should have happened in the first place.
	Yes.
	So let's look at the next link.
	Yeah.
	Homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crime.
	And let's scroll down a bit.
	Here on the incident, because this talks about the Crime Prosecution Service, the incident.
	It's a sort of guidelines that are given.
	It says, was there any use of derogatory language that referred to sexual orientation or being transgender?
	Was it a sustained attack?
	Did it involve excessive violence?
	Was cruelty, humiliation or degradation involved?
	I mean, I would say that cruelty, humiliation and degradation was brought upon the family.
	associated with gay or transgender activity, or was it in response to or undertaken at a time coinciding with a social or political meeting such as Pride?
	Now, what criteria does the incident we just watched fit?
	I mean, I would say that cruelty, humiliation, and degradation was brought upon the family.
	That's certainly what I would say.
	Beyond that, there was no derogatory language used, no sustained attack, there was no violence, let alone excessive violence, and associated with gay or transgender activity is such a vague and grey term that it doesn't mean anything. and associated with gay or transgender activity is such a What What matters, at the end of the day, is who is interpreting these laws, who is administering these laws.
	When you have things like this, it just means that even if this young girl is not taken to the full extent of the law and prosecuted under it, the very fact that her and her family had to go through what they did serves as a warning to the rest of the population of England.
	If you even dare do anything that the police could interpret as being against these stupid public order laws that shouldn't be in place in the first place, Then we'll put this through you.
	We'll put you through this.
	The young girl involved is going to have this follow her whole life.
	It's going to be brought up throughout her life.
	That's the negative of it.
	There is a video of it and she's in it.
	So she's never going to get away from this now.
	So the main thing to be asking is where did this happen exactly?
	Because We just watched seven police officers arresting a drunken teenager, 16 years old, who just told to one officer, you look like my lesbian nana.
	Now, it happened in West Yorkshire.
	Now, I love Yorkshire because I lived there since 2016.
	I live in North Yorkshire, but this happened in West Yorkshire.
	And it's interesting to introduce some perspective here because West Yorkshire isn't exactly the safest county of the UK.
	Now let's hear.
	So, West Yorkshire violent crime statistics.
	Annual crime rate in West Yorkshire County is 62.8 crimes per annum per 1,000 workday people as of June 2023.
	As you will see, this is the violent crime.
	Compared to the national crime rate, West Yorkshire's crime rate is at 172%.
	Violent crime makes up 41.5% of all crimes reported in the county.
	The total number of violent crime is 141,000 and this number has increased by 2.2%.
	When compared year over year in the period of July 2022 to June 2023.
	Now this is West Yorkshire and if we scroll down we will see here West Yorkshire violent crime rate rank number one highest crime rate out of 54 counties.
	Violent crime rate in that region where this happened where seven police officers were deployed for that very reason is basically the worst county in the UK.
	Perhaps there are better ways of distributing duties and what police officers should do?
	I will suggest this.
	I just looked into it.
	West Yorkshire is where you have locations like Savilletown located.
	Savilletown is quite notoriously a borough of a town in West Yorkshire where there is no English people living there anymore.
	You just have people of foreign immigrant descent who live there.
	And we know from very many incidents that have happened all over the UK over the past 20-30 years that the police often have trouble actually solving or even looking into or responding to crimes that come from certain backgrounds because of the fact that they don't want to be accused of being racist.
	And so for them, depending on which parts of the community are committing these violent crimes, it's going to be a lot easier for them to be able to do their job if they just, once again, administer the petty tyranny of people who were a West Yorkshire native family by the looks of it, than actually solve the problems that are creating these crimes.
	In this graph here, we see that there's a tendency for violent crime to rise, especially in the last 10 years.
	If you see here, around 2013, then it spikes.
	And if you also see here, West Yorkshire violent crime rate, it has a steady increase.
	The whole of UK has, but the increase in West Yorkshire is bigger.
	It probably correlates with something else as well.
	What happened in the last 10 years?
	That's a question to be asked.
	Well, if you look into just national figures alone, between about 1995 and 2010, the rates of violent crime across the country, I think, tripled.
	Really?
	Yes.
	- So, and here is where I think we should focus because there seems to be something wrong with police.
	And I think that this is basically the face of wokeness.
	And wokeness is very corrosive.
	It destroys societies.
	And let's see how.
	The problem with wokeness, especially in the police, can be summarized in the following manner.
	Their job is to fight crime.
	But they seem to be untrained and qualified to fight actual crime.
