Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 27, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:28:46

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1196

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast Lotus Eaters episode 1196.
	I'm your host Harry, joined today by Stan and Dan from Voice of Wales.
	Thank you for returning.
	Thanks, welcome.
	And also Carl.
	I have to be here as well.
	You all know Carl by this point.
	If you didn't, I'm surprised you clicked on the website.
	Today we're going to be talking about labor probably getting us into war, the state's sexual education or miseducation, and how 10 years of gay marriage have passed and nothing bad happened.
	Everybody live happily ever after.
	And before we get into the news, for reminding everybody for the Gold Tier Zoom call is going on later at 3 o'clock UK time.
	So if you've got a Gold Tier membership and you want to tune in, talk to, I think it's going to be Carl and Stelios.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	Make sure to tune in for that and you can have a nice chin wag with them.
	All right, let's get into it, chaps.
	So we have been told to prepare for war.
	The UK government has released a document, or I think it was released, yeah, at the same time to coincide with a NATO summit that basically doesn't bode well for the future.
	I'm going to read some excerpts from the BBC article on it.
	The UK must actively prepare for the possibility of the UK coming under direct threat, potentially in a wartime scenario.
	The nation is in an era in which we face confrontation with those who are threatening security, pointing to the Russian-Ukraine war.
	And the document also referred to hostile Iranian activity on British soil and how adversaries are planning to disrupt energy or supply chains.
	Well, thank goodness we're so secure in those things, right?
	I mean, the borders tight.
	Energy being produced onshore.
	Food supplies, not a problem.
	Gas and oil fields coming from our own oil fields.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, everything.
	We've not been inviting hostile people from the third world for years at this point.
	No, everything's just brilliant.
	Yeah.
	And it called for, quote, an all-of-society effort to make the UK more secure, saying that the country will really have to pull together.
	It's like, have you looked at the country recently?
	Like, whose society?
	Like, sorry, like, I don't speak the languages of many of the societies now.
	Are we in a nation of strangers?
	Yeah, well, exactly, right?
	Keir Stump, he regretted saying that.
	Yeah, he regrets it now.
	He taught that back.
	But yeah, we're a nation of strangers.
	What are you talking about?
	And so they're finding themselves in a position where they want to invoke some kind of wartime spirit, but there's no national cohesion from which to pull.
	So it's just remarkable.
	NATO leaders are all set to commit to increasing their spending to 5% of national income by 2035.
	So we're going to build up a military industrial complex.
	And I'm assuming it's because they're looking at what happened with Russia and Ukraine and Iran and Israel and saying, okay, the era of great power politics is back.
	Cabinet officer Pat McFadden, you know, our best and brightest, said the plan is both clear-eyed and hard-edged about the challenges we face.
	And so they're actually going to start doing stuff.
	They want to improve border security, which would be lovely, improve coordination with allies and boost our capacities in shipbuilding and nuclear power, which is why, I don't know whether you notice, Ed Miliband put out a video yesterday.
	He's like, we need green energy, guys, and it was all nuclear power for the first like three minutes of it.
	It's like, ah, there we go.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Finally, we've got some sense.
	The government report also said that we needed to reignite a World War II fighting spirit.
	Oh, we've not got a World War II population.
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, no.
	Sorry, you expect us to have, well, I mean, we had a giant empire and we had a homogenous population of people who actually liked their own country.
	It's like, sorry, that's gone, bro.
	Like, all of that is gone.
	And even the Commonwealth states now, they thought of this country as the mother country.
	So there was a great, vast pot of volunteers and all speaking the king or queen's English and all uniform in the beliefs, our core beliefs.
	Yes, there was a moral unity between the people, the empire, and the government.
	And that is just gone.
	I don't know what they think they're pulling on.
	They say, we will need agility and courage to succeed, but we should be optimistic.
	We remain a resolute country rich in history, values, and our capabilities.
	Are you mad?
	Like, what century are you in?
	But most of all, there needs to be the determination of the British people themselves.
	Hey, it's those people who are like, yeah, we're living in a two-tier society.
	It's like, are you mental?
	After all, we do not need to look too far into our history to see an example of whole of society effort.
	It's like, okay, but I don't want to have to fight a gargantuan war for the Labour government and the sort of giant foreign welfare state we're currently operating.
	I've got no intention of that.
	And so, and this is going everywhere.
	Even like the Church of England is like, oh, we're preparing for war.
	It's like, what, for 6% of the population that actually still attend?
	Again, back when there was an actual war in this country, like 70% of people went to church every Sunday.
	Now it's 6% of people.
	It's like, you're not influential anymore.
	You're living in the shadow of these things.
	They've got a siren alert system that's going to blare out of your phone.
	They're going to test this again, apparently.
	But basically, it's so when there are imminent dangers and missiles traveling overhead or whatever, they think that this is going to be warning you to get to, I don't know, what, a bomb shelter?
	Where am I going?
	I don't have a bomb shelter.
	Well, they've dismantled the civil defense.
	Both the Royal Observer Corps were stood down in 91.
	The sirens have gone.
	Bunkers have gone.
	The civil structure has gone.
	Absolutely.
	We're completely disarmed.
	We're being impoverished.
	We're being displaced from our own country.
	And they're like, yeah, so you need to fight for this.
	I'm sure I will, actually.
	And also in Wales, of course, we've been told that we have to live with our white guilt and that white people, particularly boys in Wales, are worthless.
	And you can commit suicide because we've got the highest number of suicides in Wales and you're worthless.
	And so now they're saying, join the colours.
	But I mean, at least you're going to be an anti-racist nation in only five years' time.
	Right?
	So, I mean, like, this is worth fighting for, isn't it?
	So you can tell, like, this is Emily Maitlis, one of her interviews, and she's just saying, Look, we need to worry about state-on-state violence, like, right, so we need to return to a world where actually having a healthy, competent, powerful country was useful, which is weird because all we've done for the last 30 years is do everything to enervate ourselves, to imiserate the country, to make people less confident, less proud, less worth, feel less worth in themselves and their own nation.
	And so the question, I guess, is, well, who are we going to be fighting with?
	And they're like, well, Russia?
	It's like, Russia can't even take Ukraine?
	Like, sorry, I'm actually not afraid of Russia.
	Russia couldn't even get through Ukraine.
	That's gone on for, what, nearly three years now?
	Like, you're still, they're still grinding in the same trenches in Russia that they were years ago.
	So I'm actually not worried.
	I don't think Russia is going to rock up on the home front and suddenly invade us with like 200,000 men.
	I just don't, I'm not worried.
	I never bought into that narrative, though.
	No.
	You know, the narrative of, oh, yeah, but when he gets Ukraine, he's going to want this.
	Well, I've never bought into that.
	I think it's nonsense.
	He can want whatever he wants, but I don't think he's going to get it.
	There's quite a bit of continent between us and them.
	Again, he hasn't even reached the end.
	He's got a fifth of Ukraine.
	And that's a four years.
	It would be kind of embarrassing if Russia did do that and managed to take Germany for the second time in 100 years.
	That would.
	That would be quite shocking.
	Unlikely, though.
	I just don't believe it.
	I mean, the Russians did some nuclear warhead war games.
	It's like, okay, yeah, because I think they're feeling insecure as well, given what has just happened with America bombing Iran, right?
	Putin's also sending the boats, apparently.
	Well, yeah, I was going to say they're trying to manufacture consent on this.
	Well, apparently, Russia's sending migrants across the channel.
	It's like, look, right, we don't need to blame Russia for sending migrants across the channel.
	They don't even like Russian.
	Well, they're not.
	No, no, the thing is, Russia and Belarus did actually try something like this with Poland.
	Yes, they did.
	They sent Iraqi migrants that arrived in Russia to Poland.
	And the Poles just put up a big wall and shot anyone who tried to cross because they actually want a future for that.
	It's contractive.
	Can we give it a try?
	I've been reliably informed that walls don't work.
	We've only got a moat, a giant moat made out of sea.
	But yeah, no, so they're trying to essentially manufacture consent for all of this here.
	But this is obviously pathetic.
	It's like, look, we know that these are people who come from People Traffic.
	Okay, let's assume that Russia sent a bunch of them to France.
	That's where Russia's ability to interfere with this ends, right?
	The funny thing is, even if this is true, because I, like you say, with the Belarus thing over to Poland, I wouldn't be too shocked if some of Putin's forces had given random passports and documents to people trying to get over on dinghies somewhere down the line.
	The fact of the matter is, though, our government has still accepted these people.
	So they're going, fight for us.
	We're accepting enemy infiltrators.
	Yeah.
	That's literally what we're doing.
	We hate you, by the way.
	Yeah, and yeah, I mean, you're just going to pay to put them up in hotels, don't worry.
	Actually, no, that's not true.
	Oh, and remember, the Windrush generation built this country.
	Like, Starmer did that the other day, remember?
	He did.
	Your ancestors had nothing to do with this country.
	It was these people who showed up five minutes ago.
	And the Windrush generation can sign up for the army then, can't they?
	You know?
	Yeah, well, they won't.
	But anyway, Patrick Christie's went over to Calais and was like, oh, by the way, a bunch of these migrants are armed.
	So good news for them.
	He's done some great work on this.
	He's been doing great.
	He's been doing great.
	And the police are like, yeah, these are perfectly normal asylum seekers, which why we've got to plead with them not to rape women.
	It's amazing that all Patrick Christies has to do is just hang out around Calais for a little bit.
