The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1302

Nov. 24, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:29:22

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1302

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm joined by Stelius, Ferras, and Joseph Robertson, political strategist.
	And we are going to be talking about how the British government has decided, actually, they do need to experiment on children.
	We are also going to talk about how Elon's big reveal has been illuminating.
	And then we're going to chew out some stay-at-home mums because they don't work hard.
	They don't do anything.
	And really, you know, we shouldn't consider it a job at all.
	Or so I've been told.
	Anyway, without further ado, let's get on with it.
	It's got to be exciting.
	So West Reading has come out and decided that there is such a thing as children with gender incongruence.
	It does, you know, and decided that affirmation should be an option here.
	And that really what's required is more evidence to look at whether or not blocking the puberty of children can in fact be good for them.
	So he's allocated around £11 million for this study and it's going to be done by King's College in London by two scientists, but I use the term hesitantly, Michael Absoud and Emily Simonov.
	And they are going to be looking at whether or not blocking the puberty of kids is in fact a good idea.
	Now, the target of this experiment is by definition underage children.
	The study can only be done by experimenting, literally, on children and injecting them with enormously destructive drugs that intentionally block their puberty.
	And I think Transgender Trend here had a very, very good article about it that I really encourage you to read.
	They say that essentially what they argue correctly is that what has happened previously was that the gender identity service at the Tavistock Clinic had done all kinds of studies and they refused to release their own data.
	So we've also learned that follow-up data on outcomes for children have been through Tavistock GIDS, which the Adult Transgender Identity Clinic refused to share, was never released to the CAS review research team.
	The CAST review research team did a big study on these puberty blockers and said that there was no evidence that they were beneficial.
	But the study was done by people who really wanted this kind of thing to continue.
	It's just that they could find absolutely no evidence for it.
	And so they had to say that, look, on balance, the evidence is that this is harmful.
	So there is data there to be looked at because they experimented with around 2,000 children who were prescribed puberty blockers.
	These children are out there.
	And if you want to do research on this topic, you would just have to track what has happened to them over the long term.
	Rather than do that, they decided to launch a new experiment on 200 children to study the long-term effects of these puberty blockers.
	But by long term, they mean two years.
	So no actual science is going to come out of this.
	No actual beneficial research is going to come out of this.
	The article continues and says, our view on puberty blockers trial is very simple.
	Although we accept the trials of drugs on children with life-threatening conditions may be worth the risk of serious side effects, in the case of puberty blockers, the treatment is the harm.
	It is not a negative side effect or a risk.
	The treatment itself causes the damage.
	The purpose of the blocker is to introduce ill health to a previously healthy body.
	Because arrested growth is the desired outcome, it is seen as a successful treatment by gender ideologues.
	Every positive result of blocking puberty, cessation of Benses in girls, breast growth in boys, etc., is a physical indication of a health concern.
	Every physical change that is viewed by the trans lobby as a positive, effective, and desired result is a medical harm.
	And this is exactly right.
	This is precisely the truth of the matter.
	There is no way that this can be beneficial to children.
	And we've known this for some time, and we've run this experiment for some time.
	But even as this experiment was run, there was a study that was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals.
	This is an excellent post here from Connor Tomlinson, by the way.
	I encourage you to see it.
	There was a study funding by Ferrink Pharmaceuticals that produces a puberty blocker.
	So you can see immediately the conflict of interest there.
	That followed 70 children that were prescribed first puberty blockers and then cross-sex hormones.
	That is intended to sort of change the appearance of children so that they appear to be of the opposite sex.
	They didn't wait for the results of the study.
	They just kept on prescribing cross-sex hormones after blocking puberty.
	And so all of them went on to take cross-sex hormones, which is sort of what you're supposed to be studying.
	So you've put the conclusion before the study.
	They lost 20% of the sample size.
	They lost track of 15 out of the 70.
	So that's a huge number.
	That makes the study completely invalid.
	And one of the children died because of the medical procedures that he was undergoing while they were trying to place a vagina on the body of a boy.
	This means that if they study 200 children, you're looking at three children dying on average.
	This is a huge harm.
	This is deeply destructive.
	And we know that this is destructive without the need for any further research.
	There is no objective reason to study this any further.
	It's definitionally destructive.
	It's definitionally destructive and it's proven destructive.
	So there's no debate here.
	What we must do instead is to try to analyze the causes of this and to understand what is animating these people.
	This is West Streeting, the health secretary who's authorized this, as I mentioned earlier.