	So they have to actually invent A new categories of crime and they have to portray themselves as, let's say, tackling that crime.
	Meanwhile, while they're virtue signaling and they're telling how much they are fighting crime, actual crime, violent crime is on the rise.
	Now, and let's just see here to support this.
	There was an article by the Telegraph and thanks to John for pointing this to my attention.
	It says, in 2021, March 16th.
	Police officers are victims in almost half of all hate crime prosecutions.
	So, police officers are victims in up to half of all hate crime prosecutions.
	Statistics show, as body-worn cameras have made it easier to bring abusers to justice.
	For North Yorkshire police, 53% of all prosecuted hate crimes in 2019-2020 involved a victim who was a police employee or officer compared with less than a fifth.
	So, question.
	If, let's say, someone wants to be, wants to give the benefit of the doubt, but sees this, How can I, let's say, say that, okay, I'm wrong in thinking that actually the woke policing, the police that is interested in just virtue signaling is more interested in just saying that we are tackling imaginary crimes as opposed to actually fighting crime.
	It is absolutely ridiculous.
	And for that figure that I mentioned a moment ago, I got it up on my computer.
	It's from a book called License to Kill by David Frazier, subtitled Britain's Surrender to Violence.
	There's a figure in here, violence against the person, crimes per 100,000 population in England between 1950 and 2015.
	And from 1995, it was about 400.
	2015 and from 1995 it was about 400 by 2010 it had jumped up to about 1200 so tripled i want to ask you something about empowerment here
	because for so many years we listened to the narrative that tells us that for instance if you you have people from some minority groups or i don't know if they are even minority but they are segregated in such a manner that they say that you are a protected group.
	You have, let's say, people from there who are saying that we need jobs, we need to be respected, we need to be empowered.
	How empowered is a person who cannot handle the insult of a drunken 16-year-old autistic child?
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah, now the narrative of empowerment is to try and fight any kind of transgression against you, any kind of minor offense.
	It's now empowering to fight back and call it out.
	But, you know, really, what does that do to your actual personal resilience?
	I think it's probably the most disempowering thing.
	Because you are gonna come across people who are gonna say things that offend you.
	And to live a life of in constant fear of that and constantly trying to battle that is the opposite of empowerment.
	And wouldn't you say that wokeness locks people into that mentality, into that victimhood mentality?
	They're kind of searching for it because they're being told it's out there.
	And, you know, men think of you this way and some, you know, white people think of you this way.
	And once you've been told that, you will search for it and you will find it because, you know, so many normal interactions could be interpreted offensively.
	It just depends on, you know, the worldview you have.
	I mean, as I see it, that is the empowerment that they're talking about.
	The empowerment is the fact that you have the laws and those who administer the laws on your side.
	I imagine it must be very empowering on a certain level to know that any minor infraction against you could be taken to the legal ends that you want it to, whether or not, because at the end of the day, these people have power.
	On their side, they have the halls of power.
	They have Parliament on their side, because in Parliament, whenever you hear people talking about it, it's never, how can we roll this back?
	It's, how can we mitigate this and just make it more fair for all?
	Which is not actually a solution, because inevitably it ends up with things just keeping on shifting leftwards and leftwards and leftwards in the social realms, where more and more legal protections are brought upon.
	Even more minute and distinct classes, so that they can then take it out on normal people.
	But there's a question here with this narrative of empowerment and whether we, who is doing the empowerment?
	It's the state that does the empowerment.
	Individually, is it empowering?
	Yes.
	To view the world like that, then no.
	And the problem though is, and I want to find out whether this is something that is told to everyone, also women in all sorts of issues, whether wokeness involves, I think it does, but whether it involves Such ideologies that create a mind that views everything as a threat.
	Yes.
	Now when this happens, that's dangerous because they interpret everything as a threat and they feel that they're justified in using violence against everything and they interpret everything as a threat.
	I think a lot of it is an avoidance of discomfort of kind of any kind of personal psychological discomfort you feel.
	You know, we're now told it's empowering to try and overcome that and and call that out.
	But yeah, like I said, so many things in your life will be uncomfortable and often, as we were talking about with marriage, you know, sometimes the most meaningful things are full of discomfort.
	And I think the kind of woke narrative from all angles, the social justice angle, but also the kind of therapeutic culture, it's all telling young people, avoid discomfort at all costs, which inevitably makes life more uncomfortable and it's disempowering.
	And it is a message that should be taught to the police.
	It's not sexist to tell to police officers or who are trained that you need to control your temper.
	You are representing society.