	And he finds all of this stuff.
	And our government and police are going, what?
	How could we?
	We never knew any of this.
	Apparently, you just need to take a stroll around there for the will again, isn't it?
	You don't have the will to do it.
	It's so easy.
	And what are we giving the French all these millions for?
	Yeah, 250 million, something like that.
	It was a huge amount of money for them to just spit in our eye.
	But anyway, so yeah, I mean, you know, just when they come over, we're just begging them, please don't rape someone.
	It's like, maybe if we just didn't allow them to come here, or maybe if we didn't pay, I mean, we're housing them now in houses in local communities.
	So like when they're in hotels, at least they were kind of sequestered away from residential areas.
	This has been the argument we've had for years in Wales because that was what they did in Wales.
	You know, they were too embarrassed to use hotels.
	So it was all priority housing.
	It was rare to get.
	They only went into hotels in Wales when the houses run out.
	So this, you know, and now it's the flip side in England, but now they're needing to use houses.
	Well, and then there was the thing I found, I think it was last year or the year before the government documents that were saying, oh, basically every one of these new houses that we're building, these new housing projects, about half of them need to at least be prioritised for migrants.
	Yeah, great.
	Just brilliant.
	Fight our wars for us, white boy.
	I can't stand it.
	Anyway, so, okay, well, at least we've got the best and brightest in charge.
	We have Blaise Metrowelli.
	Typical British name, that average.
	You know, she's from Doncaster.
	No, she was not.
	She was born overseas, by the way.
	Actually, obviously.
	She's not British.
	She's been put in charge of MI6.
	And it's like, why have we done this?
	I mean, her grandfather was a Nazi Ukrainian collaborator who apparently loved...
	It's like, okay, I'm not saying that, you know, she's got anything to do with that.
	But the point is, why have we got a foreigner in charge of our secret service?
	What are we doing?
	She's not from this country.
	How is that possible?
	Because apparently she's very good at partnershipping.
	Oh, brilliant.
	So she's partnershipping with the Russians and partnershipping with the Chinese and partnershipping with the Iranians.
	It is just mad how we have no sense of self-preservation in this country.
	We're building like a mega Chinese embassy in London now, right next to the financial district.
	It's like, I've got nothing to say about it.
	It's just ridiculous.
	Anyway, so the point is, can we even fight a war?
	What?
	We're just building spy outposts for our enemy.
	Well, that's only according to the far right.
	Oh, God.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	You know, the Chinese have this Never once.
	Jesus Christ.
	Like, Angela Raina is unironically going to sign it off.
	Everyone, the Conservatives are all, look, we don't think you should be doing this.
	And Angela Raina's just going to be like, nope, that's fine.
	So, yeah, the largest embassy in Europe will be the last, and it's going to be a giant Chinese embassy right in the heart of the financial districts of London.
	There were rumours as well about the land around the area obviously being then Chinese land, so it would be Chinese law, which means there's a lot of stuff going on around there, which is at odds totally with us.
	And they're going to be absolutely able to conduct sort of the they call it wiretapping.
	I don't know if it's actually wiretapping now, but the point is they'll have access to like various like fiber optic networks and stuff that are really crucial to the city of London and things like this.
	It's like, what are we doing?
	What are we doing?
	Like, anyway, moving on.
	Can we even fight a war?
	Well, probably not.
	We had Tim Davies, an ex-fighter pilot on, and he thinks that the military is simply not capable of fighting a war.
	And he's probably right.
	The problem is, I mean, we had 110,000 people in just the army in 2010.
	Now it's struggling to meet its target of 73,000.
	So, I mean, that doesn't even fill Cardiff's principality stadium.
	We have got a tiny military.
	And of that tiny military, a fifth of them aren't even fit to fight.
	Yeah.
	But that includes all military, as well as the military.
	That includes, yeah, not just the army.
	So out of, I think it's 99,000 personnel across, yeah, 99,000 personnel across all of them, a fifth of them can't even be deployed.
	So just incredible, the absolute collapse of Britain.
	In fact, carrying on with the collapse, there's a great article by Matt Goodwin today.
	Yesterday, sorry, about just the collapse of London.
	It's a very long article, so I'll let you read it in your own time.
	But he's just pointing out, look, the city is just rotting from within, right?
	And this is a reflection of the country at large.
	It's just this internal rot that has set into the country, and we're just allowing it to continue.
	I mean, like, this...
	Why would you fight to be the second-class citizen in what is supposed to be your country?
	And of course, you've got here, what's his face?
	I can't remember the guy's name now.
	Lord Hermer, that's it.
	Communist who defended Jerry Adams, Shumaima Begum, Osama bin Laden's right-hand man.
	He just spent his entire career, just like Stalma, defending the scum of the earth, the enemies of the country.
	He's the attorney general now.
	So he's in charge of the justice system.
	It's like, okay.
	He's in charge of the people that are not arresting Palestine action.
	No.
	Terrorists, domestic terrorists.
	Yeah, so we've got this profound problem with the nature of the country.
	And actually, Andrew Maher wrote a surprisingly good article on this because not only is there trouble, not necessarily trouble, but unrest abroad that they're worried about.
	And remember, these people are sort of like technocratic managerial types, right?
	So any amount of uncertainty in the system makes them very afraid.
	But then when you actually look at what's happening in Britain, you realize, oh, right, we're on the cusp of something serious going down here, right?
	Just even if nothing else happens.
	This is from Andrew Maher, and it's just remarkable, right?
	He says, today we all know about the discontent in the system over living standards, housing, migration, and crime.
	We observe the obsolescence of the state as it struggles to reform itself.
	Critics from Dominic Cummings on the right to Morgan McSweeney on the left more or less agree.
	And that is completely true, because Samurai is at the moment facing an internal revolt in the Labour Party over benefits cuts and also people in the Labour Party who are like, look, three quarters of people hate you.
	Like 19% of people, 16% of people are approving of this Labour government.
	Like we are looking at an existential, literally an extinction event for the Labour Party, as well as the Conservative Party.
	And so what's going on?
	So will Stalma suffer an internal revolt?
	I mean, I've said this for a while.
	I would be surprised if Stalmer lasts out his term.
	But I just don't think it's going to happen.
	He carries on.
	On the national inquiry into grooming gangs, on frustration with the European Convention on Human Rights, on nationalization, on the wind fuel payment U-turns, and a more permissive attitude to oil and gas licenses in the North Sea, the government has been sounding unmistakably reform-y.
	Where is our vision of a better Britain?
	Where is our politics, says a deeply frustrated minister.
	And that really is the sum of the problem.
	It's like water to a fish.
	They are swimming in their politics.
	All of Britain's modern problems are a result of the Labour Party's politics.
	Everything that's going wrong, every single thing, to the fact that people don't want to support the army, they won't join the army, they don't want to fight for the country, the fact that we're completely impoverished, the fact that we're being overrun, the fact that we're so weak and complacent on the world stage, everything is down to their end of history politics, like trans supranational, like we're transcending the nation state.
	It's like, okay, well, look at what it's done to us.
	You know, when we actually took care of the nation state, we were a great country and we were the greatest country in the world, actually.
	We had the largest empire in human history.
	Now, we're wretched, right?
	We're absolutely wretched.
	And I absolutely hate it.
	And so Andrew Maher carries on.
	Farage told The Telegraph recently, this country needs political surgery through every single sector of public life.
	We need a very gentle British political revolution.
	I'm the moderate.
	If I don't succeed, watch what comes after me.
	Now, I have to, I don't think Nigel is going to succeed at anything.
	I don't think he's got a competent team around him.
	I don't even think he really understands the full scope of the problems.
	But Ma says, the trouble is, a lot of the rising nationalist tide against things as they are is very angry and racist.
	It isn't just about the boats or hotels.
	It's about demography, Islam, criminals from overseas, and English history itself.
	And he's right.
	All of these things, they can complain about the policy decisions, but these things are all downstream from the real questions, which is about, well, Whose country is this?
	Do foreigners have a claim to this country like we have a claim to this country?
	Wasn't this kind of building off of the question that you fielded to Robert Toomes the other day when you were asking, well, if anybody can be English, what does English even mean?
	Because essentially, a reframing of the what is a woman question.
	An English person is a person who identifies as English.
	Well, what is that?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, it's just anybody who says that they're English.
	Well, does it have anything to achieve it, though?
	Does it have anything to do with the history?
	Like, I can trace my family back in particular regions of this country for 500 years at least.
	And look at me.
	Clearly, my family has been of these isles for thousands of years.
	Can somebody who showed up 10, 15, even 50 years ago claim to have the same attachment to this land?
	But if they simply identify as an Englishman, Harry.
	Oh, I suppose so.
	Yeah.
	But this.
	And as always, I dislike the idea that it's, one, unusual to be angry about your demographic replacement and also the idea of you not being able to own your history and that it is racist, the bad word.
	You are the bad person for caring about those things.
	It's perfectly natural, perfectly normal in all human societies except for ours.
	It's completely unreasonable to ask a people to give up the jurisdiction of their own land.
	That's what's been happening, is to say the Welsh have no jurisdiction over Wales.
	It's going to become an anti-racist country.
	What does that mean?
	That means a country for everyone but the Welsh.
	It's the same in England.
	It's unreasonable.
	It could never be asked in previous eras.
	And now that it's being asked, well, I mean, listen to this from Andrew Maher, right?
	He says, we find there's nothing new in this, except perhaps the scale.
	It is more than before.
