All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 31, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:33
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #731
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon folks.
Welcome to the podcast, The Lotus Eaters for the 31st of October, 2023.
I'm joined by Connor and James Esses, who recently got in some trouble, actually.
In fact, before we begin, James, would you like to explain to people the trouble you found yourself in?
Yes, well, I was expelled from a university degree for daring to say that men can't become women and that maybe we shouldn't be pushing children down a pathway towards sterilization.
So you came out as a Nazi in university?
In essence, as far as I'm concerned, yeah.
Well, actually, you know, you say that, but people use my surname, they call me James SS.
I probably took a group effort to come up with that.
Can you tell us a little bit more about the context?
I mean, it's like, you know, I'll give them some credit for it.
It turns out the trans activists do actually have a brain cell to rub together once in a while.
I probably took a group effort to come up with that.
Yeah.
So can you tell us a little bit more about the context?
Like how did this come up in the university?
Yeah.
So I was studying psychotherapy.
I was about to set up a private practice.
I was counseling children at Childline, you know, a branch of the NSPCC.
I was encountering more and more kids coming through saying they were trapped in the wrong bodies.
You know, I decided to look into this and I was, you know, Horrified by what we were doing to these children, you know, affirming them down this kind of pathway of medicalization.
So I wrote a petition to the government who had announced that they were going to ban conversion therapy, saying, if you do this, can you please protect explorative therapy for children?
Um, you know, myself and colleagues should not be forced to affirm a mental health condition in this way.
Um, and it was off directly off the back of that petition that I received an email one day, uh, from the university telling me that I was expelled with immediate effect.
Ah.
I mean, to be honest with you, I'm not surprised in any way, shape or form, because I've been doing this quite a long time.
And that's exactly the response I'd expect them to have.
Obviously, I think you did the right thing, but that's because I'm very normal.
Um, I don't, I don't run an insane university.
Um, so what recourse do you have to this?
Well, I was basically excommunicated overnight.
I mean, I couldn't even respond to the email expelling me because they'd already deleted my university accounts.
When I finally got hold of some of these policies, it said that immediate expulsion would be suitable in circumstances in which, for example, a student had sexually assaulted a tutor.
So they're basically comparing belief in biology with sexual assault, which is quite concerning.
But anyway, I'm taking a legal case in the Employment Tribunal on the grounds of discrimination, and that's working its way slowly but surely through the system.
Because belief is actually a protected characteristic, isn't it?
It is, and Maya Forstater's case has kind of codified gender-critical beliefs as well, so I'm going to be relying on that precedent when this gets to trial.
Yeah, so you actually have a fairly strong case here, right?
Because it is in the law that your philosophical convictions are protected, and there is a precedent, so fingers crossed.
I hope so.
You know, they're claiming that I brought the profession into disrepute.
Sorry, I don't mean to laugh, but like... No, it's ironic.
Exactly.
It's deeply ironic.
I'm being fired for saying that maybe we shouldn't be transitioning children, and so you're bringing this profession into disrepute.
Come on.
That's absurd, isn't it?
It's awful.
It's crazy.
And you know, the things I was calling for at the time have now become official governmental policy as well, to boot.
Conservative party.
Okay, let's get into it.
Yeah, let's dive into it.
I'm sorry for laughing, I don't mean to laugh, it's just, it's so ridiculous.
It's such a clown world we're living in.
Topics-wise, we're talking about the German kindergarten's sexual exploration rooms.
It just keeps getting worse, by the way.
The problematic poster boys of gender ideology, where James is going to take us through some of the awful careers and woke capitalism that's pushing this movement at the moment, and how the Liberal Democrats are pushing puberty blockers.
Because there is some moneyed interests behind this that's worth examining.
Also completely ideological for him.
True.
But the ideology pays well.
So that's also part of it.
So before we jump in, for anyone who's interested, James does have a crowdfunder for his legal case.
That's up on the screen.
You also have a substack that we'll be consulting later, and you also have a Twitter account.
So let's dive straight into today's stories.
So it turns out that German preschools are planning on introducing masturbation rooms for zero to four-year-olds.
There's no way to soft-sell that one, I'm afraid.
There's no way to have a more polite introduction.
So I'm, if you don't know, I'm a father of four.
Two of my children are under three.
They don't need this.
Let me just... They do not need this.
This is totally unnecessary.
I hate it.
Sounds like quite a far right position to me.
Yeah, I'm really radical.
Yeah, it turns out the reason I've consolidated this segment is because the normalisation of paedophilia is not an isolated case, and we'll look at where it's coming from on the high, and why.
Now this is something that people have compared to when I looked at the stuff on Twitter to Brave New World, and if you haven't read Brave New World, well it turns out you can pay as little as £5 a month and watch Carl and Callum discuss its contents.
I mean this is exactly what they do in Brave New World.
Yeah, and they're traumatizing that young boy at the start because the young girl doesn't want to play.
Yeah, but it's not just that.
In the world of Brave New World, it's completely normal for there to be this kind of sexual exploration phase when they're about six years old and uh Huxley was right that they would do this because they don't view their they don't view there being any value in innocence frankly there's no there's no concept of childhood sanctity yeah and they also believe that children can consent to this stuff yes which as we'll learn is an official UN position Just every damn one that's appointed with the world.
Just defund it.
The first place I saw this was actually in Remix, where they were reporting on this.
And the title just speaks for itself.
The German kindergartens that promote sexual exploration runes where children are encouraged to masturbate and touch each other.
I mean, that's literally Brave New World.
Yeah, not great.
So in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, at least two nurseries are entertaining the idea of safe spaces where young children can retreat to masturbate, or as one daycare centre in Köppen puts it, quote, discover and satisfy themselves physically.
German newspaper Die Welt reports how the nursery claims to offer children freedom to try out and establish sexuality, insisting that masturbation is something normal and that the establishment considers allowing self-gratification on its premises to be of great importance.
To who?
Why is it of great importance?
Who is staffing the nurseries that would quite like children to have access to these facilities?
I mean, maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but I'm slightly worried about the child safeguarding implications here.
What child safeguarding?
Lack thereof, yeah.
Bit boring, but okay.
In another daycare center in the state, this time in the town of Rhineberg, doctor games are prepared in adjoining rooms for children to explore the bodies of others, the German newspaper reports.
So it's not just a space where children can do this to themselves with adult approval, but the adults are actually directing them to engage in some sort of sexual play.
This is just not a conversation that should be happening.
The nursery encouraged children to pick those they wish to explore and urged them to do so carefully, telling them that no objects are to be introduced into orifices.
This is just not a conversation that should be happening.
No.
Earlier this year in June, the German tabloid newspaper Bild reported on similar practices being encouraged in a daycare centre in Hanover, which came to light after an email was sent to parents.
In a 10-point guidance note, the center told parents about its intention to introduce quote, doctor games in which children can quote, pet and examine themselves and others.
Quote, all children, especially preschoolers, are aware of the places in the facility where nudity and bodily exploration can take place.
Now, I question the motivations behind this.
I bet that the people who designed this do not have children of their own.
Probably.
Either that or they want access to other people's.
I just don't perhaps understand the logic of exposing someone to sexual contact from a very, very early age is somehow going to stop them from being sexualized when they're older.
And also, trying to normalize sexual contact will not stigmatize it to such a sufficient extent that if an adult does go and try and prey on them, they won't think it outside the norm to run and tell someone.
But isn't this just going to inculcate sexual behavior as a norm for the kids?
And so if an adult does decide to prey on them, they won't raise an alarm bell?
Why, possibly, yes.
Okay, again, maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but okay.
Each child decides for themselves whether and with whom they want to play physical and sexual games.
Girls and boys pet and examine each other only as much as comfortable for themselves and other children.
The concept appeared to be supported by Profamiliar, the leading professional association on sexuality and partnership in Germany, which recently published recommendations to daycare centers encouraging the practice.
Following public backlash, the Aokita Kindergarten in Hanover cancelled the project after a spokesperson from the Ministry of Education in the Lower Saxony state capital said, quote, the educational concept in this form endangers the well-being of the child.
Duh.
The CEO of the nursery's group management company later claimed that the letters to parents had not been approved by the head office, as Spiegel reported in July.
In Northroy and Westphalia, however, the local government doesn't appear to be phased by the practice.
When asked by Die Welt about the idea of children being encouraged to masturbate and touch each other sexually, the state's children's ministry, led by Green Josephine Paul, claimed that sexual behaviour by children could not be prevented and insisted it had no plans to contact the daycare centres within its remit to discuss the matter.
So, because it's going to happen anyway, everyone should engage in it, and it's okay, and it's a good thing.
But that's not true anyway.
I mean, like, we don't encourage teenagers to masturbate in schools.
We... What?
Do we?
The current sexual health guidance does.
Yeah.
Okay.
When I was in school, it was not encouraged.
Back when it wasn't crazy, you weren't encouraged to masturbate in schools, and most people didn't.
Yeah.
I didn't have this either, but as we covered recently, as MPs have found out, as Miriam Cates has contributed to the sex education guidance, even as localist Wyndham, they had sex education guidance that had children create phallic objects out of vegetables and fluid out of masturbation lotion, endorsed by the council.
Yeah, I mean, look, this is the sexualization of children.
You know, I take quite a balanced view on this.
You know, I grew up in Ireland and kind of the sex education, if you can call it that, we have there, essentially put the fear of gods into children.
I'm in favour of that now.
After hearing this, I'm in favour of that.
Yeah, well, look, I think, I tend to agree with you, but I think, you know, children, well, I think children do need age-appropriate sexual education.
But that is not encouraging sex acts.
It's certainly not encouraging sex acts on school premises.
But at the same time, I don't believe it's helpful or healthy to kind of, as I said, put the fear of God into children either on this topic because at the end of the day, sexuality is part of human existence.
But of course, we have to consider children's capacity to consent to this and to understand and appreciate these things.