	You're representing law and law enforcement.
	You're not there representing your feelings.
	Your feelings are secondary.
	Yeah, well, surely that's the profession where emotions should be the least involved within it.
	But, you know, the woke kind of narrative is very much your emotions are paramount.
	But to see that in policing is just dangerous.
	So I think that this is a very anger-inducing incident.
	And you should show this to everyone because, you know, showing actually where wokeness leads.
	It doesn't lead to fighting crime.
	It actually leads to not paying attention to actual crime and gives an incentive for, let's say, woke bureaucrats to say, well, we're inventing a new category of crime.
	Meanwhile, actual crime is on the rise, but we're not going to do anything about it because we cannot.
	They think that they cannot.
	But actually, they can.
	And I talked about this on my previous segment on shoplifting.
	Just want to say something quick about it in Greater Manchester.
	We have a new constable who made some changes.
	Where is it?
	Okay, I'll just say it.
	Here, okay.
	So, what was happening before?
	Because I want to show a solution that things can be done.
	Things are not doomed here.
	Until recently, the police had the duty of responding to several mental health crises.
	And there was no sufficient time for shoplifting, or at least that was, and tackling minor crimes.
	That was what we were told.
	And in Greater Manchester, they went to a back-to-basics approach, which freed that from police duty and said, no, responding to mental health crisis is something that the health services have to do.
	Actually, they went back to basics.
	As it says, in Greater Manchester, Steve Watson, the Chief Constable, pulled the force out of special measures in record time with a back to basics approach.
	He announced in May 2021 that his officers would investigate all crimes and follow up every reasonable line of inquiry.
	The force has since reported a 38% increase in charges for burglary, A 22% increase for robbery and a 53% increase for vehicle theft.
	So, things can be done.
	It's a matter of political will.
	I think what should be done, personally, not to labour on it too long, is just that if anybody knows anybody who can do it, is to have some kind of legal action taken against that police force.
	Because at the end of the day, legal challenges, for the most part, outside of the people in charge of these situations being replaced with people who actually care about law and order, it's legal challenges that will get stuff done at the end of the day.
	So what you need is you need lawyers on your side.
	As much as it pains me to say something like that, I know, lawyers, right?
	But anyway, so we got a good gist of the kind of absolute dystopian security state that the UK exists as right now, and I thought we would continue that theme because Carl sent through to me a Twitter thread which just catalogued a lot of the problems that we've experienced in the UK with legislation that actively disadvantages normal Every day, hard-working people, and makes it illegal to be normal.
	In the classic sense, that communism is when freaks and ugly resentful mutants make it illegal to be normal.
	Normal is the general state of affairs that most people find themselves in.
	It's not really that quantifiable, but we all know what we mean when we say something like that.
	So don't get tricksy with me, alright?
	Okay?
	Listen, I know you're not from here.
	But we have certain standards in the UK that we like to adhere to, alright?
	Yeah, I see you with the police standards.
	Actually, to be fair, throwing that out at you, I could probably be arrested for a hate crime now.
	I won't say.
	He's going to hold it in his back pocket though, just watch him.
	But yes, so recently Josh did a contemplations video on the website talking about Europe and that was with you, wasn't it?
	Yeah.
	And I believe mostly it was just finding various funny ways to insult the different nations of Europe because People in Britain and the Europeans, we've got a bit of a bantz going between us.
	We've all been at war with one another at one point or another, so we could just have a bit of fun.
	Maybe we've oppressed you at this point, but you've oppressed us at this point.
	It's all in the past.
	Rear-view-mirror kind of business.
	It's a lovely conversation I had with Josh, and it's very fun.
	Just watch it.
	There you go.
	So, watch that, and I thought we'd zoom in, because this is a general overview of Europe.
	But let's zoom in a little bit so you can understand England, which is the place of, have you got a licence for that?
	Have you got a licence for doing anything?
	Have you got a licence for that tweet there, son?
	Don't know about that one, eh?
	Etc, etc.
	And I've covered a number of times the kinds of legislation that exists within the UK that really empowers police forces Bureaucrats and the government to enact petty tyranny and anarcho-tyranny over the main population.
	One of the big ones I've spoken about in the past was when I was talking about the Equalities Act, which I provocatively titled this one, Abolish the Equalities Act, because of a number of reasons.
	There's the 2006 and the 2010 one, just to go over a little bit of it.
	Basically, there is the European Human, sorry, Equalities and Human Rights Commission, that this empowers to be able to take anybody or any organization to court with legal action without there being an actual victim involved in the process.