	There are no National Front skinhead demos, but polling from Merlin's strategy has found 76% of the public worry about future political violence.
	And if there's one thing that could hold back reform, it's the fear of uncontrollable community tension or, to put it more bleakly, race war.
	Yeah, well, why did you do this to us?
	Well, the fact is, if he's worried about that, it wouldn't be anything to do with reform or anything under their control.
	If anything like that was going to happen, it would be the result of what are essentially now historical forces, which no individual can control.
	This is done to the British public.
	And they're really worried about the fact, oh, it's not National Front skinhead demos anymore.
	Yeah, well, that's good, actually, because that would be beneficial for you, Lot, because you'd be able to palm it off as the racist working-class cranks.
	Look at how uncouth and uneducated they are.
	We can ignore their concerns and allow their children to continue being abused by the foreigners that we've brought into the country.
	But now it's becoming more widespread.
	Now it's literally mums.
	Yeah, it's more difficult to dismiss it as irrational, uneducated people.
	I covered a couple of weeks ago this polling that had been done by one polling company.
	And they were like, the focus groups are mad where you have like, you know, Dave from accounts being like, we need a new Cromwell.
	We need an absolute, you know, we need a revolution.
	We need something to seriously happen because otherwise we're screwed.
	And it's like, this guy is a guy who's invested in the system, right?
	He's got a mortgage.
	He's got, he earns 50 grand a year.
	He sends his kids to a nice school.
	And like, this guy's like, yeah, we need to have a revolution.
	We need a new Cromwell to just come in and sort all of this out.
	It's like, yeah, things are getting away from them.
	And the thing is, like, again, Mara is right about this.
	He says, somehow Farage must harness the anger while soothing the fear.
	That's very tricky in opposition and may prove impossible in power.
	Trump has struggled, but if the British establishment is to be overturned after a further economic shock, which is entirely likely, frankly, the next revolution will be about borders and race rather than privatization and deregulation.
	It's absolutely on the money.
	I'm amazed that Mars managed to string those words together.
	I know.
	Well, that's why I'm saying it.
	It's like, wow, okay, Andrew Marr actually said something right.
	But people can see what's going wrong.
	Every single day when you walk through town and you've got diversity barriers to stop you from being blown up, or you go into a court and you have to be strip search to get into court.
	You go into either the press gallery or the jury box, sorry, or the public gallery.
	Everywhere that you go, our country has changed.
	We're on a war footing.
	Why are we on a war footing?
	We've been on a war footing for 20 years.
	We shouldn't be in that kind of state.
	We shouldn't see police officers armed to the teeth walking up and down the street.
	Whoever voted for that?
	I've never voted for that.
	And in every manifesto, it's been, we're going to stop this from happening.
	And yet here we are.
	I mean, you walk down.
	I mean, Swindon's a great example, but literally any main town in this country, and it's just full of strangers.
	Like, why are there just random Africans and Asians?
	We're everywhere.
	Just everywhere.
	It's like, what is going on?
	And people want to talk about it as well.
	Yeah, we're each, you see.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	But people want to talk.
	We went to Cardiff a couple of weeks ago.
	No, not last week, on the weekend before.
	And just by chance, we got down there.
	There was a big food festival.
	And you may have seen it because it blew up on X because I walked around and said, oh, look at the food festival.
	I didn't say anything about the people, but they were all in burgers.
	But you could not notice that.
	No, it was just a nice food festival.
	Food smells lovely, videoing around, put it on X, you know, close to a million views, comments in it, say everything.
	You know, people are so fed up.
	You know, this is Cardiff, you know, the capital of Wales.
	And there was not white people wandering around.
	They were all in burgers, pretty much.
	And people are noticing it.
	People are fed up with it.
	Yeah.
	And there's no reason why we should be giving up our countries.
	There's just no reason, right?
	Or our heritage, indeed.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And this is why David Betts has published the second part to his civil war article.
	Because he's the Department of War Studies at King's College London.
	I think he actually specialises in civil wars.
	When was this published?
	Doesn't say it's spring 2025.
	And again, he makes just some superb points.
	He says, Western governments under increasing structural civilizational distress have squandered their legitimacy and they're losing the ability to peacefully manage multicultural societies that are terminally fractured by ethnic identity politics.
	I mean, the fact that we've got the four Gaza MPs elected and they were just elected purely, I'm a Muslim, you guys are Muslims, vote for me and not the Labour Party.
	This is just totally unacceptable.
	And he's worried that the multiple major cities are just going to degenerate into what they have a category called feral, which means just ungovernable cities where there's no rule of law.
	Well, I mean, you see parts of it in America as well with their new mayor who's coming in.
	Obviously, we covered that the other day, but there was the document that's been going around today that I've been seeing where he was saying that he was going to take over-taxed households and shift the tax burden onto wealthier and whiter neighborhoods.
	He literally used whiter neighborhoods in that.
	So it's like, oh, okay, this is just racial grievance.
	This is just racial conflict being put into the tax laws of New York, of New York City, of Manhattan.
	So if I've got to pay for these people, what do I get back?
	Like, you know, this is a wonderful range of diverse restaurants.
	Oh, amazing.
	And he says, he warns against normalcy bias because you think, well, okay, I'm not seeing a civil war right now.
	Surely one's not going to erupt tomorrow.
	And the thing is, things are always peaceful until they're not.
	And they can just turn on a dime, right?
	He says the defense of establishments of the West ought to guard against a tendency to disbelieve or minimize the threat of internal conflict.
	The matter is that conditions which are generally agreed to be indicative of the potential for civil war are vividly present across a range of states, which have for a long time been thought beyond such sorts of conflict.
	He's talking specifically about Britain here.
	And I think he's right.
	And I think that the idea that the, I mean, I don't, imagine if the Labour government did find themselves embroiled in a foreign war.
	They don't have the moral legitimacy and support of the British people to carry it out.
	No.
	Well, Kiyost Armour in the last, you know, with Iran and Israel, even nowhere to be seen.
	No statements, no comments.
	Sensibly, probably.
	Well, yeah, yeah, but that's not the type of leader that you want, you need.
	Well, he doesn't want to provoke civil bombings on our streets by the very people he's invited in.
	I mean, there was literally an Iranian terrorist who was arrested after crossing the channel the other day.
	Like, you're going to get more of these.
	And so we're a country that's completely riven by these fractures.
	We're totally fragile.
	And the bonfire has been piled up and it's waiting for a light.
	So the idea that we can be like, oh, yeah, we'll prepare for war, guys.
	We need to pull together and the wartime spirit.
	It's like, that's all gone and that's not coming back.
	But just to looking at the NATO sphere, and you see Hungary and Poland, and supposed that all three nations, Britain, Hungary and Poland, said, rally to the flag.
	In Poland, I suspect that they would 100%.
	In Hungary, because they've got a homogenous societies in those two.
	Well, they've got a national state that is for the Polish people, for the Hungarian people.
	We've got a national state that's for everyone but the British people.
	And that's just the way that things are here.
	But we'll leave that there because it's pretty grim, really, isn't it?
	I mean, what are we supposed to do?
	Harry, I can't actually see these comments.
	Oh, I'll read through that.
	Things in the way.
	That's fine.
	Where'd the mouse go?
	There's a mouse.
	All right.
	Doomhand says, I think it's time to dust off the 1984 Ingsock merch boys.
	Maybe.
	That's a random name.
	I thought you guys already had an explosion warning system, or is that not what the call to prayer is for?
	Scott Sygai says this is not primarily about war.
	It's about an excuse to print more money.
	Why not both?
	I genuinely think they're afraid.
	I think they've realized that they're standing on Europe has.
	Clearly, America wants to decouple itself.
	America wants to decouple itself from having quite so many NATO ties.
	And that's both through Trump and I think the wider administration because they want to focus on Asia as the new nexus point where China is probably going to start making more moves in the future.
	So they don't want to have the same commitments that they have over here.
	So Europe is realizing very quickly that, oh, God, without America backing NATO up, we've got nothing.
	We have painted ourselves into a corner here.
	I've got more of a cynical side to see.
	I think this is all, again, if you get them in the mood, military, EU army, that's what's in the rumbling, always in the rumbling.
	And, you know, I always think there's another agenda, you know, because the only wars I think we're looking at at the moment are civil on our soil from internal.
	I can't see anything overseas that we're going to be getting involved in.
	Certainly not that we should be.
	The Habsification says the current government has no idea how to conduct a modern war.
	The Russo-Ukrainian war has most advanced drones where 70% of the casualties are drone-related now.
	Yes, and sadly, lots of horrible videos tend to show up on Twitter of those casualties.
	And Macabik says, good to see Voice of Wales on and a fellow metalhead.
	Lotus Eaters members included.
	Change will come whether by choice or force.
	Great prediction for the future.
	Yeah, well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
	Like, all I'm doing is watching the elites go, oh, right, we're actually screwed, right?
	We're a complete creek without a paddle.
	It's like, yeah, you are.
	And we all are.
	We're all in this boat.
	And I'm not fighting for you.
	I forgot to include a thing about conscription.
	Because I was like, all right, so what?
	You're going to press gang me into the army and you're going to arm the lot of us, are you?
	Okay, I'm listening.
	It's a lot quicker to get to Whitehall than it is to get to Ukraine.
	Press gang a diverse society all into the same army structure, give them all weapons and hope for the best.
	Well, I mean, they should bloody well hope that Cromwell doesn't turn up because it's far more likely that people march on Downing Street than it is bloody on, you know, some foreign battlefield.