And I mean, safe spaces in kindergartens for children to master base.
I mean, it's, it's abhorrent.
Yeah, so there's a distinction between the age appropriateness, anyone under the age of puberty should not be learning about this stuff anyway.
Also, there's a difference between sex and biology education, as in, if you put this and this together, without protection, you get a baby, so you might want to think about not doing that until you're well situated.
To kink education, where they're inviting the purveyors of sex toys, as has happened in English schools, to come in and tell children how to use them.
Or this.
So, I agree that there might be a sensible line, particularly with parental pre-approval, and mainly left up to the parents to have the birds and the bees talk, where biological realities must be taught in school.
I mean, that's not happening at all.
You've got this weird situation where they're taught the biology of sex up until the point of this, but also biology doesn't matter.
Fine.
And then on the other side of the line is, let's not teach babies to do this.
I suppose that's just a radical position, but there you go.
So where does this come from?
Now, it hasn't slipped by me that this is in Germany, where lots of my bad ideas come from.
A little while ago, you covered this, which was the Kentler experiments.
Just as a quick summary of this, basically, a bunch of very smart and presumably childless academics decided, we need to prevent Nazism from happening again.
And one way of doing that was to somehow give orphaned boys to pedophiles.
Because they thought it would lower sexual oppression which is what they thought was behind fascism.
Yeah, not quite.
I think if you traumatize a bunch of children they actually might grow up to be...
Really vengeful criminals?
You know, I don't even care if that is the consequence, just don't do it.
Yeah, yeah.
Also that, that sounds sensible.
But it's not just the Germans, for once.
It turns out this is actually all the way from the World Health Organization.
Now have you heard about the Comprehensive Sexuality Education Doctrine?
Not really.
Okay, so this is from UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women, UN AIDS, and the WHO.
Now, UNAIDS is very important because, a little while ago, I covered with Josh in a segment, the UNAIDS 21 principles.
Have either of you heard of this?
So on International Women's Day this year, ironic, they released UN 21 AIDS principles which say that gender-affirming care should have no restrictions, that abortion should have no restrictions, that actually criminalizing pregnant mothers for taking drugs is misogynistic.
So it's that critical race theory episode.
Yes it is very much so.
In the sort of canon of critical race theory there was one particular one that suggested that It was an inbuilt prejudice that you thought that taking crack while being pregnant is bad.
It's just your prejudice against having a crack baby.
And honestly, they're right.
I am prejudiced against young mothers taking crack.
That's totally true.
I'm putting a value judgment.
And that was the thing.
They essentially tried to divorce the state of affairs of each side from having value judgments placed on them.
And I've decided, no, I think I'm well within my rights to place value judgments on those things.
No crack babies, please.
But it seems that that would be connected to the logic of abortion, so if they want to remove all restrictions on that, why can't you just take crack?
And the last one on that, that is worthy of mentioning, is they thought that some children are capable of consent.
That's an actual UN position.
Right.
So that informs all of this, and this is part of the 2030 Agenda, so that's part of their education, so 17 Sustainable Development Goals, education, so they're going to roll that out across pretty much every country that has UN funding, including us, I think we're the fourth highest?
We shouldn't be.
So they say, why they're doing this, sexuality education helps children prepare for and manage physical and emotional changes as they grow up, including during puberty and adolescence, while teaching them about respect, consent, and where to go if they need help.
This in turn reduces risks from violence, exploitation, and abuse.
Does it?
Now, I would just define masturbation rooms in kindergartens as violence, exploitation, and abuse.
And if they're used to it, why would they feel so inclined as to raise the alarm if an adult is preying on them as well?
And moreover, it's just not something that children of this age have any thought or concept of.
Yeah, unless it's introduced to them.
Yeah, unless it was an adult introduced to them.
Like, my eight year old is nearly nine and he still has no concept of any of this.
Rightfully so.
Yeah, I know.
Good.
So be climbing trees and doing.
Well, yeah, actually the, the thing that I'm particularly thinking of is that he brought home a really good stick the other day.
And so a bunch of people online were like, you know, you can turn that into a walking stick.
And I thought, okay, yeah, actually we will do that.
And so I've ordered the things off Amazon, like, you know, some sandpaper and some wood stain and stuff.
So we can turn it into a walking stick.
And that's the sort of thing that children of that age care about.
Not masturbation rooms.
Unbelievably.
Well, it's been brought in under the guise of, you know, inclusivity.
I mean, we've, you know, this Drag Queen Story Hour, you know, travelling around schools in the UK, and, you know, on the face of it, and some parents who don't look into this might think, oh, it's just, you know, someone reading a story to my child, but then when you go and look at what this individual's wearing, with their crotch literally bulging out of their tightly fitted kind of lycra, whatever they're wearing, You know, you can see the inherent sexualization that's, you know, part of this.
This is the problem.
But if you dare to challenge it, then you are challenging someone's lived experience, someone's identity.
You know, these kind of sexualized drag acts are just another lesser noun in the LGBT acronym.
Although they themselves, the Little Miss Hot Mess, the person that helped co-film Drag Queen Story Hour, wrote that paper.
I don't know if you've read it, James.
Drag Pedagogy?
Yes.
Yes.
I don't know if you've been exposed to it.
I haven't seen that, but it's become very apparent that the Drag Queen Story Hour thing has become a kind of progressive ritual.
It's like a bar mitzvah for progressives.
You should go to them to be exposed to this particular thing in order to Reaffirm yourself in what is essentially the faith.
That's for mothers.
For the children, the Drag Queen Story Hour practitioners see it as a kind of vanguard pipelined transgender ideology.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
They say that we're going to conscript them into glitter families, adopt them into glitter families, and the final line of that paper is we're going to leave a trail of glitter that never comes out the carpet.
Just brilliant.
So they clarify in this, the World Health Organization, in case you were worried that these masturbation rooms come from them, does sexuality education encourage masturbation?
They say, CSE does not promote masturbation.
However, in our documents, the WHO recognizes that children start to explore their bodies through sight and touch at a relatively early age.
This is an observation, not a recommendation.
But it's not sexual.
That's the thing, it's not sexual.
Well, we'll also see how this is an outright lie if we just go on to the next one.
So this is the WHO's standards for sexuality education in Europe.
So, you know, somewhere inconsequential like Germany, that's where that is.
We just scroll down to the zero to four table.
Quote, under information, fertility and reproduction, human body development and the like, sexuality there is.
Enjoyment and pleasure when touching one's own body, early childhood masturbation, zero to four.
So, just there in black and white from your own documents, but I suppose I'm a conspiracy theorist, discovery of one's own body and genitals, express one's own needs, wishes and boundaries, for example, in the context of playing doctor.
I wonder where they got that phrasing from.
And then there's also ages six to nine, where they're taught about sex in the media, including on the internet.
How are you going to show them that?
Give them some links, perhaps, I suppose.
Six to nine?
Yes.
And also, enjoyment and pleasure when touching one's own body.
Quote, masturbation self-stimulation.
So it's directly in there.
This is just totally wrong.
So as per usual, they're just lying.
There's some more German antics as well.
So this coincided recently, reported by Redux, which is actually a very good website.
They do some very aggressive feminist websites.
Yeah, well they are actually alright.
The Venn diagram of our opinions is slowly overlapping into a circle.
The paedophiles have been profiled sympathetically on a national public radio show in Germany.
Oh, really?
Yeah, so a public radio... They did it on Channel 4 the other day as well.
We'll get to that.
Oh, okay.
I know.
A public radio broadcaster, and I can't pronounce this.
You can say German words, right?
You used to live in Germany.
Here we go.
That doesn't mean I can say German word.
Deutschlandfunk.
There we go.
Wonderful.
They released an episode titled... Quite easy, that.
I've caught Callum's dyslexia.
Under Control, How Pedophiles Live With Their Addiction.
Addiction.
But the thing is, this was always going to be the final frontier of progressivism, because as far as they're concerned, the individual can never have done something wrong.
The society around the individual is always at fault.
The individual themselves is kind of this, honestly, this Rousseauian pure soul who is corrupted by society.
And so the paedophile is probably the ultimate stigmatized minority that they will eventually run to defend, as you're seeing here.
Well, the foremother of queer theory, Gail Rubin, literally wrote in her foundational paper that boy lovers are the most stigmatized group.
You'd actually find fewer people advocating for their civil rights than you would for the communists.
That's an indirect quote.
It's just an inevitable consequence of their logical framework.
Yeah, because if you make a virtue out of abolishing all boundaries, you get down to the final frontier of taboos.
Sure, but it's also the presupposition that everyone is born good and corrupted by society that infuses everything we want them to do.
So this included the perspectives of three men who described themselves as, quote, non-offending pedophiles.
I don't think there's such a thing.
Well, I mean, great.
They described themselves that way.
Check their hard drives.
Look, I take a slightly different view on this, which is that paedophilia is a mental health disorder.
Now, whether people say it's born out of something that's gone wrong in your brain or just pure evil, you know, people can have that debase.
But the truth of the matter is that if people have a thought or a feeling, the crucial thing as far as I'm concerned is that they do not in any which way act upon that.
And, you know, I do have a concern that if we stigmatize thoughts in this way, then all you're doing is driving people with a proclivity towards thinking in this way, towards potentially acting on it.
So, you know, I do think it's important to have these conversations, and I do think it is possible, and there are people out there who would say that they have these thoughts, but they don't act on it.
And, you know, as far as I'm concerned, the most crucial thing is they never act on this.
We'll get into the content of the conversation they had.
My opposition to that would be that repression is actually a very good thing.
And again, not all natural urges are good.
Whether they're as evil as this, or frankly, three men sitting at a table, we can recognize someone walking past in the street that is not our significant other that's attractive.
It doesn't mean we always act on that, and we often correct ourselves on that particular urge.
This is saying, well, it's actually, it's totally virtuous to not even correct yourselves on those thoughts.