	So whereas before you would have had to say that there is a victim involved in some kind of discrimination, now all that happens is the EHRC can show up, say you're not diverse enough, therefore you're discriminating, therefore we're going to take you to court.
	over it so there's that i also got some interesting figures here i didn't include it in the website but on uh because i found this article only just before we came on so i'll just read this from my own laptop here it's from an unheard article called conservatives should amend the equality act not abolish it so he takes a bit of a different tact to me but the author in here When they complain about the Equality Act they're usually angry about specific clauses.
	For instance, there's section 149 which introduced a public sector equality duty.
	This obliged public bodies to encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic because the Equalities Act establishes loads of different protected characteristics from religion to race to sexuality to gender etc etc.
	None of which generally privilege anybody who could be considered a white Englishman, for instance.
	But, you know, that's that's how all of this legislation ends up going, isn't it?
	But it encouraged persons who share relevant protected characteristics to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.
	Let me say, they took that literally.
	The protected characteristics that, you know, the police doesn't protect you if you're not part of them.
	Mm-hmm.
	Yes.
	Bob-on right there.
	Also, disproportionately low.
	Disproportionate as to what?
	To what?
	Just what you imagine in fairytale land should be the representation of a particular people in some kind of business.
	If you get a business where, oh, you've not got enough black women in that business, is it maybe because black women just haven't been applying or maybe the ones that have applied haven't been qualified or maybe didn't go through the test well or the interview process well?
	No, it's just because you're racist, because you don't have enough black women, therefore we're going to take you to court over it.
	They've done this with a few businesses and he carries on saying, subsequent regulations introduced by conservative ministers toughened section 149 imposing on public bodies a requirement to publish measurable equity objectives including a concrete steps to strengthen diversity and extensive annual reports on progress.
	This effectively meant that every public body from your local hospitals, trust to the Royal Navy had to hire a diversity bureaucracy.
	What followed was predictable.
	According to, sorry, the number of diversity and inclusion roles surged 71% between 2015 to 2020.
	So that's a 71% increase in useless bureaucrats who realistically speaking, should probably either be doing a different job or are too useless to be employed at all.
	If the best that you can manage in life is that you are a bureaucrat working in a diversity department somewhere, I'm sorry, you're useless.
	You just are.
	Hate to break it to you.
	According to LinkedIn, the UK now has twice as many D&I workers per capita as any other country.
	Twice as many.
	That's a lot of public money going to funding these professional, useless people.
	Congratulations, UK!
	We did it!
	Diversity is solved.
	Racism has been solved because of this.
	It's not just useless, it's harmful.
	It's absolutely harmful.
	Because they want to justify their positions, they create problems.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They have to find things to justify what they're doing.
	You can look into the guidelines they provide for this, because in this segment I looked at one of the booklets that you can find online that says, okay, in practice, how does this work?
	One of the examples they gave for disproportionate action against people of a protected characteristic was, say you're running a hairdresser's.
	And you want a dress code that means the women who work at that hairdressers to display the quality of work that you will produce for your customers have to wear your hair in a certain way.
	Yeah.
	Seems like a pretty reasonable thing, right?
	Because you want to advertise it in every aspect of the job so that you can say, look, we're the best hairdressers.
	Look at how amazing all of our women's hair is.
	That is discriminatory because of course, what if you hire someone who might wear a hijab?
	Therefore, you can get prosecuted under the law for this.
	So, once again, companies have had to produce ridiculous... They've predictably had to create these gigantic compliance departments, which mean that every aspect of their company is past a certain size.
	I think it's if you've got 50 employees or more, everyone falls under this kind of legislation.
	So they've had to create gigantic compliance departments so that they're able to meet all of these ridiculous demands.
	Because at any time, The HRC might come knocking at your door and come out with a hefty lawsuit because they've decided that you're discriminating against someone, somewhere, maybe.
	So can you not have dress standards at work?
	If they can be interpreted as being discriminatory, yes.
	Surely it's down to the company how they want their staff to present to a certain level.
	Well, it's against the law.
	We don't live in a free country.
	The UK is not a free nation.
	Yeah, it's true.
	But what is, let's say, what's a dress code that is offensive?
	Well, pick one out of your pocket.
	You can think of anything.
	Somebody can find a way to make anything discriminating.
	I see what happened here.
	Someone was hired as a diversity officer and was entrusted with the job of, let's say, finding non-offensive dresswear, dress codes.
	And this person has started coming up with ideas of what kind of dresses and clothes are offensive.