	And he says that the ban of puberty blockers was necessary because of the evidence and that he was highly constrained.
	He could do nothing about it to sort of keep this experiment going, even though he wanted to.
	And the ban made him deeply uncomfortable.
	So the question that arises really is why is he uncomfortable with this?
	Why is he uncomfortable with the idea that there is a natural order that says that boys are boys and girls are girls and they have different roles?
	Because fundamentally, let's go through a couple of others here before we get there, because I want to explore a little bit of the tension in the ideology.
	This is Harry Eckles.
	He's an entertainer on X who says that he's a nurse.
	His account says that he's based in Indonesia.
	Okay, fine.
	But this is the tension at the heart of this ideology.
	He claims that being gay isn't a choice, even though the largest genetic study on homosexual individuals found that it is not defined by genetics, that there is no genetic reason why somebody would be gay.
	It's not actually predetermined, but he insists that it is.
	And then he extends that and says that being trans isn't a choice, being disabled isn't a choice.
	Well, if you mutilate your own body and end up disabled as a result, There is a question mark there.
	The color of your skin isn't a choice.
	Finally, we agree.
	Be good, love your neighbor, blah, blah, blah.
	He completely misunderstands the meaning of love your neighbor.
	That's a different story.
	I like the way that all he can do now is invoke Christian morality, though.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Fundamentally misunderstood.
	Well, yeah.
	Fundamentally misunderstood.
	And this is Dr. Helen Webberley, more like...
	Anyway, she is a strong advocate for this and And I want you to listen to her for a couple of seconds, and then we can pick her message apart a little bit.
	If we could maybe shrink this to, let's see.
	Yeah.
	To boil the whole of humanity down to gametes is so mathematical, so binary, so basic.
	Transgender people...
	So hold on.
	To boil it down to biology, essentially, gametes, or other physical manifestations of your sex, is very mathematical.
	What she's invoking here is that there is a spiritual dimension, that there is an inherent self that needs to be expressed.
	So in a real sense, she's conflating the soul with sexual identity.
	This is a corrupted idea of the human soul.
	Instead of it being eternal, created by God, touched by the Holy Spirit, a part of the Holy Spirit within all of us, really, it's a question of sexuality.
	So there is that spiritual dimension there.
	But then when you listen to her further, it becomes also clear that she believes it's a choice.
	It's an identity.
	Anybody can choose this identity.
	So there is this tension in the transgender ideology between this being innate and this being a choice.
	On the innate side, as I said, this is a very corrupted expression of what a soul is.
	This is a sexualized expression of what a soul is.
	But on the choice side, it really matters.
	Because what these people are saying is that you should be free enough from all constraints and all of nature and all of hierarchy so that if there is a baby that you don't want, you can kill it.
	And if there is a relationship that is unnatural, you should be free to pursue it anyway, because you want to.
	And if there is a different sex that you want to pretend to be, you should also be allowed to do that.
	So in a very real sense, and I know Brother Selios is going to disagree with me here, this is the spirit of liberalism that we should bring down some hierarchies, that everything is a matter of consent and choice, taken to an extreme.
	The debate, I think, is whether or not a natural conclusion or an extreme.
	But let's say extreme for now.
	And that people should be completely free of anything that constrains them.
	And that if you try to tie them down to reality and say to them, no, no, you can't actually be a If you're born with a vagina, then you're basically attacking them.
	And you even see that expressed in the kinds of court judgments that we've seen coming out in Britain in the past.
	So Kira Bell, who sued the Tavistock Clinic in 2020 because she was given puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as a teenager, said that she's going to fight this.
	But in her case, The High Court had ruled that under-16s were unlikely to be able to give informed consent.
	And then the Court of Appeal ruled that no, doctors can judge whether or not young people can give consent.
	And consent here is the operative word.
	Because neither court looked at truth or reality or what is verifiable.
	Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal based their decision on whether or not this was consent-freely given and therefore whether or not it was right for the children to pursue this path if they wanted to.
	Which really sort of, again, it's the very spirit of liberalism taken to an extreme.
	The idea being that you shouldn't be constrained by what is above, be it divine authority or political authority or social hierarchy.
	So I'm going to disagree.
	Everything should depend on consent.
	It's not about the spirit from above.
	That's not how they think.
	They're actually thinking of material universe.
	You'll notice that everything for them is about determinism.
	Yes.
	Excuse me.
	Bless you.
	Sorry.
	I'm still ill.