You shouldn't police your own thoughts at all.
And it in no way leads to action, even though we find they do take some actions to be in the proximity.
Also, I do think that you can kind of habituate yourself into liking certain things rather than others.
And if you have a particular like for something that you know is unacceptable, then actually you have a moral responsibility to start habituating yourself.
It's literally like the way you sort of acquire a taste when it comes to food.
I used to date a woman who really liked going to Italian restaurants, and every time they'd bring out a bowl of olives.
I hated olives, but they were free.
And so I learned to enjoy the olives.
Now I really like olives.
And I really do think this is something you can do with almost any kind of preference, actually.
You just have to become attuned to it.
And so you can attune yourself away from an awful preference like this into something else.
I really do think you can do that.
I don't disagree.
I just, you know, I've got an image of somebody there who has a thought, an intrusive thought, whatever, and they feel that if they even dared express that, even from a point of view of I'm really concerned about this, I don't want to think this way, I don't want to act this way, that they would kind of be ostracized out of society.
I can see them, you know, sitting down in their kind of basement feeling all this shame and rage at the world and, you know, could that be a slippery slope towards acting out?
That's my concern here.
Are you thinking from the sort of therapist context?
Therapeutically, yeah.
You wouldn't come forward and even confide in a therapist in a secure setting if there is a level of moral stigma around it?
Correct.
Although the flip side as well is that, you know, people who tend to have a thought, you know, an immoral thought and actually feel that sense of immorality are the ones who are not going to act on this.
It's actually the people who don't think there's anything wrong with what they're doing that's the problem.
So, you know, there is a kind of flip side to this.
But yeah, therapeutically speaking, I think it's better that people are able to at least express whatever You know, horrific thoughts might be going on inside the head because it's very different between that and actually acting something out in reality.
So the concern is here with the content of this conversation.
Sorry, just a quick thing.
The problem I have is that the thought always precedes the action, right?
And so there's not a hard distinction between the thoughts you have and the actions you take.
And I think it should be understood as a continuum, really.
So the problem is, if you start indulging that person's thoughts and fantasies, and even if it's in a therapeutic setting, you're still making that more prominent.
It's like drawing a pencil line on a piece of paper.
The more you go back and forth over that line, the darker and darker it gets.
And I think that that's the sort of thing that also happens with our habits, with the things that we believe and the things that we feel.
I see what you're saying, but I think the crucial thing is, in terms of psychoeducation, is that your thoughts are not Reality, you know, for example, forms of obsessive compulsive disorder, people can have intrusive thoughts that they're going to murder their children.
It's kind of pops into the head.
It doesn't mean that.
You definitely get those thoughts, especially when you're ruining the house.
But I, I know, I know.
I totally take your point on that.
That is true.
And I agree that it's not fair to punish someone for merely saying, I had this thought, but I didn't really want to have.
That's it.
Yeah.
But, but I also think there is also the concern that actually you're kind of validating when you start Going in this sort of therapeutic mold and you find yourself with a person who is essentially, they've come to kind of a peace with this awful method of thinking and feeling.
Repetition builds a frame of reference.
Yeah.
And, and so I'm not, I'm not saying have the answer and I'm not saying you're right and I'm right and you're wrong or anything like that.
There's just a flip side that I think the sort of more rationalistic, um, approach of, um, psychologizing this doesn't accept as a part of sort of the unthinking, um, way that human nature works, you know?
And so, like I said, I'm not having a go or anything.
No, no, no, look, it's, it's complex in that way.
I see, I see where you're coming from completely.
Unfortunately, the more affirming culture of this episode leads it to darker places.
So during the episode, listeners were introduced to a pedophile named Max, or this is a pseudonym, who argues that heterosexual men do not attack every woman they find sexually attractive.
Max claims that pedophilia is simply a sexual preference that deviates from the norm.
Max also claims to work with an association of men with child abuse fantasies seeking to promote self-help among paedophiles called Destiny and Challenge.
Now Destiny and Challenge were invited to speak at the University of Heidelberg for a paedophilia theme day by two student associations.
They also produced a short film called Children's Friends and it debuted at a film festival on the 24th of August.
Yeah.
Yep.
Again, hard drives, please check.
Another paedophile featured on the radio program, using the name Franz, stated that he views violent child sexual abuse pornography and had fantasies involving cannibalism.
Why is this public broadcast protecting the identity of this man?
Why isn't this person in some sort of mental institution or buried beneath it?
The reporter interviewing the speakers, Philip Savignot, then introduces a mother named Anna, who allows a self-described pedophile named Pascal to babysit her children and compares her tolerance towards his predatory desires as being linked to her personal experiences with sexism.
During the episode, Pascal admits to becoming sexually aroused when seeing Anna's children walking through the apartment in the nude.
I mean, So you're seeing a ratchet effect here of them just admitting to doing actual child abuse and the state broadcaster does nothing and actually protects their identities.
Imagine if you had a lion in front of you that said, look, I really, I fantasize about eating meat all the time, but I'm not going to eat meat.
I'm not.
And you're like, great.
Cause then we'll bring these little whole flock of sheep.
Yeah.
Or just, yeah.
A bunch of Bambis walk out and it's like, right.
We're just going to hang around the lion.
Well, one's going to get eaten eventually.
Yeah.
Also, last year the German National Government and Berlin Senate funded a play about minor attracted people.
Of course they did.
Something's going on in Germany.
Oh yeah, there's a lot going on in Germany.
I've lived there for eight years, I can tell you, there is a lot.
Well, unfortunately, you know, I've lived in the UK all my life and there's something going on here as well, because just to finish up, Channel 4, publicly owned, I don't know how much funding they get from the government, I'm not sure if they actually do, but still publicly owned, At least her expression is appropriate.
Oh, yeah, the people on the panel were very angry, but obviously they've provided anonymity to a man who admits to being a paedophile, admits to have done volunteering work with children before.
Yeah.
See, this is why I don't really believe them when they say, look, I don't want to molest children.
I just want to spend all my time around children.
But if that were me, I'd be like, right, I need to be like some sort of ice trawler fisherman or something.
So I spend six months of the year in the Arctic Circle or something.
So there's just no chance.
Not, oh, I need to now volunteer with children.
No, no.
You know, that's you lying, basically.
No, I agree with that.
And, you know, somebody, for example, who's an alcoholic shouldn't be going to work in a pub.
And I think it's, you know, it's not dissimilar to that.
So you do have to question the motivation of these individuals.
But yes, the way in which this has been framed, and particularly some of those examples from Germany are...
I mean, really quite scary.
Yeah.
And the scariest thing that I thought I'd finish on is just like, these are all publicly funded bodies who haven't handed the information of these people over to the authorities.
They're protecting their identities.
They're endorsing it from the top.
They're probably getting funding from the UN and WHO to do so.
And we're also funding those bodies reciprocally.
So defund the whole lot and stick them all in prison.
I think that's probably a moderate approach.
The problem with the German mind, right, is they've got this deep traditionalism that stigmatizes these sort of negative things.
But then you get the very progressive German who says, I'm not traditional in any way, shape or form, and therefore there's no stigma attached to any of these things.
Therefore, I can do all of these things to the maximum extent because I don't accept the moral authority of tradition.
Yeah.
And the natural German character is the drive towards the absolute.
And so that's why you end up with the worst in Germany.
Great.
Lovely.
Right.
Let's go on to the next bit then.
And we're going to conscript you in for this, James, because you've I suppose, James, you've become quite the expert on the marketing department for gender ideology at this point.
We've had an interview with you on the website before about your personal story, where people can go and learn about how you were chucked out of university degree and all the things you're doing to fight back for it.
But you've also started a substack and writing through other outlets and you've been collecting examples on how profit incentives and a hell of a lot of ideological messaging has been working its way into various companies.
And so you sent me over some links.
What's going on with Wix then?
What happened there?
Well, there was a Pink News, that reputable news outlet, were running a workplace conference and the chief operating officer essentially said that people who believe in biology are bigots and aren't welcome in his stores anymore.
In a building.
Yes.
I mean, they're very, very pro the trans lobby.
They have a float at all of the Pride parades.
They release kind of fake paint colours.
One I saw was called Tantalisingly Trans.
I think they're trying to be humorous.
I can't tell.
I don't think they're actually releasing that color of paint.
So that might be a disappointment to some of your listeners.
But, you know, they're going kind of gung-ho on this stuff.
And, you know, the COO making that kind of comment was just a piece de resistance, really.
Yeah, you put that in there.
I noticed this last year.
I think I covered it with Calvin.
They sponsored Brighton Pride.
And most people at the time were sort of scratching their head as to why a builder's march was sponsoring Brighton Pride.
And then we all realized, ah, ESG, probably.
There's probably money flowing into this company, diversity initiatives.
Maybe, but I'm always skeptical on that.
No, it's not that's not happening, but there's a kind of pleasure that they take in doing this that doesn't seem to only be borne by a financial incentive.
They seem to be throwing themselves into this gung-ho, much more than would actually be necessary to get a tick on the ESG bot.
I think it's also as well, and this is what, what does Stonewall call it?
Is it Diversity Champions?
Yeah.
So Stonewall set up the Diversity Champions Scorecard Initiative that's part of ESG, but it's also a way that companies can certify themselves as not being able to be sued under Equality Act legislation.
Right.
So being the most vocal makes you the least likely to have a lawsuit as well.
So there are probably legal and financial incentives to support this sort of stuff.
Yeah, not excellent.
They're not the only company doing it, of course.
You had an expose exclusively on Monzo.
What was happening there?
Managed to get hold of various internal communication channels within Monzo and members of staff, including senior HR directors, using slurs about people, again, with gender-critical beliefs, and some of their customers calling them horrible TERFs, you know, TERF being They're kind of slurring out towards people who are gender critical, you know, taking pot shots at JK Rowling, calling the LGB Alliance a hate group.