	And then what?
	They managed to get it passed through law?
	Yeah.
	Oh, OK.
	Well, I mean, that's exactly what they want to do.
	The end state of this is we're all in burlap sacks because that's the only thing that can be neutral enough, inexpressive enough, so that it can be considered Non-discriminatory.
	Then we've got things like we mentioned before in the last segment, like the Public Orders Act, which that poor girl got prosecuted under, or at least got arrested for, because the Public Orders Act is ridiculous and sets all manner of speech regulations to make it so that if anything that you say could potentially be considered racist or offensive to somebody, then they can.
	Including the fact that I think under that, it also... No, actually, I'll go through this thread.
	So this thread, as I said, has a lot of examples of the way this ends up working out in practice.
	So for instance, this is back from February, but all of these examples still apply.
	So Prevent, who were originally a public body set up to prevent Islamic terrorism, end up preventing or monitoring their own citizens for far-right extremism, which back in February was determined to include reading Orwell.
	Watching The Thick of It, which is a show that I think is, what, 15 years old tops?
	So, if you're reading Orwell, you're supposed to be far right.
	Yes.
	The self-avowed socialist George Orwell.
	Now far-right, apparently.
	Reading Shakespeare.
	So having any level of culture or understanding of your literary cultural heritage.
	Racist now.
	Reading Douglas Murray.
	Because he wrote The Strange Death of Europe, he's like the only one that I could even remotely consider maybe.
	But even then, he's not far-right.
	He's nowhere near far-right.
	He's a neocon.
	He's written a book about why we need neoconservatism.
	He's not a far-right figure.
	In any planet!
	And others inciting texts, which also included Tolkien.
	So once again, anything that could be remotely considered to be outside of the progressive paradigm that we live in, that's what suddenly becomes far right.
	So let's just carry on down here a little bit.
	So here's this quote tweet from iHypocrite.
	The UK will treat online images of immigrants crossing the channel as a criminal offence.
	Free country?
	Why?
	Well, because you might be racist against the doctors and nurses.
	Did you see Diane Abbott's tweet?
	Yeah, she mentioned that on the podcast.
	That was hilarious.
	You know, I said, you know, Diane Abbott's kickstarting a new run as a BNP member.
	Surely she's done that.
	You know, she's sharing online images.
	They all share it, but once again, it depends on whose side you're on.
	If you are on the side of the progressives, then anything you do, you can say anything and it will be interpreted with the most Upmost good faith.
	Yes, yeah.
	Whereas if you are not, then anything and everything that you do will be interpreted in such a way to make you a criminal.
	That's friend and enemy on pure display right there.
	The government plans to use the online safety bill to crack down on online misogyny, but Tory peers are pushing for the law to go further with the inclusion of legal requirements that social media firms must prevent online violence and abuse against women.
	How they will do that, I've no idea.
	But I have actually, once again, covered the online safety bill.
	I don't want to go into as much detail with it as I did the Equality Act of 2010, especially because it's not actually gone through yet.
	But suffice to say, the parts of the legislation that are important will be that all online activity, if this goes through, will be regulated by Ofcom.
	Have you ever appeared on a network and channel that has to be regulated by Ofcom?
	No.
	It's not fun.
	It's really not fun.
	They have so much red tape to make it impossible to do anything.
	And once again, it can be interpreted in any number of ways.
	It will also criminalize legal but harmful speech.
	What does that mean?
	I think the main challenge is to make people view, see behind the vocabulary, because we constantly have a virtue signaling vocabulary that we are bombarded with.
	But the question is, what is the reality behind it?
	Because words are used to sugarcoat actual practices.
	And I think that's the main challenge.
	How do you get people to look past the slogan, past the terms that are used?
	Well, and these are the real victims of cancel culture and the culture war.
	You know, we talk about celebrities getting cancelled, but it's real ordinary people behind the scenes getting arrested and flagged for free speech.
	You know, these are the people that we should be speaking about.
	Yeah, and look at this as well, so here's another one.
	So the Equalities Act, the bill extends a third party, this was a bill that was being put through earlier this year, third party liability for every type of unwanted conduct prohibited by the Equality Act, including overheard comments.
	So you're walking down the street, you hear somebody say something that you think is a bit untoward, you can call the police.
	This reminds me of the Age of Terror, where it was just hearsay, it was guaranteed to have your head chopped off.
	Yeah, that's the one step away we are, is the fact that they've not got the guillotines out.
	Because unlike Unlike in the French Revolution, even our elites who are in charge aren't honest enough to just start killing us at this point.