	Exactly.
	Well, me and Godfrey Bloom are already volunteering for the dad's army.
	Yeah.
	So that we can be armed.
	Yeah.
	Brilliant.
	All right, then who wants to take the lead?
	Yeah, so this is titled State Enforced Sex Education for Toddlers.
	And, you know, that's pretty much what it is.
	And I know that some people will remember, we've been on here before, we've discussed this before.
	This was in the run-up to the warnings, when people, specifically Public Child Protection Wales, who dedicated everything to trying to warn people about this sex education coming into play.
	So for people who aren't aware.
	Basically, it was during COVID time, wasn't it, where the public consultation was supposed to be happening for mandatory sex education in schools from age three.
	It's a global rollout, it isn't specific to Wales.
	So, what I'm going to talk about here today, I've structured it around Wales because that's where we're from, and that's where I've got some of the examples from.
	But this is in England as well.
	So, this isn't just specific to Wales.
	And it's UNESCO.
	UNESCO and World Health Organization.
	Yeah.
	So, in 2022, a group called Public Child Protection Wales launched a legal battle against the Welsh Government to try and, you know, not allow this to be mandatory because what it was, it removed your right as a parent to opt out of any of these classes.
	So, you've got the first, I'm just going to fly through the headlines just to show the BBC when their sex education curriculum legal challenge launched.
	And obviously, nice picture there for the pill.
	So, it's as if it's as if that's what they're teaching them about.
	It's about safety and stuff.
	But why would you need to teach a toddler about the bloody pill?
	Exactly.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And then obviously, Wales Online went as well, just to show that they're opposed to teaching young children about gender identity and sex.
	Take Welsh government to court.
	It did go on.
	Me and Stan went there, went the two days court case.
	Unfortunately, the next element showed the girls did lose, which was really unfortunate.
	And you had some things to say about the court, you know, and the biasness of the court itself.
	Sorry, just a quick thing.
	The High Court confirmed that this stuff is now compulsory.
	So you can't opt out of weird, like, you know, woke teachers perverting your children.
	Yeah, correct.
	My God.
	Because in my time in school, back in the day, when I was 10, they had to give you a slip that you would give to your parents, and your parents would sign it if they consented to you getting the sex education at 10 years old.
	Yeah.
	And I bet that would have been very, you know.
	It was one lesson.
	It was very rudimentary.
	And all of the kids giggled at it.
	So I can only hope that given that children are uniformly, incredibly immature, that that's the response that's going to happen with most of these kids.
	I wish.
	That's the best case scenario seeing as a pattern.
	So we had a left-wing judge, and we had basically a defence lawyer that lied to the court.
	He said that this was not a global rollout from UNESCO.
	It was not based on Alfred Kinsey's macabre.
	Yep.
	Yep.
	And the paedophiles that he employed to abuse children to look at this, to put it into this report.
	That all went with the UN, and it's now deemed as a great study when, in fact, a lot of it was flawed.
	And this is what they're now basing the Welsh education system and the English education system on.
	Yeah.
	And anyone can look that up.
	It is, you know, I think it's called adult behaviour in the human male.
	And, you know, there's certain experiments that they do on children which are horrific.
	I won't even discuss them.
	But it's, yeah, it's worth having a look.
	So, but basically from this point that the girls lost the battle, it was mandatory in schools.
	I've got this video coming up here, which just shows, you know, as you can imagine, this lady, we did check, we watched intently to see if she was wearing a wedding ring, which she is.
	So she may have children, grandchildren, which I feared she does.
	But so you'd imagine the politicians who have got children, grandchildren going through this might have something to say.
	But this is what our Labour Government had to say.
	And I'm going to welcome the fact that the Minister has removed the right of withdrawal and is sticking with RSA and health relationships, and that the Welsh Government is going to make that mandatory.
	I'm really, really pleased that that is happening.
	And that is exactly what will happen in schools with allowing RSE education and not allowing the parents to withdraw, whether that's through fear or misunderstanding, which it very often is.
	And I will absolutely support this.
	But I do want to take issue with this idea that it's too radical.
	So that's the point.
	So she's got an issue with the idea that it's too radical.
	So we're going to have a little look at how radical it is.
	But some points in there.
	She's really, really pleased.
	And how the parents are not allowed.
	They are not allowing the parents to take their children out.
	And that this sex education may be too radical.
	And I'm glad, Harry, that you gave an age when you had this.
	10.
	10.
	So that's a perfect age.
	What age are these people talking about for this education?
	From three.
	Starts from three.
	From three.
	Yeah.
	I got some of the pictures for the.
	Society, we should never have let haggard shrews have any say in society whatsoever.
	Not privately, not publicly.
	Well, and in fairness.
	What does she think she's saving these children from?
	Because she clearly thinks she's saving them from something.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So what being normal?
	Childhood.
	Yeah.
	Childhood.
	Yeah, being children.
	Yeah.
	It's worth noting, like, these people, like, she might have been, but obviously this was with Mark Drakeford.
	Mark Drakeford was the first minister at the time when this went through because it was under lockdown.
	They used that as an excuse for no public consultation, no awareness.
	It just so happens, Mark Drakeford's son is a convicted paedophile, re-offending.
	Just a quick thing as well.
	I can't help but feel when these people give me this excessively moralistic lecture, I think they know that this is a cover for evil.
	I think they know they're being evil.
	And the labelling, oh, it's fear or misunderstanding is the only reasons that you would approach this.
	What about principles?
	What about decency?
	Yes.
	What about a disgust reaction that should be very natural in the pit of your stomach when you hear about this sort of thing?
	I just don't think these people are good people at all.
	I think they know they're not good people.
	It's the only solution I've come to.
	Like, we've studied this, we've watched this, and we've seen it happen.
	And we've got the framework that they are using.
	So, if I've seen it, she should have seen it if she's going to comment like this.
	And the framework you'll see is horrific.
	And, you know, so the only conclusion I can come to is that they know what they're doing and they are evil.
	So, obviously, the court case happened.
	It was due to start in schools almost instantly.
	However, the schools, they were totally unprepared.
	They wasn't prepared for it.
	So, they pushed it back a year.
	The following year, then, you did hear things more in the older schools, though.
	So, you'd have incomprehensive schools like LGBTQ corners, quiet sections, spaces, safe spaces, shared toilets, and things like that.
	Now, this year, we're seeing a lot, and I mean a lot from the younger classes as well.
	So, you know, like everything, and you know, I've got a complete hat tip to PCP Wales, who I would imagine are quite frustrated now.
	They're seeing parents complaining about what's happening in schools when they've been screaming about it for five years, you know, as loud as they can.
	So, you know, the warnings went out, people ignored it.
	The government labelled everybody misguided parents, conspiracy theorists, and all that usual stuff.
	Yeah, obviously the far right were involved somewhere along the line.
	But then, what happened then is you saw certain things coming up.
	So, this is a sex survey.
	Now, this was given to young children, 13-year-old, or as young as 13-year-old.
	And they were asked, so further down in the article, we don't need to go to it.
	I've got it clipped here.
	But how old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time?
	And the answers were beginning from 11-year-old and younger.
	So, like, you've got to ask the question, why, what can they do with that information anyway?
	Why are they asking?
	Yeah.
	And then they've got a list of children who are having sex from 11 and underage, you know, so none of them can consent.
	Yeah.
	So, if you've got a lot of people.
	Are they taking that information to the police?
	Nope.
	Because that's a list of victims, ultimately, or potentially.
	Yeah, it sounds like you're collecting a list of people who've been molested.
	So my thought of that is, like, my whole argument with this is the next thing that's come in is the lowering of the age of consent.
	So when they, you know, this isn't, you know, oh, look how worrying it is that these young children are having sex.
	This is, hmm, they're having sex.
	Do we need to lower the age?
	You know, if they're doing it anyway, why not just make it if we can control it and all the stuff that they're using?
	It's a very brave new world, by the way.
	Absolutely.
	This is exactly what they were.
	Yeah, without a doubt.
	So this document that we've got, so we've gone through this document.
	It's very well put together, very well referenced as well.
	So it's very wordy.
	So what I've done, I've just taken some screen grabs from it.
	But what I'll do is I'll give you guys the link.
	So if anybody does want to cross-reference anything I say, you'll find it all.
	It'll be in the show notes.
	Perfect.
	So, you know, this is what it is.
	So comprehensive sexuality education.
	So it's a review of the UNESCO and World Health Organization standards.
	So what we'll do is just, if we can, just flip through the pictures.
	I've got to get these up on my screen because even though it is massive, I still can't really see it.
	But these are all in here.
	So example one, a screenshot part of the World Health Organization Standards for Sexuality Education Matrix recommends recommended educators equip children as young as six with attitudes towards acceptable sex skills.
	Deal with sex in the media.
	So that means in the media means porn online.
	Yeah.
	Information about ejaculation, contraception, sexual language from age six to nine.
	They just don't need to know about this.
	They genuinely...
	They shouldn't even need to know it.
	This is not language that should be in their lexicon.
	No, absolutely not.
	The next.
	I'm sorry.
	Also, like, people have to teach this.
	Like that actually has to be an adult get up in front of a room of other people's children and tell them about this using this kind of language.
	What kind of freak...
	Yeah.
	Disgusting.
	We do know that teachers are against it in principle.
	I should bloody well hope so.
	No, you've got to say, you've got to caveat that with the old school teachers are against it.