	The very nature of this is to suggest that actually the human body is somehow a fundamentally oppressive instrument.
	Yes.
	Because deterministically, you are born with one of two gametes and you will become a man or a woman.
	This was chosen in advance for you.
	And that was precisely her point.
	She was saying this is fundamentally a form of oppression.
	I do agree, though, that it is the spirit of liberalism taken to a ridiculous extreme, where it's obviously inappropriate.
	I want to give a different explanation because I think it accounts for some of the things that aren't particularly discussed in this but are hidden in plain sight.
	Is that the explanation is power politics.
	It's the following.
	The people you mentioned, Harry Eccles, all these leftists, West Reading, they're not saying that they're not against banning.
	They're very much in favor of banning.
	They want to ban free speech and brand they hate speech if you're criticizing their agenda.
	So they're not having any kind of anarchist or extreme libertarian zero banning account.
	They are allying right now with the trans lobby and with other people who think that they have the back of the trans lobby and they want to be seen as having the back of the trans lobby.
	So to me, this is power politics, West Reading, Harry Eccles, that lady showed.
	It's power politics.
	They're trying to protect their own their political friends.
	And all this is just a giant pyramid of BS that they are using in order to hide the fact that they're doing power politics.
	But let me say that.
	I don't see this.
	But let me give you an ultra prize here.
	I don't think that this is any kind of particular thinking in it.
	But what I will give you is that frequently the language of rights can be abused in the same way that the language of common good can be abused, which is one of the arguments that lots of libertarians are giving.
	They're saying the common good, we shouldn't talk about the common good because it can be, it can go totalitarian, only rights.
	But the rights also can be abused.
	And I think what you're showing here is definitely a case of that.
	So let me tell you where I agree with you.
	If so, the first point is that pretty much every major organization from NATO to the British government to most European governments to the WHO to the UN all believe in affirming transgender identity, the WEF, etc.
	They all believe in that.
	And there is a power-related reason for it.
	If I could make somebody say that a man is a woman, I could pretty much make them say anything.
	And there is also the usefulness of this madness as a loyalty test.
	If you're a middle manager and you want to signal to the company that you will do exactly whatever they want, all you have to say is that no trans women are real women.
	And why?
	Because HR told me five minutes ago, and now all of reality was changed.
	Exactly.
	So there is this power dynamic element to it.
	Absolutely.
	And there is this element of the language of rights gone mad.
	You know, the right to deny reality, the right to deny biology.
	But there is the question of where is this impulse coming from?
	Can I just make a point there, Philip?
	Please, as well, because I think a lot of this conversation is being framed as one ideology or another.
	The reality is what we're really talking about is a different framework because liberalism or any other ideology operates behind a framework.
	The framework in, let's call it the Western Hemisphere for a long, long time has either been a Christian paradigm or a neo-libertarian kind of Darwinistic approach to life.
	Both are the two kind of fundamental approaches to life in this country at least.
	And now we're looking at a third framework that doesn't fit either of those two narratives.
	So baseline talking about libertarianism or anything else doesn't really work here because you're not actually fundamentally operating in the same framework anymore.
	And so what we've really got to be talking about is what is the deeper framework that they're trying to impose as opposed to a particular ideological kind of position.
	And that's when you start talking about, well, what is their ultimate end?
	Right.
	And it's not necessarily any of the things we're discussing.
	It's not communism in a pure form, although I'd say it's closer to communism than anything else.
	And it's not really libertarianism.
	It's a completely new way of looking at the world.
	And that is what we've got to get to the core of.
	And for me, this is a transhumanistic agenda.
	This is where we take ourselves out of ideology and actually replace us with something new.
	So the only thing I disagree with there is that we're taking ourselves out of ideology.
	I think, I mean, you call it transhumanism.
	Sorry, existing ideology.
	So it's a new, that's my point, is it's a wider framework that we're looking at.
	But basically, the objective is liberation from the biology, the material realm itself.
	And the material realm.
	Apart from those you control of.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	No, but I think that's fair.
	So on your point, Stelios, I agree that that is a layer of it, that is a level of it.
	But if we can go back to West Streeting very quickly, I think that the reason that it unsettles him is because he has a moral argument that underpins it, right?
	And he's actually, and I think they're all like this.
	I don't think there's a difference between West Streeting and the trans lobby.
	He is the trans lobby.
	He is a part of it.
	Because all it takes to become part of it is to have a moral commitment to it.
	And so he is as much a part of it as anyone else on that side, as the doctor that you showed as well.