	At least it would be more honest if they did just break out the deity.
	Imagine the gossip, the gossip these people like.
	There's just overheard comments.
	Usually you have the presumption of innocence, at least in the Western world there is such a thing, or there was such a thing as a presumption of innocence.
	Now hearsay is enough to get you in trouble.
	Yeah.
	It's ridiculous.
	I mean, hearsay once again.
	Ubisoft partnered with police to jail gamers for their in-game speech.
	Oh, there'll be a lot of that.
	Well, yeah.
	How far back are we going?
	Because if so, I've got some pretty bad Modern Warfare 2 sessions.
	Some usernames.
	I need to go back and see if I can just erase from ever happening.
	I'm going to need some kind of genie in a bottle so that I can reverse time to make sure some things were never said.
	I need to go back and make sure that when I was playing Halo 3 with my friends on the sofa that I don't say some very hurtful comments.
	Which got a good laugh at the time.
	Just bants at the time.
	Now, apparently, I could be arrested for it.
	What else have we got down here?
	So we've got Andrew Doyle talking about the public order bill.
	We've already gone over that, this podcast.
	We had the Roald Dahl situation earlier this year.
	A lot of this will be stuff that we've already covered on the podcast and already spoken about in great detail.
	But just putting it all together really makes you remember that we're the country that brought the Magna Carta.
	into existence.
	King John had to sign the Magna Carta to prevent him from tyrannizing people.
	The civil war happened over the potential threat of a king tyrannizing his subjects.
	And what's happened, the parliamentarians that got in charge of the government afterwards, that's the very system that they set up afterwards, has been used to continually terrorize and terrorize and terrorize the citizens as we've been going on.
	I think this is an issue of the vocabulary behind the action, because you regularly have in the, let's say, sphere of politics, you have the use and abuse of power, and you have the rhetoric people throw in order to justify their use of power and criticize their opponents.
	So this is a big discussion.
	Oh, it is!
	We'll have it at some point.
	Yes, we will.
	What else have we got down here?
	I'll just keep scrolling and we'll just... When everybody's dead inside, we can stop, alright?
	The beatings will continue until morale improves.
	As award-winning author Kate Clanchy revealed she was told she couldn't refer to the Taliban as terrorists in her book because now they govern Afghanistan.
	Leading figures in the publishing industry warn that sensitive readers are destroying the art of writing.
	I'd imagine a lot of these people within the publishing industry are the sorts that have actively cheered along these sorts of things up until now, until it comes to your doorstep.
	So that's what we often have as well.
	We have people who are more than happy to engage in tyranny until all of a sudden it's on their doorstep.
	So they don't get much sympathy.
	In my mind, we had this person who was arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic.
	This is not a case where a guy was screaming abuse or harassing women as they were going in.
	He was just silently praying.
	Sorry, you're off to jail, mate.
	It's offensive to some.
	It is offensive to some.
	I can see the work rationale behind it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	We've got the non-crime hate incidents.
	Are you aware of this?
	No, no.
	So non-crime hate incidents are things that aren't technically illegal but could qualify as some kind of offensive speech.
	So people can report you for it and it will get noted down in a police file and from that point onwards that can be referred to if people are doing a DPS check for you.
	Uh, a DBS check, not DBS.
	A DBS check in the UK, it can be referred to by employers when they're looking into the facts.
	That makes no sense.
	They admit that it is not a crime.
	Well, this is like harmful, sorry, legal but harmful speech that was included in the first few drafts of the online harms bill.
	Have you seen those ads on the tube before?
	If you're looking at someone on the tube, you can call the police.
	Eyes down, citizen.
	Yeah, so what's that under?
	Is that hate crime?
	You would probably be prosecuted under some level of harassment law.
	I don't know exactly which one it would fall under.
	It would probably be a public order because they would probably classify it as some kind of harassing behavior.
	Assault, yeah.
	Yeah.
	I was told I didn't have ethnic resources.
	The only black teacher at a predominantly white college was admonished for not doing enough to promote equality and diversity in class.
	While Betty Knight challenged that finding, she was racially harassed.
	So this is interesting.
	This will probably be another outgrowth of the massive compliance departments that have been built into this.
	They know, oh, we've only got one black teacher.
	So how are we going to get around the EHRC knocking on our door?
	We'll force her to be more ethnic in the things that she teaches to make sure that we can look as though we're not having disproportionate impacts against the people who are coming and joining our schools.
	These are the kinds of ridiculous measures people go to to comply with the UK laws that we have right now.