	The new age teachers that are coming in seem to be all for it with their blue air.
	But yeah, so the next one then, this one is basically it kind of contradicts.
	So where you'd have safeguarding, that's removed.
	The safeguarding is removed because the freedom of the child is more important than the freedom needs.
	So this is what this section referenced.
	We went through these on the show last week and it took an hour.
	So I am flying through these.
	So I do recommend that people go and have a look at that document that they put on.
	The next one then.
	So this is age 9 to 12.
	They want to start talking about the first sexual experience, gender orientation, sexual behavior of young people, love being love, pleasure, masturbation, orgasm, differences between identity and biological sex.
	Why can't they learn this on their own?
	Well, exactly.
	But, you know, also you've got...
	It's fine.
	Nothing bad happened.
	No, no.
	And again, you know, sitting down with a nine-year-old to talk to them about what their first sexual experience is going to be like.
	And gender orientation.
	And that's a big one as well.
	And because that's obviously you're saying it's different to biological.
	So that's the trans ideology.
	You're going to be something else entirely.
	Yeah.
	Nine-year-old.
	No, I didn't.
	Can I be such and such?
	Yeah.
	And then the next one then.
	So this is not to four.
	And obviously the example on the top.
	Oh my God.
	Oh my God.
	I just read that first one.
	Yep.
	Naught to four.
	I've got a four-year-old and a two-year-old, right?
	They do not need to know any of this stuff.
	Is this real?
	Yeah, this is all.
	This is real and it's mandatory.
	It's not just real, it's mandatory.
	Because I couldn't have come up with better propaganda to make people hate whoever wrote this.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, well, you know, they were paedophiles themselves.
	You know, Alfred Kinsey was one of them.
	I'm well aware.
	I'll be bringing one up in the next segment.
	So for anyone listening, right, I'm just going to read it out.
	Sexuality for naught to four-year-olds.
	Enjoyment and pleasure when touching one's own body.
	Early childhood masturbation, 0 to 4.
	Just the discovery of one's own body and genitals, the fact that enjoyment of physical closeness is a normal part of everyone's life, tenderness and physical closeness as an expression of love and affection.
	Just like those two last ones would be fine if it wasn't in the context of sexual stimulation.
	Like, yeah, I hug my kids.
	Yeah.
	But, like, that is, I just.
	Well, you'll have noticed on.
	And also, just to say on the other side, before we do flip on, the yellow highlighting at the bottom, what they're talking about then is how, you know, if you do.
	It's all about self-stimulation for four-year-olds.
	So they're telling a four-year-old, you know, and you can tell by the way they do it, because the bottom highlighted part, it's something we should only do when we're alone, perhaps in the bath or shower or bed, a bit like picking your nose.
	You know, like you don't, you know, if you're going to teach an older child about that 15, 16, you're not going to reference picking your nose to try and make it funny.
	you know so they're aiming at a young but then They tell you exactly the age.
	But again, like, why would I want some adult stranger talking to my children like this?
	Yeah.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And then I think, you know, that'll give you a good idea.
	There are a few more, but I am very conscious of time and I want to make sure we get through to the last part.
	But, you know, there's a lot more on there that are very similar to, you know, what we've just gone through.
	And it breaks it down from age all the way through to the point that you would leave school.
	So, you know, this is what the Welsh Government will have seen.
	You know, this has been taken apart by the girls and their legal teams who have gone through all of the documents used to create the Welsh education or the global rollout of the comprehensive sexuality education and they've compiled it with the reference.
	So it is all referenced.
	You can go on to the further files and documents to double check it.
	It's all there and it's all factual, which is which is mad because, you know, like we're sitting here, we're all adults and I'm awkward sitting here talking about ejaculation and things.
	So how would you feel doing that in front of a child as a teacher?
	But to normalise it as well, and you'll have seen the slogans, particularly these times of the months, where love is love.
	And love doesn't have an age.
	Love has no age.
	Love has no age.
	Love is love is the worst one because you see that getting used a lot.
	And that is, again, from, you know, it's one of the quotes from PDF L Information Exchange.
	And it was, you know, love is love.
	It doesn't matter.
	Yes, Mambla.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And, you know, so people, you see that all over the place now.
	You know, love is love.
	Any pride week, month, year, whatever it is, it'll be up.
	So then, obviously, you've got the First Minister recently asked about this sex education.
	So we'll play the video just and bearing in mind this, you know, what we've just gone through now and then see if you agree with her.
	Will the First Minister make a statement on the provision of sex education in schools?
	Jochen Ward, the developmentally appropriate relationships and sexuality education is mandatory within the curriculum for Wales.
	Our RSE code provides crucial safeguarding for learners and helps them to build respectful, trusting relationships through empathy, kindness and compassion.
	So age appropriate apparently and obviously making sure that they say it's mandatory.
	They say that as often as they can.
	It's mandatory even.
	That's all just bullshit, like therapized words of the whole thing.
	Oh, kindness, empathy, compassion.
	No, can we have some specifics, please?
	Which part of all of these guidelines we've just gone through are you so in favour of teaching to normalize?
	What does he consider kindness?
	It feels very sort of devouring mother sort of archetype, right?
	Where it's like a bunch of old Haridans who are like, no, I'm going to have absolute control over this, and I'm essentially going to make sure all of these children are as perverse as I am.
	Yeah.
	I just can't stand it.
	Yeah.
	No father would stand up in the same place and say, yeah, no, this is all good.
	Right.
	They'd be like, no, this is an abomination.
	Absolutely.
	And this is the frustrating thing because the way they did it was under lockdown.
	So that was their excuse to not inform people as well as they should.
	I don't know how that is an excuse because they could have easily, you go on Facebook or anything like that.
	They've got Facebook.
	They can send out letters.
	They can do all that.
	They just didn't try.
	That's how when we win, we're abolishing the Welsh Assembly.
	Yeah.
	If for no other reason to make these people unemployed.
	But I mean, the authors of their macabre booklet were Stonewall and LGBTQ plus and other organisations.
	There was no input from what I would say the ethical side of it.
	Remember all those allegations against LGBT Youth for Scotland?
	About the youth organisers?
	I don't actually, but I'm going to guess a little bit more.
	You can make a very educated guess.
	Yeah.
	And so yesterday, so just to put it up on the screen, it was RSE Day apparently.
	So it was the day that the schools would celebrate RSE.
	So this is from Facebook.
	This is the new story who Welsh Government funded.
	And what their plan is, is to deliver training to teachers to better equip them to teach about this, how they can go about it, because teachers have been left.
	We were in a Facebook group.
	A couple of years ago, we managed to get into a Facebook group of teachers.
	And they were all discussing, oh, I had to teach this yesterday.
	What did you do?
	What can I use?
	What documents have you got?
	So the night before they have to deliver this, they don't know what they're going to do.
	They're free-rein it, basically, which is bad.
	But then with it being RSE Day, we did get one in particular report.
	And I'm going to read it out.
	And I've been very careful what I say because I don't want to give away, out of respect for the parents, I don't want to give away the school.
	But this factually happened, and there's going to be more to this coming out soon.
	But parents of a school in Carmarthenshire, day before yesterday, they've received a text message on their phone.
	And the text message was, tomorrow it's RSE day, or tomorrow they're going to have your RSE lesson, something along them lines.
	So parents naturally concerned about this.
	This is for year six, so 10 to 11 year olds.
	Parents naturally concerned called down the head teacher to speak to.
	The headteacher, first thing basically that she said was that this is mandatory.
	So she made a point that they have to take part in this and they do have to deal with it.
	The other concern they had is that they were under the impression that if they do have these lessons, the boys and girls would be split up.
	But the children had informed the parents, no, we're doing it together.
	We're all in it together.
	Yeah.
	So, you know, 10 and 11 year olds.
	It's just a recipe for bullying and teasing.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah.
	Also worse.
	I mean, like, when I was at school, we had one lesson of this.
	And I was, I think, 12, 13, and they were separate classes.
	So boys and then girls.
	So, like, you know, the boys are often not terribly polite to the girls when it comes to this sort of thing.
	13 year old boys are obviously not brilliant at this so this is just And I think it may be, you know, yeah, okay, it probably is an important lesson to have at that point.
	It was at 15 years old, so nearly at the end, towards the end of the last year, when, you know, you could potentially be sexually active.
	And they teach you about contraception.
	You know, they show you how to put a condom on a, you know, not even a pretend thing.
	On a banana.
	Not even a banana.
	No, just a tube as on the table.
	Teach you how to do it.
	Explain to you the dangers.
	If you don't, what you can catch, STIs, what they cause, pregnancy, and all that.
	And I think that's important because that's responsibility.
	You need to know if you're going to be doing this stuff, what you could be getting into.
	But what they did yesterday in this school is, I would say, it's question whether it's legal or not.
	So basically, she made a point of saying, look, it's mandatory.
	It hasn't come from us.
	It's all from the West Government and we have to do it.
	So the head then confirmed to the parents that the children aged 10 and 11 were going to be taught about erections, masturbation, ejaculation and puberty.
	So we were then, obviously, we heard about it, that it was happening the morning.
	So we were waiting then for the afternoon to see what the blowback was from the parents and what actually happened.
	So at the end of the school, the feedback, the children were absolutely traumatized, visibly upset to the point that a lot of them didn't even eat their dinner.
	And they did give you this lesson and then sent them for food.
	So visibly upset.