All of this just going on on their internal Slack channel and kind of being signed off by senior directors.
You know, and I kind of put the point out there that if, you know, if you and a company on your Slack channel called somebody a horrible trans, you would probably be reported to the police.
But here you call someone a horrible TERF and it's kind of laughed about, celebrated.
Internally, it's really quite worrying.
I mean, you know, in the wake of what was going on in Coots, these big banks just making these moral judgments about their customers.
Yeah, the same thing happened with a gentleman that I spoke to on GB News, which is Father Fothergill.
He wrote a letter in response to his local building society in West Yorkshire, a really small place, and they asked for customer feedback.
And he said, well, prior months just happened, and I happen to be an Anglican vicar.
So, you know, I've read this little book that says that there's only men and women, and I kind of take objection to my money being spent on this.
And so they told him he had, I think, 48 hours to clear his bank account out.
So, again, the question is, what are the incentives running in the direction that even small building societies, or the likes of Monzo, which is basically a, what, international money automatic transfer card?
Some kind of bank?
Yeah, it's an online bank.
Yeah, it's online only.
This is what I mean is, it's not just about financial incentives.
These people are morally obsessed with policing, not just themselves, but other people.
I think they probably appoint people that are very entrenched in the ideology to staff the diversity departments, but the diversity departments probably exist to safeguard against a lawsuit or to get subsidies.
I don't know.
I mean, would you be obsessing over J.K.
Rowling and calling her a TERF in your Slack channels if you were just here to protect against the lawsuit?
I think the person that's hired would, but I don't know if the actual CEOs of Monzo would.
Sure, they sign off on all of it, so... Well, yeah, but I don't... I think the buck has to stop with them.
Well, with the Coutts thing, I think there's probably a meld of the two, because there was like a 42-page document on all of Farage's transgressions, and some of them obviously mentioned Russia and Brexit and things like that, but loads of them had... I think one of it was sharing a Ricky Gervais joke about transgender people.
Yeah.
So, yeah.
I think there's definitely a strong moral component to all of this.
I'm of the opinion that that's what this demonstrates.
I agree.
And there is something, I think, quite addictive for these people to feel that they're part of a kind of, you know, a virtuous, pious group and they can kind of make these moral judgments on other people.
But it's kind of, it's also a bit creepy the way in which they're kind of keeping tabs on prospective customers.
I mean, the reason this came to light is because a prospective customer criticized some of their inclusivity policy on LinkedIn.
And he noticed over the following weeks that Monzo staff members were repeatedly looking at his LinkedIn page And he put in a data subject access request and it turned out they were bitching about him on their platform.
You know, so... I mean, firstly, do these people not have more important things to be doing in their day job?
But secondly, it's just a bit creepy.
Yeah.
I remember Dan said as soon as he signed up, there were people looking at his LinkedIn since he started working here.
Yeah.
So there's always people nosy with ideological interests lurking behind the scenes, I suppose.
But the last thing, I do think that there's a strain that underpins all of this.
Exactly what you're saying.
There's this kind of weird, creepy, obsessive I suppose that would explain as well why Costa are doing this.
I think it's a lot more than just, we don't want to get a lawsuit.
We want the ESG money or whatever.
I think that you're exactly right on that.
I suppose that would explain as well why Costa are doing this.
This was the most abhorrent of them all as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah.
So for our audio listeners, there is the side of Costa van where there is presumably a woman that's had a mastectomy presenting as a man.
Shirtless.
I mean, Nickelodeon did a similar thing a little while ago where they had a Pride episode presented by a drag queen and they had an animated float and there was a beaver with mastectomy scars.
Again, they think that if they normalize this for children and for everyone, then harm is reduced.
I don't agree with him.
Yeah, and also I think that the amplification of this by certain brands is an effort, again, as a PR campaign, to counteract lots of the messaging that's been coming out from others like ours, yourself, some of the people that we've spoken to before, that is saying, well, it might not be healthy for people that are distressed with gender dysphoria to lop their breasts off.
It just might not be a good treatment for that.
Or to even bind them, as mermaids were sending out in the post of that parental knowledge that was causing rib fractures.
and tumours and things like that.
Not great, yeah. - It's also got this weird predatory aspect to it as well, because if there's one group of people, one demographic that is particularly insecure about their bodies as teenagers, as girls, - Yes. - and to, 'cause I've got a 14 year old girl, and you just don't want to make them, you don't want to comment on anything, like whether it's the hair or anything like that, because you don't know how it'll be received.
You know, and they might take it really badly.
I mean, your hair looks nice like that, or I preferred it shorter or whatever.
And they'll, they'll take it very personally because that's what teenage girls are like.
And so this is a very vulnerable demographic that they're taking advantage of here.
I agree.
You know, unfortunately, it's the most normal thing in the world for all human beings to have certain insecurities, particularly adolescents, particularly young girls.
And, you know, you can imagine girls of, you know, yesteryear who if they were told, look, there's a tablet for that, you can press a pause button on this or you can cut that off.
I'm sure they would have taken it in the moment because they hate themselves.
But actually, we should be sending a message to children that they will grow out of this and that they will learn hopefully in time to accept themselves.
But this is This is glorification of something abhorrent in pursuit of profit.
And you know, when young children see all their favorite brands, all the coolest brands kind of doing this stuff, I mean, look at them.
These individuals, they're taking a swig out of a Costa coffee cup, but they're trying to make it look all cool.
The blue hair as well.
I mean, it's just the glorification of this stuff.
It's presented as aspirational.
Yes.
And the disturbing thing is, as well, the more this becomes normalized, particularly for young girls, we know there's a disproportionate amount of them that have autism.
There's a disproportionate amount that have comorbidities upwards of five other compatible mental health issues.
And I know of cases, and I've heard from girls who have experienced this, of where one of the reasons they would like to achieve escape velocity from their body is because they feel involuntarily sexualized by older men because they're young girls going through puberty, or have been sexually assaulted.
So what happens is you provide the cover of night to abusers to get away from it, because rather than alienation coming from your body because you've been abused and you can name the person that's done it, instead they just put it down to gender dysphoria and they cement that.
It's just horrific all around, but there you go.
And so when people decide to challenge this, it doesn't go well for them.
Now I won't play any of this interview, because TalkTV has taken it down from practically everywhere.
They took it off Twitter, they've taken it down from YouTube.
One of the reasons might be because someone that Graham Linehan has brought up in this interview is trying to get litigious behind the scenes because they also have a lawsuit out against him for misusing their pronouns.
But said individual has a criminal record that Graham Linehan brought up.
And it's widely publicized, but yeah, talk TV seemed to be quite terrified by this.
But because I can't play clips, you can go watch it in your own time, available in the description.
The more interesting part about this is the people that he did bring up that aren't as litigious and the people that were involved in putting this interview together behind the scenes.
Someone you're very familiar with eventually, James.
We'll talk about Pete's tattoo shortly.
So one of the people that Graham brought up was the creator of the trans flag.
Turns out that they had a trans widow, as in that the wife married a man, the man decided to say he was a woman, he forced the wife to engage in cross-dressing activities, and then when they divorced he started writing underage erotica?
This is the person that's created the transgender flag.
Just as a quick side here, very rarely do I say the Terps have got anything that's cool and worthy of being pinched, because it's awesome.
But that heading there on that is very cool.
Yes, the designers.
And to all the credit for Guinevere Clark, she does a hell of a lot of good investigative journalism.
I don't care about that.
That looks really good.
So yeah, this fella, Robert Hodge, took the name Monica Helms to go up.
Very convincing.
Yes, you're right.
That is what a transgender person looks like.
He authored short stories with sexual themes, including forced feminization, wherein men are transformed into women as a form of punishment.
There was recently a person who won a Pulitzer Prize for his account of how sissy hypnoporn turned him trans.
There's also, you know, the creators of The Matrix that you did a video on.
They've also said that the Wachowskis, that's what happened to them as well.
Oh, it was pornography then?
Yeah.
So one of them, I think it was Lily, said that it was these bold, brave and beautiful trans women.
Pornography was what convinced me to become trans.
Well, that's another conversation to have.
Yeah.
So one story, sexualized child.
And it was titled, A Woman Scorned, in the collection, Tales from a Two-Gendered Mind, and a man is stalked by a young girl who looks no more than 16 years old, who he mistakes for a Girl Scout.
The child reveals herself to be a witch, who claims to be older than she appears, but among her powers is the ability to age very, very slowly, causing her to look far younger than her true age.
Yeah, so the baby blue and pink is really taking a whole new meaning on here.
So let's go into exactly who was involved in the TalkTV interview on the side of Rosanna Lockwood, the interviewer who definitely didn't abide by Ofcom's impartiality settings.
And it turns out that the person that briefed them was a trans activist who's been hired by TalkTV now.
Now, I've tweeted out one of their articles before and said, why is my former employer employing this person?
Because it seems inexplicable, because for ages, TalkTV were willing to criticise the lockdowns, criticise the gender stuff.
I mean, Judy Hartley Brewer still hits on it quite well.
And this person now writes about trans acceptance.
Paid.
By TalkTV.
Very weird.
Now this person in particular, the name is, I'm just going to scroll down here, Freya Wallace.
That was it.
So it turns out that they helped compile the materials for Rosanna to go against Graham, which didn't do very well because Rosanna called Graham's show the It Crowd.
So clearly not very well briefed.
Right beforehand, when they've engaged with TERFs online, or just women who project their views, they have a penchant for tweeting photos of themselves in lingerie in a dominatrix dungeon receiving fellatio.
I've had the misfortune of seeing that image.
Hopefully I'm still innocent of it.
How much bleach did you have to use on your eyes?
So it turns out that what she, he, it used to influence Lockwood was a piece on their own medium blog that had zero citations, some examples or sources, and it calls for Graham Lighthand to be arrested because of abuse, hatred, lies, defamation and libel akin to Nazi dehumanization.