	Tavistock scandal, we all remember that.
	What else have we got down here?
	Police commissioner criticizes her own force over social media arrests.
	People shouldn't be being arrested.
	Unless you actually post a picture of someone's front door With the caption, I'm here and I'm going to kill you.
	You know, Sam Hyde and Hasan Piker fans.
	Unless you do something like that, you shouldn't be getting arrested for social media posts that you put out there.
	Absolutely ridiculous.
	Oh, look, neo-fascist rallies outside of hotels.
	You know, people who come out and go to the hotels and say, we don't want illegal migrants roughing up our town.
	Racist, you're a neo-fascist, etc, etc.
	We could just keep going.
	Oh, gay pride.
	Sorry, I had enough.
	Yeah, you've had enough.
	You've had enough.
	Well, I've had enough as well.
	The people of England have had enough, Stelios.
	And goddammit, we need to start repealing these laws.
	There needs to be massive legal challenges put against when these cases get forward.
	We need to get legions There you go.
	That's my segment.
	Thought I'd end on a nice cheery note.
	balls on them to start creating legal challenges against these kinds of laws.
	Because realistically, the only thing that they're doing is proving once and for all that the UK is not a free country.
	We are not a free nation.
	We are not a free peoples.
	We are constantly being tyrannized by our own government.
	So there you go.
	That's my segment.
	I thought I'd end on a nice cheery note.
	Let's go to the written comments.
	Let's go to the written comment.
	Andrew Narug.
	Faithless woman offers advice encouraging faithlessness.
	Imagine my shock.
	Also, calling herself a Tom Brady of marriage experience, being so proud of her numbers.
	Woman, I'd bet my salary you're beat out by dozens of other women over their lifetime.
	I like that you put your accent on.
	You always do that.
	Kenneth Perrin.
	40 years of marriage later.
	I was 19, she was 18, and we're still together.
	You're right, Harry.
	It's not perfect, but better than being alone.
	There you go.
	Baron Von Warhawk.
	I don't like doing the dishes, but there's also a lot of other stuff I don't like doing.
	But I have to do it anyway, because that's how life works.
	That's a big life lesson.
	That's Stelios' get real voice.
	Get real!
	I can't imagine anybody marrying that woman who pisses her pants out of the thought of doing dishes.
	If she won't do the most basic chores around the house, then living a life with her would be hell.
	Who wants to work eight hours a day, only to come home to more work?
	This is very true.
	This is very true.
	Okay.
	Do you want to read some on your segment?
	That was my segment.
	Then do you want to read them?
	Yeah, sure, I'll go on.
	I thought they were the honorary.
	No, no, George Hap says, women are scared of doing the dishes while men have to face the possibility of losing their home children and freedom.
	Poor women indeed.
	Yeah, sadly, some of the legal side of this is stacked against men.
	Oftentimes, it's a sad fact of reality that we live in right now.
	Bilbo Bagaines, yeah, get your gains in, get those reps in, boy, says, I used to work with a girl who was always going on about how happy she was that she was single with no kids.
	She was always on holiday telling people in the office about the trips she went on, blah, blah, blah.
	One day I asked, that's great, but who are you going to tell those stories to?
	And more importantly, who will care about these stories?
	When you're in the old folks home, It was the only time I think she'd ever had to think about it, to be honest.
	Yeah.
	A lot of these girls are kind of just purely living in the moment, not considering the future, and eventually the future is going to catch up with them.
	Yeah, I think that's just modern life.
	You know, it convinces us we're going to be young forever and we can prolong those years of fun and freedom as long as possible.
	But, you know, a lot of your life you will be old and you will be depending on someone.
	And I think, you know, we're just encouraged to not think about that.
	But it's true for both men and women.
	You know, who's going to, you know, the most important thing is who's going to look after you in those years of your life.
	Yeah, it reminds me of one Madonna.
	Because Madonna is desperately trying to maintain her youth and she looks like some malformed creature.
	And two, the film Brazil which Josh and I covered recently for a bit of premium video content which will be coming on the website soon.
	In that film have you ever seen Brazil?
	No.
	Have you seen it?
	Philistines.
	Philistines, the pair of you.
	Brazil, Terry Gilliam, 1985 film.
	Absolutely fantastic.
	The main character's mother and her friend in that are both rapidly approaching the end of middle age and desperate to keep hold of their youthful beauty, so they're going to a pair of plastic surgeons, one of whom is using a very strange technique where he basically stretches your face out It's got one special effect.