	A lot of teachers and staff are having to go around, reassure them, checking on them, making sure you're okay.
	The children were taught all that was mentioned about masturbation, about ejaculation, about erections.
	But then they were showed pictures, real pictures of a male penis and female parts, zooming in, explaining these are this, that's what this does.
	10 years old.
	First time most of these children would have seen anything like that.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, I've got a 10-year-old.
	I've got those kids.
	Yeah.
	They don't go through puberty until they're a bit older.
	It's very unusual for a 10-year-old to be going through puberty.
	Yeah.
	And that's the point.
	If you know, if you see a child that's developing far quicker than others, you pull them to one side and you have a private chat, don't you?
	Or you involve the parent and ask the parent, you know, what's going on?
	Have you done anything?
	Did you want us to have something like that?
	But be proactive.
	But I think, you know.
	Are you going to mandatorily show your children porn?
	Like hardcore porn basically.
	Like, how, I can't understand how you can show a minor of that age a picture like that and it not be illegal.
	Yeah.
	Like it's mandatory.
	It's bloody mandatory.
	It's mandatory.
	Yeah.
	And I, you know, and this is the point, you know, all of the people that were saying leading up to this, and again, hat tip to PCP Wales for doing, you know, they sacrificed everything to court.
	They quit their jobs.
	They focused on this 100%.
	Good for them.
	Took the government to court.
	They had to raise £100,000 to do that.
	They did it all.
	They recall everything under the sun.
	We're still told we're lying.
	You know, we've got a first-hand experience, an example of it that happened yesterday.
	So please, I'd love the Welsh government to tell me how what happened yesterday to 10-year-olds is age appropriate.
	It's disgusting.
	It's awful.
	All right, then some quick rumble rants here.
	Markabic again.
	Take it from a Croatian who survived a few wars.
	It's not as bad as Balkans, but there is potential to become a shittier version of it.
	engaged few.
	If I found anyone teaching Please.
	Thank you.
	The engaged few, if I found anyone teaching sexual hygiene to my toddler, my action would be talked about on the evening news broadcast that very night.
	Tom Ratt, the Welsh government aren't making sex education mandatory.
	They're making sex education mandatory to the children of parents who aren't in a belligerent, diverse client group who kick off and say no.
	Yeah, that's another thing, isn't it?
	Is it to the diversity that has to go through this mandatorily?
	Yeah, so what we found is that a lot of the Muslims now would go into Catholic schools because in the hope that this isn't taught as much as it is, which it isn't.
	However, what happens then is the Catholic school starts teaching more about Islam than Christianity or Catholicism.
	Logan Pine, as somebody who wants a football team of kids, I think I'm going to home school.
	Well, certainly if you're in Wales, maybe.
	And in England, this is in England as well.
	Doom Hand says jail, awfully merciful of you.
	Habsification is slightly less merciful, and I'm not going to FedPost.
	That's a random name.
	At this point, do we know whether the children lost their appetite because of the presentation or because of the so-called teacher's reassurance?
	See, I mean, I remember the worst thing I was ever shown in school was when I was 15 years old in secondary school in a biology class where they just showed us a video of a woman giving birth.
	And that was like for 15, that was still like, I'd never seen anything like that.
	I was like, Jesus Christ, everybody in the classroom was sort of like that.
	Everybody lost their own.
	I've only gone man seen after the first time.
	Well, I've seen it in person.
	It doesn't look any better.
	It's not something like repeat exposure will help with.
	It's one of the few times I've cried.
	Yeah.
	Jesus Christ.
	What's going on?
	For me, the worst thing was my missus had to have a spinal tap.
	So I didn't see the needle go in, but I was looking her straight in the eye.
	I was very good because normally I'm terrible with needles.
	I was looking her straight in the eye and I was like, it's okay, sweetheart.
	You're not going to feel a thing because she'd already had a load of epidurals already.
	And I just see a man with an enormous long needle, like that long, put his hand behind her back, do that.
	Oh, God, God.
	And then he pulls it out and it's just covered in blood.
	And I held myself together.
	I'm still very pleased with that.
	I did not cry.
	She also did not cry, but she was incredibly drugged up, so it would have been surprising.
	Anyway, thanks, guys, for making me absolutely miserable.
	Whenever you're in the middle of the time we come here segments, I always feel myself disassociating and going projecting into an astral realm where everything is not.
	Can I just say one thing?
	The Bonnie Blue thing that Steph did with you.
	I love this Carl did one with you a couple of weeks after as well, because I can see that.
	Thank you all.
	Thank you all for subjecting me to such things.
	And I even did a daily video on the Bonnie Blue thing where I just called it, I don't want to do this.
	I hate talking about these things.
	Speaking of which, it's been 10 years of gay marriage in America.
	Woo!
	I wish I had one of those little party blower things to really let everybody know that we're celebrating.
	Popcrave and other places have been saying, 10 years ago, yesterday, the Supreme Court legalized, not anything to do with the democratic process, mind you.
	Nothing that actually is in the will of the people.
	The Supreme Court legalized across all states federally, same-sex marriage in the United States.
	Just to rub it in your eye a little bit there, America.
	We got there first.
	Back in 2013, our conservative government under David Cameron, thank you very much, decided to extend marriage to same-sex couples.
	And this is a post from 1013.
	Do you know why he did?
	Was it to lay off the idea?
	Because I know he got in trouble in 2009 for supposedly homophobic comments.
	No, it was nothing to do with that.
	Was it his wife?
	It was a relation that wanted to get married legally.
	It was nepotism.
	It was nepotism.
	Nepotism on a national scale.
	And our Bish resigned.
	Remember?
	Yeah.
	But the interesting thing about this post, this is 2023 here, so 10 years.
	Since then, over 42,000 couples have said, I do.
	I read that and went, is that it?
	Yeah, it doesn't seem like a lot in 10 years.
	That's really not very many, but I'm not one to, you know, go casting aspersions on the lifestyles of gay people.
	You know, they're not known for being incredibly promiscuous and unfaithful to one another.
	Although, is it really unfaithful if you both do it and you're happy to do so?
	These are questions that I don't want answered, frankly.
	But you sent me through some information for American detail, for American statistics on this.
	And it was really, really interesting, actually, because apparently in America, the people who get divorced the most are lesbians.
	So apparently other women are finally discovering the plight that men have had to suffer with for thousands and thousands of years and decided to opt out of it.
	Like 67.2% of same-sex divorces in America in 2021 were female couples, which made them 2.67 times more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples in Sweden.
	For example, is the one that they give here.
	For some reason, women are more likely to initiate divorce in both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages.
	So thanks, women.
	Good job.
	But it's funny to think back about how quickly opinions on this whole subject have changed because even going back to, you know, 2006, 2007, 2008, to be able to even try to get elected in America,
	where, remember, early on this century, California was given a choice whether to legalize gay marriage or not and voted against it because they understood that really what it was doing was completely changing the definition of what marriage is.
	Like even Barack Obama lied.
	He lied.
	Obviously, he never actually believed this.
	He's a politician.
	He was lying.
	But he said that he opposed it so that he could appeal to the moderate voters who didn't understand at the time that he was literally an insane socialist who'd been mentored by critical race theorists.
	Married to Michael.
	Yes.
	I actually remember this back in 2010.
	You had all of them, like Hillary Clinton.
	There's a 2010 footage of her going, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
	And it's like, that changed quickly.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, well, the other interesting thing is that by the time you even get to 2011, you find hosts from like Newsweek, a major news publication, starting to push the prediction, the pie chart.
	We all remember the pie chart.
	Let's remember the pie chart together, okay, guys?
	So what will happen if gay marriage is legalized?
	So what the pie chart is telling us is just that gay people will get married.
	As a percentage of gay people, it's actually a very small percentage of gay people.
	But like taken on its face, you know, some did.
	I guess, yeah.
	There you go.
	What definitely will not happen following this is that a third world war will break out.
	I think, I mean, there are a lot of people saying we are in the third world war already.
	Various plagues will erupt.
	COVID.
	Schools will begin teaching kids how to have gay sex.
	And terrorists will win.
	Like in Afghanistan.
	Like in Afghanistan and Syria.
	Because remember, Al-Qaeda and ISIS now run Syria, backed entirely by the old USA.
	And Iran, yeah, you know, and Iran.
	And Wales is definitely proving that green one to be correct.
	So this pie chart, actually, if you just assumed the opposite of what it was trying to imply, within, what, 15, 14 years of this pie chart being made, incredible predictive power right here.
	So whoever, what modern Nostradamus put this together should be patting themselves on the back.
	Because, of course, everybody recognizes now that really what was happening was it was the thin edge of the wedge.
	That's what it was.
	It was the idea that this is reasonable.
	You can kind of understand.
	You can get the logic that they're putting forward.
	Yes, it's a complete upending of traditional understandings of what marriage is.
	It's a complete upending of morals.
	It's treating people as though all lifestyles are similar and equal in value and also as though we're all just the same.
	It's just egalitarian nonsense.
	But you could kind of understand It at the time, but it was the thin end of the wedge so that they could push all of these other ideas through further.
	And now they're saying here, just to show again the incredible rate of change in public opinion, because people, one thing that libertarians, for instance, always get wrong is they don't understand that, as well as being a purely legal arbiter, the law as set down by governments is often seen as a moral arbiter as well.
	If something is proscribed by law, or at least not permitted by law, people will ascribe a moral value to that.