Right, okay.
Well, yeah, Graham Linehan, a notorious Nazi.
Well, I mean, he used to call people like us Nazis.
Before the trans activism took over feminism, he realized, hang on a second, they weren't Nazis.
I'm basically in the same position as they are.
And he actually, to his credit, personally apologized, which was nice.
Yeah, the Dankula Loven, the really heartfelt message.
It was really nice.
But it's just funny to see how things work out.
Yes.
So in this article, they spoke to Henrietta Freeman, who said, during one Twitter dispute, Wallace sent an image of himself receiving oral sex with another man in a fetish club.
Wallace claimed the photos were obtained from the club website and were already publicly available online.
Oh, that's all right then.
That's fine, because someone really wanted to see that.
He captioned them, Dads worship female penises.
Right.
Well, it sounds like dads is just Ed Davey, as we'll be getting onto later.
Wallace is also known as a friend and supporter of Sarah Jane Baker.
Do you remember covering that individual with Kelly J, Barney Tronks?
Oh, that one.
Yeah, the one who reportedly removed his own testicles in a jail cell with a prison razor, possibly ate them, according to Helen Joyce, and is now back in prison.
I just feel myself becoming so right wing when I hear all this stuff.
I was, I began this segment thinking, you know, I, I don't mind like, like trans except like, if someone's like, okay, I'm going to go through all the hassle to present myself as a woman.
I'm going to call them she, just because a, it's just easier to not have to continually like reset my brain because you know, you, you see a thing and they, it looks like the thing.
So you can say, right.
But also, yeah, it's just nice.
It's just polite.
I don't actually want to be digging at them.
I know people, I have friends who are transgender.
I don't, you know, sit there and go, no, you're a man really.
Right.
But none of them are like that.
I'm not actually a woman.
You know, I'm not actually biologically female, and I don't require you to believe that I'm biologically female, so I don't ever have to have that conversation with them.
But the more this goes on, the more I'm just like, oh.
For me, the people that I know, all of the evidence that I've seen, I just think it's a grievous wrong to ever administer this kind of stuff in a culture of affirmation to people that are genuinely struggling with gender dysphoria and all it does instead is embolden autogynephile fetishists like this person or Baker and allow them to get away with being exhibitionist while wearing the cloak of a press minority.
And that is what's happening here.
Obviously a fetish.
Yes.
Also, just an aside, this person uploaded a remix of Baker's speech when he said punch a turf to Spotify titled Baker's Bop.
So still supporting a known violent offender who, bear in mind, was sentenced to nine years in prison for kidnapping and torturing his stepmother's brother.
And finally, I just thought I'd mention the other person that was involved in the panel debate, the sort of vanguard in the media of Pro-LGBT stuff on the right-wing outlets.
Someone that you've done some work on before, James.
Peter Tatchell.
This is your piece in The Critic.
Now, Peter Tatchell is very protective on Twitter when you bring up his strange record.
What is that record?
He said and written, I would say, some very concerning things about children and sex with adults and the age of consent.
I mean, this goes back to 97 where there was a letter to the Guardian where he was quoting some tribe in Papua New Guinea in which there's a kind of rite of passage, children of sex with elders in the community.
And he kind of finished off the letter saying, it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, but And, you know, I've left it to the readers to make their own mind up on that, but I am wondering why he used that choice of wording.
It may be impossible to.
It's almost as if...
Maybe it's possible to travel to Mars.
But I'll find a way.
Yeah.
What's the implication?
The quote from your article from his letter is that the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood, far from being harmed, they grew up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.
And then he goes on to say, several of my friends, gay and straight, male and female, had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 14.
None of them feel they were abused.
Oh, that's all right then.
None of them feel that they were abused when they were clearly abused.
So I guess it's just...
That's one of the... and he maintains this line quite often.
He says, well, I know people.
I know people who don't feel abused.
And I think that's, you know, a completely abhorrent argument to put forward because capacity has to be judged in the moment.
You know, think about a child who's raped, for example, and the years go by and what happens?
Have they internalized that shame?
Have they received messages from the outside telling them that they deserved it or it was all right anyway?
You can't view these things with the power of hindsight, you know, decades later.
Children cannot consent to sex and so I don't give a damn whether Peter knows someone as an adult now who says they didn't mind it at the time.
But it's also, why do you keep feeling compelled to tell these stories?
Why do you need to keep talking about this issue of how some people that you know that you won't necessarily cite all the time were okay with being abused when you were younger?
Why does he need to write chapters in books about this?
Why does he need to go out of his way to write to The Guardian about this?
And why is he never allowed to be pulled up on it when he's being platformed by outlets that also are very friendly to our views?
I just find it quite perplexing.
I understand that some of those platforms need to be Ofcom compliant, and so it might be difficult to try and find someone pro-LGBT, and I understand that there might be producers that are frustrated by the fact that they have to pay Peter Tatchell's appearance fees.
However, is there not someone else you could get?
Someone else without the weird, contaminated record on Being soft on the age of consent?
Is that possible?
The problem with this is I think there is an objective interest that people have and even if you can find, and I've been essentially the victim of this kind of argumentation where I wasn't prepared for it.
I didn't have a ready answer to it.
It was like, well, you know, what do you say?
But I think actually a genuine appeal to a kind of objective interest, like even if Someone who's 13 years old comes away and says, well, I didn't feel abused.
Okay.
Well, a you're 13.
You don't know what's good for you be.
It's always exploitative from position of the adult was the child under every circumstance and in your own objective interest.
Okay.
You may feel okay with it now, but what about in 20 years time?
You look back and go, hang on a second.
That was actually a person taking complete advantage of me, stealing my innocence.
Stealing future life events that I should have had with a person who loved me.
Ideally, you'd want them to find a partner at like 18 or something, get married, enter into the world of becoming an adult that way, in a safe and romantic and wholesome way, rather than being debauched by an adult when they were a teenager.
And so even if they didn't feel abused, there's still other objective criteria that make it wrong in every case.
Of course.
And even if some people genuinely believe, with the power of hindsight, that they were okay with it at the time, it doesn't make it okay in the same way that, you know, if an adult injected some kid with heroin and, you know, in the power of hindsight, this person grows up and says, actually I quite liked it, yeah, it wasn't too bad.
That doesn't make it okay, doesn't mean we should be making it legal.
But Peter keeps pushing this line time and time again because he's kind of the darling of that movement in many ways and they clearly don't want to lose him.
But, you know, he's He's pushing, I would say, a sexualization of children in general.
I mean, he said as part of sex ed in this country that children should be taught about the erotic value of foreplay.
What?
No, they shouldn't.
Yeah, it's just that simple.
That's the kink education.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
So I suppose I'll just round that sort of horrific little bit off then with thanks for all the tireless work you do gathering this muck, James, so that not all of us have to go through the primary sources.
And why are we platforming these people?
Could we not?
Just a suggestion, I suppose.
And speaking of people that shouldn't probably have a public platform, turns out the Liberal Democrats, a little while ago, declared that, quite clearly, some women can have a penis.
Now, this is a trend with Liberal Democrat leaders.
I love this clip so much.
Joe Swinson found herself in a kind of ideological quagmire, where she was just asked by a caller, what is a woman?
And she spent 20 minutes stuttering and melting down, being unable to describe Well, half of the human race.
But this particular one, that was a sort of more defensive thing.
Ed Davey goes on the attack here, saying, you don't think women have penises?
Aren't you a moron?
Yes.
He's very confident in how dumb he is.
So let's just enjoy this clip and then we'll pull it apart.
Mary, go ahead.
Thank you, Ed.
I'm answering a question on behalf of 51% of the population.
I'm a tactical voter and I would like to support the Lib Dems, but can you answer the question, what is a woman, please?
Well, thank you very much, Mary.
I'm glad you're a tactical voter, thinking of voting for us, so I hope we can get you over the line.
Let's see if you like my answer to the question.
I mean, the truth is, Mary, the vast majority of people whose biological sex is a woman when they were birthed, they feel they're women, so they feel their gender the same as at birth.
But there's a very small number of people who don't feel like that.
And the law has recognized them for over 20 years now.
So this is not a new issue.
I know sometimes it seems, but the law has dealt with this in the right way.
The Equality Act is there to allow there to be single-sex spaces so people can have those single-sex spaces according to the law under the Equality Act.
And what I want to do is answer your question directly, as I've done, Mary, but also to try and take some of the heat out of the question.
Because there are, there's a small number of people who actually they've got, they have a tough time.
Indeed.
They're harassed, discriminated against, mental, real serious mental health problems.
And I think we need to manage this and think about it and debate it with a bit more maturity and a bit more compassion.
Well, that's what Sir Keir Starmer once said to me, and he never did answer the question, can a woman have a penis?
Well, I've just answered that question.
They can?
Listen, I've made it really clear that if people, the vast majority of people will have the same gender as their biological sex, but a small number won't.
So a woman can have a penis?
Well, quite clearly.
Quick response, Mary, has Cambridge won your target seats, Ed?
We may not agree on everything, but whether you agree with me on that, I really hope you consider us, because with our policy on the NHS, our policy on the cost of living, our policy on sewage, I think you'll find lots of things... Women are 51% of the population.
Are you satisfied with his answer?
We must move on, Mary.
Yes or no?
No.
I do find it funny how he has the demeanor of a supply teacher out of his depth.
He's trying to morally browbeat her into saying, well, you're not being very nice to the rest of the class.
No, he's trying to call her illogical.
That's what he's trying to do.
Well, obviously, if some women are people who do not identify as the gender they're born in, clearly some women have penises.
It's like, yeah, logically that would follow.
It's also nonsense.
He's also making a moral judgment.
He says, I'd like to take some he's out of the question.
I mean, it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask an elected politician.
I mean, and at the end there he's saying, well, look, yeah, I may not know about biological reality, but got a great economic plan.