	The other one is literally just getting acid applied to her face that goes horribly wrong.
	She continually deteriorates until at the end of the film you go to her funeral at which point her body is just jelly and bones and it all just falls apart.
	It just makes me think of that.
	Just one thing, I find the Madonna video hilarious, the TikTok videos.
	They're very cringy, but I find them hilarious.
	I'm gonna send you a... You already sent me!
	Yeah, well you know I like torturing you!
	The thing is, she thinks that's feminist as well, because she said something like, I get plastic surgery to fight the patriarchy.
	So she's been convinced that not only is she like, You know, relentlessly chasing her youth, but that it's empowering for her.
	So she's actually fighting patriarchy by becoming the plastic surgeon.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Just don't see the link.
	It's all just BS that she tells herself to justify it, because otherwise she looks in the mirror and goes, God, what have I done to myself?
	She goes, no, I'm just fighting the man, man.
	That's what it is.
	I see a good comment here.
	Severian Knox.
	If you guys want anything to change, attribute agency to the women for their actions.
	It is individual choices, always.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Once again, I'm not going to take people's personal agency away from the way that they live their lives.
	We shouldn't.
	Sophie Liv.
	Hey, it's always easy to need no man when you can just rely on the state.
	Yep.
	I've got my baby daddy, a.k.a.
	the government, on one side and I've got my surrogate child, a.k.a.
	my 13 cats, on the other.
	What more does a girl need?
	Let's read some comments on the second one.
	Okay, so Sophie Liv, you guys need to get Nick back on to discuss this.
	Definitely.
	Jurassic Spark, they're policy enforcers, not police officers.
	That's actually a nice little rhetorical turnaround.
	What these police officers have done is utterly monstrous.
	You don't need a comment to tell you that.
	We're all on the same page.
	But this is public.
	It isn't being covered up and people are talking about it.
	Every time something like this happens, we get a video of police officers in the UK violating the human rights of people who are clearly innocent.
	It further galvanizes us against them.
	The peace we have between citizen and authority is fragile and sooner or later it has to break.
	I mean, if they carry on doing this, at some point it will break.
	It's mathematically obvious that if you have a state that doesn't respect the people, at some point the people are going to get super pissed off.
	Yeah, it's like going to reach a boiling point.
	Because for the time being, they do this to try and remind everybody, we're in charge.
	You can't do anything against us.
	But eventually it might reach a boiling point.
	But again, as Jurassic Spark says, this is more like enforcing policies and saying that they take boxes, you know, in diversity, inclusivity and equity.
	Now, Alpha of the Betas.
	West Yorkshire police display the attitude of a police force that acts above the law because they are the law.
	That act with impunity and 100% regime support and a largely compliant unarmed population.
	The police should have no moral agenda and have no moral claim to correct wrong things.
	Ewan Baker, I'm autistic and this really pissed me off.
	Alex Ogle, stop saying the girl called the policewoman a lesbian.
	She said the policewoman looked like her nana, who is a lesbian.
	Frame the incident correctly and the ridiculous situation is laid bare.
	I mean, it's ridiculous either way.
	It is, but I understand his point to be precise about it.
	Michael McGuire, as someone with Asperger's and having a nephew with a severe case of autism, we tend to have no filter, and are very logical in the way we see and describe things.
	If it looks like a butch lesbian... Looks like a butch lesbian, sounds like a butch lesbian, smells like one too.
	And Baron Von Warhawk, that comment doesn't even sound like an insult.
	Hell, it might even be a compliment, as that lesbian nana might be a nice lady.
	Probably is, to be fair.
	However, the Rainbow Police immediately send a jackboot of tolerance on that poor girl while letting hundreds of border-hopping groomers go free.
	What a joke your country has become.
	Yep.
	I'm not going to disagree with you.
	I hate to admit it, but yeah, it's a complete joke.
	Right.
	So I think it's time to... Let me just do a quick scan.
	Yeah, there we go.
	I think it's time to call it a podcast show.
	Thank you very much for being here with us.
	Thank you for having me.
	And best of luck.
	And do you want to remind us where you can, when people can find you?
	So you can go to my sub stack, which is just freyaindia.co.uk, where I'm writing most of the time.
	But if you follow me on Twitter, freyaindiaa, I'm also posting some freelance articles that I'm still doing as well.
	Lovely.
	Lovely.
	Okay.
	I hope you enjoyed it and see you tomorrow.
	Goodbye.
	No, no, it's Friday.
	Yeah, see you on Monday.

▲