	So if all of a sudden the government changes its opinion, people, because most people are sheep, will decide to go along with what they believe the majority opinion to be, even when in the case of the Supreme Court decision, it's not even a majority democratic decision that's being made.
	So here, the decision was laid down in 2015.
	Gallup polls suggested that 60% of the public supported legal recognition of same-sex marriages.
	And this is after, in the run-up to his 2012 re-election, Obama publicly shifted his position and said, actually, now I do support same-sex marriage.
	I imagine Hillary Clinton did the same.
	So you have the literal president of the United States saying, actually, it's a good thing.
	This was a major shift over the previous two decades.
	Support was only 37% in 2005 and as low as 27% in 1996.
	In May 2025, a Gallup poll shows that support has increased to about 68%, but it has been going down in recent years because it peaked in 2022 at 71%.
	And then all of a sudden, you start to see things like, oh, I don't know, trans books for toddlers showing up and all being connected under the very large umbrella of LGBT, gay rights, queer rights, the attempt to queer society, removal of standards, perversion of standards, you could say.
	And people go, huh, maybe I was fooled.
	Yeah, isn't actually what I was supporting?
	Yeah, that's not what they were supporting.
	And people complain about this.
	Like, I found this, and somebody was like, I hate this meme because blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Who cares what you think, Dick Ed?
	This is absolutely true.
	And what people, what the radical Christian, whatever you wanted to call them, the right wing of yesteryear, were warning about, that the thin end of the wedge would be, hey, let us get married.
	We deserve dignity.
	We deserve equal legal protections for dignity, whether or not it goes against the majority will or traditional morals of the nation.
	Then it turns into bake the cake.
	That's the thing I actually really despised as well.
	For anyone who doesn't know, I can't remember where in America it was, but basically, Christian Baker was like, I actually don't want to bake a baked cake.
	You can go take any other bakery to get this done.
	Just I don't want to do it.
	And the court ruled against them.
	And the thing is that really annoyed me about this is that basically that's a contract, right?
	So the court, because it's not like, oh, I'm not going to serve a gay person who comes into my shop.
	No, here you go.
	Here's the thing that is on the shelf.
	Buy the thing.
	Okay, and leave.
	No, this is you have to take a contract to create a product that doesn't otherwise exist.
	And that forced contracts as well.
	That's a layer that is just worse, but it's being done for progress, I guess.
	Well, also, I think the interesting thing about it was it was appropriately fake and gay because what they were actually doing was shopping about for bakeries that they knew wouldn't bake the cake for them so that they could take it to court to enact lawfare.
	Yeah, but the nature of the judgment is just terrible, I think.
	I really hate it.
	That happened in Belfast as well.
	Did it?
	It did.
	Yeah.
	And eventually they won.
	Of course they did.
	But obviously you can see where the slippery slope goes because it turns out that following an argument to its logical conclusion is not a fallacy, but in fact a logical thing to do.
	Big surprise.
	And people before it was legalized, Steve Saylor, of course, of course Steve Saylor was even predicting in 2013.
	He noticed this back in 2013.
	Yeah, Big Noticer was able to predict this going back to 2013 because, you know, even back then, they were writing articles about Fallon Fox, the transgender male athlete, wanting to beat up biological women.
	Yeah.
	Which he did.
	Yeah, which he did, which he went, oh, actually, if you were just paying attention to news articles in the New York Times, you can see exactly where this is going to go next.
	And again, you've got the trans books for toddlers now.
	And I did this video now a few years ago.
	There will be sequels coming out.
	Don't worry, guys.
	I'm doing, they're in the editing docket, so it's fine.
	But this was the first one that I did, the Harry Hay and the beginning of American Gay Rights.
	Even if you go all the way back then, you can see exactly where this is going to go.
	Harry Hay, this guy, he started the Matasheen Society, one of the big early gay rights movement organizations in America, went on about how he was so happy that he'd had his first experience with sex with a man when he was nine years old.
	He was a big supporter of Nambler, who he supported until his death.
	He was somebody who theorized about the expanding of gender recognition and created things like the term two spirit.
	So even if you just go straight back, you can see that this movement, whilst in the 90s, in the later 80s after AIDS, and in the 90s, you had a lot of more moderate people, like for instance, Andrew Sullivan, positioned as the leaders of the movement.
	Actually, it was always kick-started and pushed by freaks and radicals and oftentimes communists.
	And the moderates who were positioned, again, as oftentimes communists.
	Like, these people were all communists.
	Oh, yeah.
	These people are now, the moderates are now saying, where did we go wrong?
	I can't believe that our arguments that were used to completely upend traditional morals in society have been used to continue to upend traditional morals in society through moral browbeating.
	Yet again, the communists have done this to us.
	How many times do the communists have to do this to us for you to realize it's you, not the communists?
	Yeah, and in this, he points out as well: there's been huge financial backing for this.
	Money poured into these groups in the past decade.
	Charitable funding for LGBT groups totaled $387 million in 2012.
	In 2021, it was $823 million.
	LGBT plus organizations saw their assets grow 76% from 2019 to 2021.
	Two years.
	Growth industry.
	Yep.
	Around double the size of their increase in donations.
	A group like GLAAD, founded in 1985, saw its funding increase sixfold between 2014 and 2023.
	The human rights campaign has also seen revenues soar in the past decade.
	But it's all just a bottom-up movement, guys.
	It's always just been...
	Ignore the fact that her organization in 1924 was being funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
	John D. Rockefeller Jr. himself saying that they need to give money for that.
	Alfred Kinsey, who you two were talking about, also funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
	The Ford Foundation has had a huge part in all of this.
	All of this, ever since it's been going on from an early time, has been funded by new money.
	American new money from these people who made a load of money.
	They're obsessed with novelty because they want to get rid of the bourgeois traditional morality.
	They see it as old-fashioned in the way of progress, in the way of progress of them making more money.
	Because, you know, you open up morality, you open up markets.
	That's what actually happens.
	It makes me think, because remember we had Jamie from Gays Against Groomers, American lady, lesbian, and she said, and it has always stuck with me, that the people who were fighting for gay marriage, she was like, you know, the people who say, no, this is just going to lead to children, you know, lowering age of consent and all this other stuff going on.
	She said, and we literally thought they were crazy.
	Like, don't be so ridiculous.
	But then look where we are.
	You know, she's at the former movement now, which is gays against groomers for that.
	So I do wonder, you know, yeah, okay, gay people at the beginning maybe want to get married.
	I don't think it's them that's pushed this, though.
	I think this is a I think a lot of well-meaning people have been taken for mugs.
	Yeah, I think it's been hijacked.
	The LGB is one thing, then you've got the TQ plus is the LGBT stuff is just a corporate, it's one of the core aspects of intersectionality.
	And this way back in the 80s and 90s was consciously developed by a bunch of communists who knew what they were doing.
	Who were ironically being funded by capitalists?
	Yeah, massively so.
	And I mean, these were at like Harvard Law School as well.
	So it's not like these people were like nobodies out in the wilderness or something.
	And so they crafted these kind of memetic bullets that they knew were going to win over normal people.
	Like people who are just like, oh yeah, I'm just, yeah, sure, why not?
	I'm a well-meaning person.
	It's like, yeah, well, now you're on the slippery slope going down to horrific degeneracy.
	Yeah, I mean, you can see that Andrew Sullivan is not somebody who was actually in favor of all of this stuff, except for gay marriage, which is why now he's complaining about it in the New York Times.
	But I'm sorry, you were used as a moderate to be a battering ram to open the floodgates for all of this stuff.
	You were used to launder this.
	It's like, okay, well, now it's there.
	So now what?
	But now, 10 years later, as opinions are starting to change on all of this, Pink News and other such publications are starting to worry because there have been challenges.
	And interestingly, Obergefell versus Hodges was the Supreme Court case that put this into law in the first place.
	And they're worried about it because, frankly, the legal arguments and justifications behind it, to begin with, were bollocks.
	Oh, just like the abortion one.
	Yeah, just like the abortion one.
	And what happened when they overturned Roe v.
	Wade was Thomas, Clarence Thomas was even writing in his, for that, he was saying, maybe we should start to take a look at some of these other big landmark progressive cases, because oftentimes the legal justifications, the arguments, are completely vapid and specious.
	So with this, it was literally a consolidation of a bunch of different lawsuits that were being put towards the federal government because local state governments weren't allowing people to marry because there was a bunch of states that had legalized gay marriage, a bunch of states that hadn't.
	So Obergefell was trying to get married to his longtime partner, John Arthur, but they both lived in Ohio, which did not legalize it.
	So they went over to Maryland, which had, got married there, but then they got back and he found that because it wasn't legal in Ohio, they couldn't get some kind of legal certificate, listed his Arthur's surviving spouse on his death certificate due to the Ohio state ban.
	So they decided to throw the lawsuit out.
	The Supreme Court, when they had all of these consolidated ones turned into Oberg, Effell versus Hodges, decided to rule in favor.
	It was a very close thing.
	It was five to four decision.
	And that was primarily because at the time, of course, it was a Democrat-stacked Supreme Court.
	You still had people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court.
	But the thing is, even looking into this for this segment, even like reviews since then, which have totally in favor, a lot of them say, listen, they got to the right answer.
	Obviously, they should have ruled in favor of this, but they used the wrong reasoning.
	Exactly the same for Roe versus Wade.
	Yeah.
	Exactly the same.
	Which made it very, very weak.