	So I don't think there's a difference there.
	I think they are genuinely morally motivated in the ways that they are telling us.
	I don't think that they're concealing any alternative or hidden motivations or beliefs.
	I think they're being completely frank with us, that they feel that these people are trapped in the wrong bodies with all of the insane metaphysical commitments that they can't possibly articulate that come along with that.
	As in, where was the person before they were in the body then?
	Explains this.
	I think they truly believe this.
	And I think this to them is a truly moral mission in the same way that abolishing the slave trade was back in the 1900s or the 1800s, sorry, 19th century.
	This is a genuine crusade for them.
	And I think you are correct that this is the spirit of liberalism that is taking us into this new framework, this new paradigm, into a place where we've not been before because it was never appropriate to apply this spirit in this realm.
	So I think this is something they will never stop.
	And I think that's what explains.
	If we can go through Wes's little tirade here, because I think this explains it.
	Can we go up to the top?
	I'll read it from the whole thing.
	So he says, children with gender incongruence deserve safe, compassion, effective care, that healthcare must always be led by evidence.
	So again, he's already talked past the sale here, right?
	Because the question is not, is there evidence that we can change a child's sex?
	Exactly.
	Because, I mean, let's assume that technology will allow us to literally, at the molecular level, at some point in future, just put a kid in like a Star Trek-style transporter, teleport them to this other thing, and just rearrange all their genes as we like.
	Okay, even if we've got the technology to do it, should we do that?
	And the answer has been decided for Wes.
	Yes, of course we should.
	We just need to know that the technology is sufficient.
	So he says, the CAS review is clear.
	There isn't enough evidence that puberty blockers are safe or beneficial for children with gender incongruence.
	Well, we assume that children can have gender incongruence, but obviously the medicine itself is not safe or beneficial for them because it is interceding in a perfectly healthy, natural process to create an unhealthy, unnatural result.
	And so Dr. Cass recommended a ban on prescribing them and a clinical trial to build that evidence.
	So Dr. Cass has said, right, what I want to do, as you pointed out before we started, she wants to do this, but can't bring herself to say it because the scientific evidence isn't there.
	So I have to, I am forced to say, for utilitarian reasons, not moral reasons, that we have to stop prescribing them.
	But then I want to start experimenting on children, more children, in order to try and build a case for my presupposed ideological position, which is mad.
	I mean, it sort of brings Mengele to mind, doesn't it?
	I was going to say that, but I didn't want to go that far because it sounds like a bit of gauche, right?
	I do.
	I mean, like, if you're going to experiment on people for the sake of a characteristic, which obviously the Nazis were genuinely looking for reasons to make Jewish people subhuman, right?
	We're basically now looking for reasons to make children something different.
	It's really, very, there's no difference at all.
	In fact, it's worse because I don't think Mengele started out experimenting on children.
	He did do on pregnant women.
	He did eventually, but, you know, it took him a while.
	These guys are going straight in at the deeper.
	But it is genuinely monstrous what they're proposing.
	And we're streeting, was he the health secretary?
	Yes.
	And he's in government, and he's just publicly saying that we're about to start experimenting on children because we have a series of insane beliefs about the world and we're going to use your money to do that.
	I mean, that story that Connor said about the guy dying on the table, having his genitals removed.
	I mean, this is the stuff of Stephen King.
	This is not the stuff.
	Nightmarish.
	It's not government.
	Nightmarish.
	The question about, oh, well, they think the doctors can tell whether the children can give informed consent.
	Well, you don't have the information.
	That's the purpose of the study is to gather this information.
	So you can't possibly, nobody can give informed consent for this because the knowledge simply isn't present.
	And even if the knowledge was present, this is a deeply immoral thing to do anyway.
	So the fact that you might be able to do it.
	And so when he follows on and says we extended the ban on prescribing them, we're now setting up clinical trials to build the evidence base we need to support vulnerable children properly.
	It's like, well, it seems like you're taking advantage of vulnerable children.
	And why are their parents consenting to this at all?
	They're put in an impossible bind.
	They're constantly told that if they don't agree, their children will commit suicide and that they would be absolutely horrendous people.
	And then the nature of the study means that only parents who are willing to consider this as a possibility will allow their children to participate.
	And there are no safeguards on whether or not these children have had any other psychological conditions that would help them study it.
	So it's very much, as you say, they're assuming already that the better outcome would be liberation from reality.