You know, it's like, it's ridiculous.
How can we trust political parties if they don't know the first thing about GCSE biology?
I mean, it's like.
It's just reality as we observe it in front of our eyes.
But it's also, he puts the locus of legitimacy of the category in lived experience rather than fact, so of course he's always going to trip himself up and do that.
And then, despite not knowing what he thinks, he midway through his answer says, as I've already answered quite clearly, well you didn't, you just didn't answer it at all.
And the problem is that this tiny minority, he's giving them equal validity to the overwhelming majority of people who don't, right?
The tiny minority of people who don't identify with the sex, the gender doesn't identify with the sex in which they were born, that doesn't make them as correct or valid as the majority.
They are in fact people who in previous eras would have been said to have had a mental health issue.
Right, so it's not that they are women, it's that they are people with a mental health problem.
We should be compassionate.
The Lib Dems' new voting bloc, mad people, brilliant, yeah.
For people that can actually answer this question, you can go to our website and watch this interview I recently did with Helen Joyce.
It got contentious near the end because, of course, well, not between us, but between the comments, because we decided to ask, well, can the conservatives and the TERFs or even the non-radical feminists, as Helen positions herself, being once woke is put away and trans is vanquished and all the people with Gender dysphoria have much better treatments on offer, are saved.
What's the civilization to be built?
And we both realized we'd sort of reached an impasse.
But it was a really interesting chat and yes.
I haven't listened to this.
It's worthwhile having a listen to.
I recommend it.
But despite people like Helen Joyce existing and speaking lots of sense, the Lib Dems are actually doubling down on this total embarrassment.
So their party conference is coming up.
And they've come out and made a formal statement saying that menstruation isn't just a women's issue.
I just want to caption that picture with Ed Davey when you say women can't have penises.
All the ones I've met have.
So, menstruation is not just a women's issue, Liberal Democrat activists have said in a motion chosen to be debated at their party conference next month.
Ed Davey's party will vote on a policy proposal that insists period poverty is an issue that affects, quote, some trans and non-binary people in addition to women.
The document states, Conference notes that menstruation is not just a women's issue and also affects some trans and non-binary people.
It was an agenda published by the Liberal Democrats for their annual gathering in Bournemouth and this motion will be debated on September the 23rd.
Quote, Conference believes that period products are a human right, not a luxury.
Do you want to beat the drum about how human rights are not positively afforded?
Well, I mean, I could, but do I need to?
But also, of course they had it in Bournemouth.
It's exactly where I'd expect the Liberal Democrats to have their conference.
They didn't have it, oh, I don't know, Manchester or something, did they?
I thought they would have had it in Bath.
Birmingham.
Constituencies.
Luton, maybe.
No, of course it's Britain.
Yeah, Brighton's the Labour Party one, which makes more sense.
Yes, it does.
Yeah, so period products are not just a luxury.
Nobody should experience period poverty.
England's current free period product provision is not fit for purpose.
It's not going far enough.
And it is in everyone's interest for the stigma around periods to be addressed.
Stigma?
Yeah.
I hear this all the time, but ever since, I mean, I don't know how old you are, but I'm 43 and I don't ever remember a time where it wasn't just completely normal that women had periods and that was just something that happened to women.
I think it might be an internal thing among women because obviously it must be a very unpleasant thing to first have happen.
And so that might be being projected onto politics.
Maybe, but it's just always been completely normal.
I mean.
Oh yeah.
I guess I'm just a misogynist.
The motion calls on the government to introduce a right for people to access a choice of free period products, place a duty on councils and schools to make period products freely available, and introduce comprehensive education on periods to ensure an appreciation of the lived experience of menstruation.
So it's further cementing anti-biology into the education system.
But why do I have to pay for it?
Emotion was tabled at the party's spring conference in March, which would have amended the party's constitution to remove all references to self-idea and non-binary people.
However, this was ignored by the activists who moved to ignore the motion entirely, with some members going as far to urge their fellow members who hold gender-critical views to leave the party.
I might transition to be honest.
Democrat website entitled "Transphobia".
The party reiterates its supports for people being able to self-identify as their preferred gender without a medical certificate.
"Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a variety of terms.
Trans people are not required to have undergone any medical or social transition to be considered trans." Then why have the transition? - I might transition to be honest.
I'm going to be part of the special club if I don't need to do anything to make it the case.
I always thought you would make a convincing one.
No, I don't have to be a woman.
Oh, what are you transitioning to?
I don't have to.
I don't have to say.
I can just say that I'm trans.
There's no biological requirement.
I don't have to perform anything.
I don't have to get anything legally.
I can just self-identify as a trans person.
So I'm able to just do it.
Because then they're being transphobic whenever they criticize me.
Well, that day you'll be in your dems by the end of the day.
So why do they say that I'm a married woman?
Well, they seem so insistent on this.
Of course, it is the bottom-up party activist types.
It's the middle manager that is a Davey who's just swallowed his ideology whole.
But it turns out that, again, there might be money at work here.
And this is something that Kevin Lister's talked about on Twitter.
There we go.
Wonderful.
So, Kevin Lister, we actually have an interview with Kevin on the website.
Kevin is a maths teacher who was sacked for raising concerns after a student asked him to have his pronouns respected, and Kevin was like, well, no, because I don't think that's good for you, and so he was fired from the school.
He's been taking to Twitter recently, and he was looking at the Liberal Democrats, and it turns out, on the Electoral Commission, a public the available series of donations uh they've had lots of donations from a company called Ferring Pharmaceuticals really yeah that's a lot as well yeah now if it's a half million yeah so it might have some sway over what they say very optimistic about the Lib Dems electoral success as well isn't it Yeah, must be a lot of trans people in Bournemouth.
I don't know if anyone recognises the name Burrington Pharmaceuticals here.
Not a fan.
Okay, so they're actually the ones that funded the Dutch protocol.
Oh, yes.
Now, for those in the audience who might not know the Dutch Protocol, 2006 study that became the prerequisite for children being prescribed puberty blockers as the only solution to treating gender dysphoria, which then led to an overwhelmingly 90 plus percent rate of them going on to take cross-sex hormones, and the puberty blockers impair mental development, so technically they shouldn't have been able to consent to those anyway, but when did consent ever match the trans lobby?
And it could lead to sterility, cancer, and all those other things that we know.
Turns out that Ferring Pharmaceuticals, the company making the blockers, funded the study that advised the blockers, and then have gone on to make a fortune ever since.
Yeah.
So this is an NRC article that looked into this and it was published, this is a Dutch newspaper, on December 31st last year and it turns out that, quote, this is Young, Kutenbauer and Peter Vasterman who authored the article, they said, the scientific underpinnings of the Dutch protocol turn out to be pretty shaky.
The research cited for the affirmative model of care With results published in 2011 and 2014 followed 55 children first treated with puberty blockers and then cross-sex hormones who reported positive results 18 months later.
Now the positivity of those results are pretty dubious.
Helen Joyce has written about this and I'll just read from her book a little quote.
The clinicians in Amsterdam checked back in with the patients they'd studied for a couple of years after the discharge.
Some of them did not reply, a few had abandoned transition because of poor health, and one had died of necrotizing fasciitis, a rare but serious bacterial infection contracted as a complication of vaginoplasty.
No, well we can go into the details of that case here, because what ended up happening is, because of the puberty blockers, there wasn't enough tissue grown for the inversion, so they took a piece of his bowel and colon instead, they screwed up surgery, and this 18 year old boy died of cross-contamination and organ failure.
Okay, that's awful.
So he was struck from the results before.
Because, of course, it looks really bad.
And so, because of awareness of inconvenient facts like this, facts which have a lot of money behind them, that seem to have, despite all of the policy cutting in the other direction at this point, influenced Lib Dem's trans-affirming position, this is part of the reason why influenced Lib Dem's trans-affirming position, this is part of the reason why the NHS has also chosen to roll back the use of
This is something that you've been very hot on, you're actually cited in this article, I believe, because Tavistock, it's been broken up into multiple satellite I was going to ask about that because I knew that it was getting dismantled, but I knew that it wasn't going away.
Yeah.
So there's two regional clinics and that's in, here is it.
Let's have a look.
Sorry, someone's just typing on the screen.
It's very distracting.
So these are the two new regional clinics opening in England, and they said that hormone suppressing drugs would not be routinely offered.
I believe that only being often quote clinical trials.
Now, that does mean that I think we're going to see the rate of clinical trials among young people tick up because they're going to try and circumvent it.
But the two clinics are going to be very different than just the fast tracking Tavistock one that the likes of Kira Bell showed.
Abandoned all of their safeguarding practices.
So the Gender Identity Development Service that is going to close in spring this year, it's still running.
The reason for the delay, we don't know why it's still open, but a bit strange.
So it'll be a southern hub that opens in autumn and the northern hub that opens in April 2024.
So they're splitting them between the two in the country.
But when this news was announced, you had a more positive disposition about the fact that they were rolling back the widespread use of puberty blockers.
Look, I don't believe puberty blockers should be used at all, including in clinical trials.
However, there's no doubt that this is a huge step forward.
You know, at one point I never thought we'd see the day, actually.
And puberty blockers are a slippery slope towards greater medicalization.
So I think... Now, they've said it's their intention to do this, so nothing's set in stone yet.
And I pray with every fiber of my being that I don't row back from this.
If it's true, it's huge.
And these new clinics, we'll have to wait and see what comes of them.
But there's already been controversies, including previous staff members from the original Tavistock supposedly training new staff members for these other hubs.
And so, you know, I do worry what practices and policies might filter down into this new system.
Again, we'll just have to have to wait and see.
Well, the original system allowed non-medically licensed activists from the likes of Mermaids to influence their policy.
So one of the Heads of Mermaids, I believe, took her son abroad to Thailand, I think it was for his 16th birthday, to have a gender transition surgery.
And she was pressuring Tavistock to prescribe treatments for the age lower than what was previously advised.