	It makes it very weak law because what they did was they justified it under the 14th Amendment, specifically due process and equal protection clauses, and found an implied right to dignity in it, which meant that if you were denying, if certain states were denying people the right to marry because it was a same-sex coupling, that that meant that you were denying them dignity.
	And I'm sorry, man or woman, if you're taking it up the ass, there's no dignity in that.
	So the government, the court cannot prescribe you dignity through legal rulings.
	Dignity is something that you feel in yourself.
	The government can't give it to you like it's some kind of product, which means, again, that the ruling very, very, very weak, especially now that it's a six to three conservative.
	Especially now Clarence Thomas has had a scalp already.
	Yes, and they've already made a number of hits against it.
	And this is going back to 2020 because it also restricted people's religious freedoms.
	So there was a woman, a county clerk called Kim Davis, who did not want to sign off on a load of gay marriage certificates because religiously she didn't agree with it.
	And she got fired for that.
	And I think she had to spend five days in jail for that.
	So she tried to get an appeal from the Supreme Court to see about getting the Oberga fell overturned.
	They said they couldn't, but even then, when they were writing their dissents in this, Thomas and writing for Alito as well, said that the court's decision enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss, because there's the conflict as well over this incredibly novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment, meaning that you've got a right to dignity.
	Okay, great.
	How do you dole that out there?
	How do you enforce it?
	How do you quantify it?
	Yeah.
	Versus the much more strict and easily understandable right of the First Amendment to religious freedoms.
	So there is a lot of weakness in that court ruling.
	We'll see.
	I don't think it's going to get overturned, but it's interesting that 10 years later, they kind of go, oh, we're starting to make people hate us.
	And oh, God, this is a really weak ruling to begin with.
	They've already overturned Roe v.
	Wade.
	So happy anniversary, everybody.
	Get, like, live a good life, I suppose.
	And take it up the chufter with.
	No.
	Don't do that.
	Let's move on to the video comments, friends.
	Okay, Patrick.
	It's out.
	Now, there's something I'd actually like to see.
	What's this?
	No!
	What are you doing?
	You're supposed to be knocking each other's brains out.
	We signed a peace treaty, Squidward.
	You were right.
	Fighting is for children.
	No, no, no, I misled you.
	It's for adults, too.
	Give me that peace treaty.
	There.
	Let the war continue.
	That's exactly what's happened.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I never thought I'd see SpongeBob used in such a way.
	Have we got any more?
	Oh, we got.
	You know, I've been busy the past few weeks tracking down power issues in the back and getting my father settled into his new Parkinson's medication.
	If you know someone with an advanced Parkinson's disease, Violive is something I highly recommend.
	Drastically improves quality of life.
	Anywho, the song Foreigners on Bob Rivers' Twisted Christmas album is highly relevant to yesterday's podcast.
	Go give it a listen.
	Alright, cheers.
	One of the reasons I think we have a hard time getting people to sign up for modern Western militaries is that they don't allow war trophies or, you know, basic minor looting during campaign like our old armies used to do.
	And most modern non-Western militaries still do.
	But interestingly, when you think about it, the only profession that you're allowed to do, like old-style pillaging, is being a civil rights activist, which is probably why people are more likely to sign up for that rather than sign up for being in the army.
	I honestly always held this opinion about modern militaries.
	It's like, you can't loot a city, why are you bothering?
	Unironically, that's why people would sign up to be soldiers in the ancient world.
	It's like, okay, we'll go on campaign, loot a bunch of cities, I'll get a bunch of slaves, I'll have loads of cattle or whatever that I'll take from the city, I'll go home and I'll be rich.
	That's why you'd be a soldier.
	So it's like, okay, don't know what's in it for him now.
	Another example in just how far standards have fallen.
	This is a BBC review of the then-new 1972 Jaguar XJ12.
	A wonderful time capsule, not only of car, but in people, accents, and places.
	But what a foreign time when a public broadcaster would not only wax thespian to draw a closing metaphor, but also trust his common audience to be on board with him.
	Therefore, to be possessed with double pomp, to guard a title that was rich before, to gild refined gold, to pay...
	Now he goes on for some time, but I was quite convinced when people actually had educations.
	Yeah.
	Were you convinced to buy it?
	I suppose you must have been.
	I mean, yeah, I'd buy a jagged.
	All right, some written comments from the website now.
	Omar says, I agree with Starma that we're going to have to fight for Britain, but I think we'd significantly disagree on who it needs defending from.
	We all know it's not lefties signing up to do their patriotic duty in the armed forces.
	It's not the diversity either.
	There's no way Starma's going to be able to get them to fight for the regime.
	So I have to wonder how many current members of the military would even follow the command.
	Well, that's a good question.
	I mean, a fifth of them can't be deployed.
	I wonder what percentage of them like, well, if we're marching somewhere, you know, we've got other problems.
	Daniel says maybe the Cavalier and Roundhead is closer to what we'll end up getting.
	The country was more united in the Civil War than it was now.
	At least back then, both sides thought they were doing something for the good of the nation.
	That's a good point.
	Yeah, that is a good point, actually.
	Yeah, that is actually a good point.
	What it meant was one side had faith in the king, not so much anymore, and the other side had faith in the parliament, definitely not so much anymore.
	Yeah, I know.
	There's a part of me that really wishes Charles would just come out and start just using executive power.
	Say, look, I'm the king, so I'm dissolving with parliament.
	I'm going to do this, and these are going to be the laws.
	And I would love to see Parliament go, well, you can't do that.
	It's like, go on, raise an army.
	Raise an army.
	See who fights for parliament now.
	You know, like back in the 17th century, people were going to actually fight for parliament.
	Like, no one's going to fight for parliament now.
	You know, you are a bunch of absolutely idiotic layabouts.
	It hates you.
	I do look back and just think to myself, why did anybody think that parliamentarians, let's put power in their hands?
	Well, the thing is, remember at the time, parliamentarians were much more clever and experienced men than they are now, right?
	And they were only men.
	And they were people who had gravitas.
	And they had often fought in wars.
	And I would imagine were actually much more closely connected to the local constituents they were representing as well.
	They had a direct interest in the country being successful.
	Unlike now, what they have a direct interest in us being.
	I mean, 17th century, what's that?
	When we were starting to really get a load of colonies out there as well.
	So building a future power.
	Yeah, building an empire.
	And there was, you know, all in, basically.
	Someone online says, if you want an example of how damaging the sex education stuff can be, I had to start New York's perverted sex ed at 10.
	The result was I wasn't able to see a naked human without having a panic attack in college.
	I've never had any sexual feelings.
	It's like they've destroyed a part of my brain, which is the opposite of what they wanted.
	They wanted to turn me into a slut.
	That is mad.
	I'm really sorry to heard that.
	Yeah, I'm just bad.
	But this is the thing, man.
	10-year-olds, they are not thinking about sex.
	They're just not.
	They're thinking about video games, you know, or climbing trees or whatever, you know, getting sweets.
	They're not thinking about any of that nonsense.
	How much prep do they give the kids?
	You know, the kids just go along to the lesson, sit down, and it's like, right, this is your lesson today.
	Here's an erect penis.
	Yeah.
	What are you doing?
	Hector says, Clarence Thomas has written multiple concurring decisions recently saying that they need to overturn the gay rights ruling for being bad law.
	How can one man be so based?
	I love that Clarence Thomas, did you, like, you won't remember, but back in the late 90s, I think it was, when Clarence Thomas became a Supreme Court judge, Biden tried to stitch him up as a rapist.
	Oh, yeah.
	So he wouldn't get on the court.
	And so it's, you know, the long arc of history bending towards Clarence Thomas getting his revenge on the left.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I think that weren't they also probably hoping that, oh, like Clarence Thomas, he's a black man.
	He'll go along with all of our progressive agenda.
	Didn't work out.
	He's the most conservative man in America, probably, it seems.
	He's definitely in there.
	That's why I was hoping for a black pope.
	Well, honestly, the African popes are aggressively right-wing.
	You see all of the statements from them.
	And I was going through it, like, here, this guy, this guy, he's kind of a progressive, he's a moderate.
	And the blacks were like, they sound like ISIS.
	They're fine.
	They're fucking firing brimstone.
	Yeah.
	You know, they're old school.
	And it's like, oh, okay.
	Yeah.
	You know.
	Michael says, hey, I support marriage equality.
	It's not fair that gay couples can escape marriage, but straight couples really can't.
	And now, at least the lesbians are learning that being married is hard work and they aren't up for the job.
	Be married to women.
	Funny that two men have a better chance of success in marriage than straight couples.
	To be honest with you, the problem is no-fault divorce, right?
	Although he's saying that in the lesbian couple thing, there probably are faults.
	If the stereotypes are true, which they always are.
	It's not even the stereotype.
	We've got the numbers.
	Hell yeah.
	It's something like more than, I think it's 52% of lesbian relationships have domestic violence in them.
	But anyway, yeah.
	Amazing power to the women.
	Girl bossing it all the way to the divorce court.
	Good for them.
	Good for them.
	I think we're out of time.
	All right, then, yeah.
	So thanks, guys, for joining us.
	Where can people find you?
	X is the best one at VO Wales Official Rumble.
	We're trying to grow because we're banned on YouTube, which is voiceoverwales or voiceoverwales.com.
	There you go.
	Check them out and make sure to return at 3 o'clock UK time for the Gold Tier Zoom call if you've got Gold Tier membership.
	If not, tough luck.
	If not, you should.
	Yeah.
	Cheapscape.

▲