	That the desired outcome would be for material reality not to constrain individuals in this way and for people to be able to choose which gender they want to be.
	So this is already part of their thinking.
	And there is.
	Can I just point out base Rupert Lowe there?
	Ratioing him to hell.
	What the NHS is doing to young kids is sick.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's true.
	Exactly.
	And there is no breaking mechanism on this.
	Now they want to try to plant uteruses in men to see if they can get men pregnant.
	So there's no way of stopping this ideology except by going back to the basics.
	But can I point out that, you know, IVF, much as we can, you know, contend the morality of it is what has led to this.
	Because you begin experimenting outside of the womb in a lot of cases.
	Yes.
	And then you are basically just using toys to play around with by the end of it.
	And to go back to your point on parents, this is the same generation that forces their kids to sit in front of a TV rather than taking care of them.
	So again, we're just in this disassociative mindset.
	The whole thing is disassociative.
	Yes.
	What is this Operation Seahorse?
	Say again.
	This Operation Seahorse, like they try to make men.
	And that's the put the womb into a man.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	So they have this thing about C creatures.
	I noticed mermaids as the children's charity.
	I mean, I've got seahorses.
	Well, the seahorses make sense because male seahorses actually do just makes a lot more sense.
	Mermaids used to have their legs cut off, so it's a bit different, isn't it?
	It's a bit weird, isn't it?
	Anyway.
	So it is weird.
	It is disgusting.
	And there's no breaking mechanism on this except by going back to the basics about hierarchy being good and natural, about the roles of men and women being fundamentally different,
	About the sinfulness of all sexual relations outside of marriage, about the purpose of sex, and to have a lot less tolerance for deviant sexual behavior of all kinds that we've now learned to tolerate.
	Okay, there is also a non-Catholic interpretation.
	Hold on.
	We can't have a situation where we say men can get married and that the roles of women and the roles of men in society are the same without this being turned on its head and us being told, well, if the roles are the same, then somebody who chooses to play the role of a woman is in fact a woman, which is what we're being told here.
	How are we going to say that tolerance is the way out of this?
	Yes, but there is a non-Catholic interpretation that is slightly more moderate, which is that the material realm is deterministic in some ways.
	For example, it is determined from your point of birth that you will become a man or a woman.
	And that, in fact, unchosen impositions that the universe puts upon you are actually not themselves bad or oppressive or wrong.
	And these are the normal things you need to live with it.
	We don't have to necessarily adopt the metaphysical positions of a staunch Catholic on that.
	Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't or anything like that.
	I would argue that these positions come from observing material reality.
	But the point concedes the point that the differences are.
	Without getting into that argument for the sake of time, if nothing else, from a much more moderate perspective, I think that the average person can see the reality in front of their faces, which is actually there is a lot in the life that is unchosen, but that still is good and valuable.
	And this insane extremist experiment to try and overthrow the nature of reality's dominion over us is not only doomed to fail, but it's going to create thousands of victims, many of whom will die and their lives will be unrecoverable afterwards, even if they don't.
	If you say that it is an imposed reality that is good, that a child-born male will grow up to be a man, you can then say, be a man and behave like a man.
	And that has certain implications, including about sexual behavior.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So we're in agreement here.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But the point is, the extremist liberals here would see this as deterministic and non-consensual and say, well, this deeply troubles me that this is the case.
	And so it's worth pointing out that most people are not in this camp and are sane.
	Even if they're not particularly religious, they still have a commonsensical view of the world.
	So the point is the government is mental and it's run by mental people who hold absolutely extreme views that people just don't agree with.
	Anyway, we've got loads of super chats on this subject, as you can imagine.
	JM says the moral paradigm that prioritizes harm reduction as the top concern, Mill Bentham, etc., logically leads to extinction, antinatalism.
	Each additional human life will result in some degree of harm.
	Well, again, you can take anything to a logical conclusion that is extreme.
	I mean, I'm against utilitarianism for lots of reasons, but the point of extremity on it isn't really it.
	There are other reasons.
	Only atheists believe in the madness.
	That's the new framework.
	They are.
	The thing is, they can't really just call themselves materialists because their own philosophy does presuppose the kind of existence of something they would have to call a soul.
	Yes.
	Otherwise, you can't be born in the middle of the world.
	They call it gender identity.
	Yeah.
	In fact, the very separation of the brain from the body is a thing that really we should be interrogating them on.
	It's like, well, where is the consciousness?
	Like, if you are the liberal you claim you are, I mean, like, I am a materialist, right?