Where's the young man's father?
Great question.
But yeah, so I'm willing to bet that should the Lib Dems come into coalition with Labour, if Labour don't have quite the stonking victory that they are expecting.
Sure.
Well, yeah, Labour have said they won't, but they absolutely will.
They'll do it and they'll keep it quiet.
The media will.
Yeah, but if the Lib Dems have any influence over public policy, I am willing to bet that Ferrying Pharmaceuticals will also, and you'll probably see the return of this type of stuff.
So it'll be on the likes of you and the rest of us to keep pressure up to stop this being done to kids.
But yeah, didn't want to do too much of a black pill, but it turns out that We're up against some really well-funded bad actors here.
Well, I'm very worried about the next general election.
You know, I did a bit of scoping work.
I looked at all the leaders of the parties that were elected at the last general election and all of them bar conservatives and I think the ALBA party, all of the leaders made some comment akin to women can have a penis or, you know, children should be able to take puberty blockers and transition.
So even though the majority of the citizens of this country believe in biological reality, the majority of our political leaders do not.
And that's worrying.
The Education Secretary currently under-conserves his back self-ID.
And then the problem...
Yes.
But Rishi Senak came out and said that a woman is an adult human female.
As if Rishi Senak really believes in anything he says...
And also, the next Conservative leader, which even Conservative party internals are willing to bet, is going to be Penny Morden.
Oh God.
I thought you'd like it because you fancy her.
Look, I'm not saying... Yeah, she's an attractive lady, but like, she's also been endorsed by Bill Gates, so... And also, she gets up at the dispatch box after her brother is a very prominent LGBT activist saying, trans men are men, trans women are women, non-binary people are non-binary.
So yeah, capture from top to bottom.
Honestly, I'm kind of looking forward to Keir Starmer.
Not that he's good or anything like that, he's terrible, but at least the decline will be much quicker.
Well, you know this whole podcast we've just done?
It actually won't be possible under Starmer because he told the Pink News Awards that he's going to criminalize online misgendering.
Thanks, Keir.
See you in America, I guess.
First Amendment refugees, fun.
But anyway, yeah, so a lot of money and interest behind this and not looking good.
But, as far as with that, we'll jump on to the comments.
Making misgendering illegal, though.
I mean, Keir Starmer was on the right wing of this conversation, so he was like, well, 99.99% of women don't have a penis.
So 0.01.
I'm sure Tony Blair gave him that statistic and said this is the more electorally viable path to tout.
Yeah.
Anyway, Omar says, on the subject of the German kindergartens, I knew you'd cover this topic eventually, but the podcast hasn't even started and I've already swallowed a fistful of rage pills.
I'm sure the Lib Dems backers funded those.
It is honestly, I really dislike.
harder than sex ever end up in the same sentence.
Honestly, the whole school needs to be woodchippered at that point.
Pushback isn't enough.
There needs to be retribution.
We'll take it further next time.
Honestly, I really dislike, I can't describe how much I dislike talking about pre-teens.
With teenagers, you have to address the topic of sexual maturity because they're becoming sexually mature.
So you don't really have a choice.
They end up getting girlfriends and boyfriends and you're like, okay, well, you have to have some advice for them.
But when they're 11, 11, 12 and younger.
It is just not on their minds.
It's just not in their thoughts.
Their thoughts are about actually normal, wholesome kid stuff.
And so you just never need to talk about these things.
Yeah, I'm going to presume any introduction of that to them has predatory intent behind it.
Yeah, it's definitely it's like the vegan dog, right?
This wasn't the dog's idea.
It's very much that.
And also you lose nothing by being so excessively cautious as to stigmatize the people that are trying to introduce it to them.
Because even if they're the best intentions in the world and they're just trying to reduce harm and all these things that the WHO say, they can still be a Trojan horse for abusers.
And so, if I just put you all in this big box and just shove you out the way, kids stay safe.
I'm gonna go with that bet.
There's just no need for it on the part of the children themselves.
This is obviously something that's been introduced by adults who feel that they have God knows whatever is going on in their minds.
Maria says, For all three stories, I'd posit that it's becoming increasingly harder to dismiss that much of Western society as brought this on itself.
Having decried and in some cases worked politically to undermine Christianity, You don't have to be a religious zealot to see that.
See that these are the consequences of such actions and it's leading society to reap what it has sown.
While I'm agnostic, I don't consider a society led by godless heathens to be the best for a decent future.
I mean, yeah, I'm an atheist and I'm sat there going, well, I think maybe the Irish Catholics are right on some things.
I think this is an interesting point, and this assumption that religion has nothing to teach us.
I made a comment the other day about the fact that, given we've just come out of Pride Month, the fact that pride is one of the seven deadly sins.
I'm not Christian, I come from a Jewish background, but people piled on me saying, how dare I bring religion into it?
We could learn a lot, I think, from various religions actually, but also I think that this is symptomatic of what we've become as a society.
You can really feel the void that's been left where religion used to be.
And I think so much of this, particularly the gender stuff, is kind of symptomatic of the fact that we live in a society in which we've got the privilege to be able to sit and navel-gaze all the time.
And this kind of obsession with self-identity and self-actualization It's like, you know, if you go to a country that's, you know, in the midst of war, poverty, they're not sat around arguing about pronouns.
You know, they've got more important things to think about.
Yeah, material privation doesn't afford you the privilege of having, uh, being obsessed with the recognition economy over actual tangible incentives.
I just wanted to get something I found on Twitter the other day, which I just think exactly highlights the point that you're making here, right?
Because I got into a sort of Twitter argument with some, I think it was like the Socialist Party, oh, Jacobin Magazine, right?
You actually got into an argument with the magazine themselves?
Well, I mean, I ratioed them.
I'm not a religious person, but I really do think that they are missing a voice.
So they said two days ago, many critics of socialism claim that our nature as humans is too flawed and selfish for socialism to work.
They're getting things exactly backwards.
We need socialism to protect against human cruelty and to encourage human kindness.
And so I just replied, no, that's Christianity that you're talking about.
That's what you mean when you say that.
That's what an advert for Christianity would look like.
That's not what socialism is, that's what following Jesus is.
Yeah, and they're fundamentally incompatible.
And the reason why socialism and Christianity are completely at odds, and Christianity is completely at odds with this doctrine, despite what I have been told at my own masses sometimes by one of Priests is that if you are in proximity to something that created you, you don't get to use up that hierarchy, and so you cannot remake the world in your own image, and you cannot remake your own image in your own image.
That's the concept of the Margot Day, of bodily sanctity.
That's why they're, you know, propositions, prohibitions rather, against abortion.
That's why Christianity birthed the concept of childhood innocence, where it didn't previously exist in the Romans, and that's why it has sexual differentiation on lock.
And without that ring fence of Uh, category that you cannot change and cannot use up because your own ambition can never reach that far.
Then all it takes is technological change to legitimate your own personal desires.
And so you're just slowly eroding that.
And now that's why, and this is something that Helen said in our interview, that transgenderism looks a lot like a religion without metaphysics.
It has its mode of transcendence, it has its liberation theology, and it has its martyrs.
Yes.
And so it fills that void, as you were saying.
It does have a metaphysical, because as you say, you're being trapped in the wrong body.
There's a direct implication that you existed prior to your body.
And that somehow the universe has arranged it so you're in the wrong one.
God got it wrong.
And the soul that they're appealing to should be able to find the correct body in theory then, right?
So there is some kind of metaphysical underpinning to it, but they've never explored it and they can't explain it.
But it's nonsense.
It's just all nonsense.
And like I said, I'm not a religious man either, but like, I can see the value in religion having some explanation for this, even if it's just one I don't really personally believe.
But one would have hoped at the very least a lot of the religious bodies out there would kind of push back against this, challenge it in some way.
But I've seen so many churches that have got placards saying, you know, Jesus is trans or whatever.
So, you know, I think religion truly is dead in the water if we've got stuff like that.
Even the Pope is progressive.
Yeah, that comes from the old infiltration and liberation theology in the 60s and whatnot.
I think the Church of England comes from a very different perspective, because they are signed up to all the ESG stuff as well, and they get a lot of pressure from the government.
So they said themselves that they didn't want to do same-sex marriage, but the government was pushing them to do so.
Ethelstan95 says, how does a country that has the stain of experimenting with placing children with convicted pedophiles not learn?
How can your society be so depraved that this is seen as a state policy that is morally acceptable?
Germans.
Well, I think it's the terror of being accused of legitimizing anything even closely akin to Nazism We'll make people cowardly to the point of where they will offer their own children up to abusers to save their reputation.
Having not been molested as a child puts you on the path to Nazism.
But it is interesting how individuals like ourselves who challenge this type of stuff are called Nazis.
I find that an interesting concept.
Is there something subconsciously going on in the German spirit in which they want to be so distanced from Nazis and we are the Nazis of the modern era?
The answer to that is yes and I can explain it at length but we don't have time.
I lived in Germany for eight years and I met lots and lots of Germans and they're all very nice but there is a pathology in Germany.
German like culture that really does stigmatize anything because I mean they literally view it in black and white.
It's if you have something that is pro-family the family is the building block of the nation and therefore anything that's pro-children is pro-family and therefore Literally being a healthy human being puts you on the road to potentially becoming a Nazi.
Uh, and I mean, that's obviously preposterous to a normal person, but there is a really strong argument that is made in Germany about that.
And it's so right.
I hate it.
You know?
Really disagree with it.
Anyway, Sophie says, I have to agree with James here and it's something I've considered for a while.
We should categorize pedophilia as a mental health disorder because then we have both grounds to separate them from children or workplaces related to children as well as trying to figure out treatment forms which could be psychological and if need be, yes, I think this is one of the few places where drugs may be justified if we find something that can kill that sexual interest.
categorizing it as a mental health issue, also gives us the tools needed to push back on it and not seem like monsters who don't even want to help those who suffer, as well as stopping the sexualization of children.
She may have a point there.
She might.
However, I am skeptical as to the...
Well, I'm skeptical as to the ability to treat the mind rather than the sexual urge.
Because I think the more effective treatment for paedophilia that would kill the sexual urge is chemical castration rather than lithium or something like that.
So I think you need a criminal style punishment rather than a rehabilitative treatment.
Because as we see with the rates of sex offence, there's little to no rehabilitation, they will often re-offend.
Isn't it true that many pedophiles are people who have been sexually molested as children?
That does happen quite often, yes.
It's not determinant, obviously.
There's got to be some sort of connection there, right?
Yeah, there was a CDC-Kaiser study that looked at a scale of adverse childhood experience scores, and so they found that if you had a score of 4 or more, you're much more likely to be promiscuous, be a drug addict, have no... yeah.
In fact, literally the next comment Nathan says, any social worker will tell you it's the cycle of abuse.
If you're molested as a child, you're more likely to act that out in adolescence than early adulthood.
This only really manifests if the abuse is internalized and never spoken of.
Whereas if the abuse is spoken of and the correct therapy and mental health support is put in place early enough, then the cycle can be broken.
That's not to say that everyone has undergone abuse or that is a pedophile, but there is a link that is also linked to rough sleeping and drug abuse.
Yeah, that's the point I was making earlier.
But you know also crucially whether it's trauma or mental health disorder or whatever, if people do evil things in life that may offer an explanation but it never offers an excuse.
That's the line I'm always going to toe on this.
Baystape says, I know it's pedantic, but I can't stand the expression lived experience.
Can you give me an example of an experience you haven't lived?
It's certainly used by people who have copy-pasted ideas.
Well, that's fair.
I mean, you can just say literally experience and it implies that you lived through it, doesn't it?
I mean, there is the argument between, it's the oakshot distinction between technical knowledge and direct experiential knowledge.
Yeah, but obviously the irony is that Davey's appealing to lived experience while getting technical knowledge from whatever ideological priest has handed this down as a lived-in participation.
Yeah, it's several steps removed from his own experience of life, yeah.
Sophie again says, I've been thinking for a while that somebody should make a trans exhibition and just advertise it and get funding by selling it as the story, telling the story from trans people and adult exhibition.
And then really show the experience of trans people, of the detrans.
Have big frame photos on the wall of these neo-vaginas and plastic phalluses look like.
Have videos of regretters crying and telling their stories.
Have a big graph on the wall showing the rise in trans surgeries and the cost of the surgery.
Say, I want to make an exhibition about trans people and trans experience and then really do that.
It wouldn't even be false advertisement.
That would actually be quite effective.
I mean, there's lots of free museums in places like Amsterdam where people go and visit as part of their holiday.
So if this were in a similar district and they didn't know what it was, people would just stumble into it.
I've actually been preparing a premium podcast on something like this, where it's just, I want you to look at this stuff.
I just want you to look at it because it's just like hell on earth, really.
Well, the, the, when I sat down, the only reason I got in touch with Richie is because you spoke to him at the LGB Alliance Conference and we had a really powerful and compassionate chat that people can watch on YouTube and that, but that was one of the main things that put me onto this issue with more further was just hearing his personal testimony in full detail of all of the steps on how they've ruined a large part of his life.
And so having those, putting the face, the name and image to the image, the account.
Would be a very useful measure to go a long way of convincing people that this entire ideology is deserving the most vulnerable.
I mean, just commit to it.
If you're really sure that's, you know, if you're, if you're even a slight bit of doubt in your mind, don't, I just don't think it should be on the table.
I mean, I agree, but that's not going to happen.
Well, given the current situation, do we give liposuction to anorexics?
Sure.
But if.
For some reason they wanted it to happen and it ended up happening.
I'm not in favour of it but you've got to begin from the position you're in now.
I think the crucial thing is that we paint a realistic picture of what this entails and what the consequences are and not have glorified cartoons of someone swigging a Costa coffee cup.
Painting this out to be some sort of miraculous euphoric moment for them.
There's real life consequences and there's many children out there who have lost parts of their bodies that they can never get back again because of this.
And worse as well, like literally become eunuchs because of this.
At like 16, 17, you've got a life that's denied all of some of the most core parts of the human experience.
The ability to enjoy sex, have a family, form a proper relationship, grow old with someone and have grandchildren.
Like all of these aspects of the richness of the human existence is denied someone making a bad decision because a bunch of people have groomed them when they were teenagers.
That is just so bad.
Eunuch is now recognised as a distinct gender identity by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, so it's interesting you used that term.
I was about to say the exact same thing, and the reason they did that, if you look in the hyperlinks, it's a website that hosts erotic fiction.
That's the site.
That's the source they cite.
Noel says, uh, teachers only have so many hours in the day to educate children on things that are important to making them self-supported members of society.
When they are busy teaching self-satisfaction, they're not teaching history, maths, reading, and something six-year-olds need to know.
Yeah, well that's a great point as well.
Like, I mean, I personally am against the idea of teachers teaching this.
I mean, you know, you're in a biology class, okay, you've got like a, you know, the Anatomy diagram.
That's it.
And that, yep, you go, right, that's the anatomy diagram.
That's true.
OK, let's move on.
If you want to know about relationships and things like that, speak to your parents, speak to take your religious tradition.
It's not the school's job.
And I don't think they should be doing it, frankly.
SH Silver says, given the firing of diversity officers in Hollywood recently, once profitability started to tank, clearly they aren't ideologically married to it.
This is in addition to the big investment firms like Vanguard, BlackRock going mum on ESG as a term.
Well, that's a good point, actually.
And I think you were right saying that there are definitely layers of this where the activists are being hired by people who just don't want to get sued.
But again, I have trouble Being certain that that's the case, I do think there's a kind of ideological pollutant that happens when even, you know, the guys at the top are like, well, look, I just never thought about this subject at all.
And someone comes in and goes, look, I have all the answers for you.
And so they kind of, I don't want to say groomed, because obviously you don't groom like a 50 year old CEO, but like, It's attacking them in a way they just don't have any defenses against, right?
They don't have any knowledge of the subject, and they don't even know why they're talking about it.
Having spoken to some people that work in ESG firms that consolidate the data from a bunch of different banks, they've actually said that the smaller banks spend a larger proportion of their resources on ESG data collection, even though the data is of inferior quality than the larger banks do.
And the reason is, they're trying to get upward mobility from the subsidies from the hedge funds, and they're trying to compete with the larger banks.
So they might not sincerely believe it but they are seeing this as a way to climb the ladder to complete the likes of Barclays.
So I mean the question then is why is the money available to this ideology?
I have the theory that essentially lots of children are being used as the experimental subjects for the medical industry until transhumanism works more broadly.
because the elites are majorly obsessed with that.
You've got Martin Rothblatt who wrote Transgender to Transhuman.
But that's the thing.
The ideology has to be at play in deciding what is getting the funding.
So there must be some kind of deep ideological underpinning.
I don't know if Larry Fink's particularly ideologically wedded.
I think he just sees it as a...
But why would he be giving the money out to that?
He needs a modernist market capture, I suppose.
It's also a really good concentration nexus for capital because...
The pharmaceutical companies, it's one of the only products that they can sell that has both a cosmetic and a medical dimension.
And has a lifetime of subscription.
Exactly.
That's what Richie Heron said.
He said, they've made millions out of me.
It feels too Machiavellian though, right?
Machiavelli was a patriot, so it's even worse than that.
Well, yeah, but the mode of thought feels too Machiavellian.
What do you think?
Increasingly, I wonder whether it helps to even kind of pore over the reasons to why people are doing this, because the outcome is the exact same every single time.
I just want rid of it one way or the other.
But as far as these corporations are concerned, I think we've got to hit them where it hurts.
They seem to only care about turning a profit.
And so if boycotts are on the horizon, you know, I'm not going to stand in the way of that.
And particularly if in the case of Wix, they're literally telling you, we don't want you in our bloody store anyway, you know, well, let's give them what they want then and not show up.
I'm more than capable of doing that.
I'm not a handyman.
Anon says stigma is from the newly imported population against periods.
In Islam, for instance, being on your period means you're filthy.
You cannot pray, you cannot attend events, you cannot touch the holy book, etc.
This is one of the reasons it's being used.
Political parties in Britain use this in a way to browbeat the majority in the native population of Britain.
I don't really agree with that, because feminists don't necessarily target it towards that, do they?
And they never reference, they never give an example of where it's being stigmatised.
They just assert it's being stigmatised.
Let's look around and I've never met a woman.
I mean, maybe the most casual sort of, well, I don't want to have sex with you while you're on your period or something like that.
They're considering that to be stigma.
I mean, Anon is completely correct about the Islamic period.
But it's not like when they reference FGM that they say these Islamic countries, which they actually do.
Yeah, I'm not sure that's the case, but I mean, he is right about that being stigmatized.
I think we're out of time.
Yes.
Well, so James, where can people find you?
Basically, I was hosting the podcast.
Pointed to me.
I know, but I shouldn't have done it.
It's my fault.
I'm not going to say, but James, where can people find you?
Well I'm increasingly addicted to Twitter and social media etc so people can find me on there.
Yeah keep having the conversation.
I mean today's conversation with you both has been thoroughly depressing in all the best ways.
I'm glad that we're at least talking about this stuff because it is apparent but I mean god it gets you down.
So, um, I don't know, but I do believe the tide is turning very slowly.
I don't know what you both think, but I think that at least on mainstream platforms, people are increasingly having the conversation in the first place.
You know, that's the, that's the first step as far as I'm concerned.
No, I'm with you.
I think you can feel a slow change in the tide, right?
There's something, something is happening, which is good.
Anyway, thank you so much for joining us folks.
And, uh, we will be back tomorrow.
Take it easy.
▲
Export Selection