	I've born and raised in material society, so I'm under the impression that my consciousness is a phenomenon of my brain, right?
	So my consciousness does not precede my brain, it is subsequent of it, and so there's no separation between brain and body, mind and body.
	The mind is actually a product of the body, in my opinion, because I'm a materialist.
	If they're not, they need to explain themselves on that.
	I mean, the overwhelming amount of materialists do not agree with gender ideology.
	Well, yeah, most people.
	But there's mostly top-down enforcement, which, you know, Ferris, your position earlier, was taking something to its logical other extreme.
	But I think the reality is the reason why extremes are coming out of this is because there's so much confusion in the middle.
	There's no definition anymore.
	Like a lot of this is just linguistic.
	Like the marriage argument, as an example, I have no opposition to people doing what they want to do in their own houses in their own time.
	If you want to be in a gay relationship, so be it.
	But the word marriage fundamentally comes from the root of motherhood.
	It's actually an attack on motherhood.
	It's nothing to do with the relationship between two people.
	And so if we get back to definitions, all of this stuff starts to fall apart.
	That's actually a really important point as well.
	The very purpose is about the children, actually, not the two people.
	Yeah, it's all literally motherhood.
	Yeah, but exactly.
	It's literally about mothers.
	So a non-procreative marriage is basically a vanity project.
	Well, it can't be a marriage.
	It could be something else.
	You can have a different term.
	Maybe it didn't work.
	Sure, sure.
	And, you know, like, if you've got a man and a woman, they get married expecting to have children and actually one of them is infertile.
	that's unfortunate but the they still get married to that purpose though Exactly.
	The purpose is still the same, right?
	But that's obviously not the case in same-sex couplings.
	So anyway, anyway, the madness will not end.
	Oh, sorry.
	Based Ape says, these people are actualists.
	They believe that we need to wake up, that we make up reality in our minds.
	They need to be told that they are not God.
	Well, good luck with that.
	The madness will not end anytime soon because the damage has already been done over decades.
	If they reverse course, it's an admission of fault or guilt.
	And also, you're absolutely correct, but they just don't believe it.
	They just don't believe that they're doing wrong.
	No.
	They genuinely believe they're doing right.
	They believe they're liberating people.
	Yeah, they genuinely think they're liberating people from the oppressive shackles of reality.
	Melissa says this experiment is just evil, which is completely correct.
	Flavius says these people are sick freaks that need to cancel to normalcy.
	Caned to normalcy.
	Oh, sorry, an angle.
	So caned to normalcy.
	And Cranky Texan says that they have copted and redefined the language of sex and gender gives them power.
	Otherwise, we would just call it what it is, medical experimentation and mutilation.
	Because that is what it is.
	Anyway, on that dower note, let's go to a slightly more exciting subject.
	Well, I say exciting, a slightly more entertaining subject, which is Elon Musk's big reveal.
	I think we should start the segment after we have.
	Great, okay.
	We're going to talk about Elon Musk's big reveal.
	I think a good relationship is founded on sincerity.
	And this is what the mainstream media have done.
	And many of us are very suspicious of them.
	And now we have alternative media and new media.
	And we constantly try to find better sources of information and give you good and credible sources and talk to you about what it is that is going on in the world.
	And one of the good things is that on X, we had a series of revelations of the origins of particular accounts.
	And I want to get out with the political dimension of it really quickly and move on to the fun stuff and say that it is absolutely certain that there are psyopses on X. Lots of critics of liberal democracies are saying that other regimes are planning for decades ahead.
	This means that they aren't going to leave X unturned.
	They're going to leave no stone unturned.
	They're going to infiltrate X. They're going to infiltrate all sorts of media.
	So people should be very mindful of who they're listening to.
	I mean, Elon Musk had to fight with armies of Chinese bot farms when he first took over Twitter, right?
	Yeah, but it ended up right now, as I'll show you in a meme.
	It wasn't so much Russia and China.
	It was mostly Nigeria and Bangladesh.
	Okay, so up till now, we had very few revelations.
	And I will give you my favorite Cambodian.
	It's from Radio Genoa.
	This is one of those accounts that is, I mean, complete shit posting.
	Pardon me for the slop posting.
	But it's so good at it that you can't tell him to stop.
	It's like telling Einstein to stop doing physics.
	So we had this kind of revelation.
	But now we have endless revelations.
	So go out on X and look at the origin of accounts.
	Let us have some fun.
	Not with that, though.
	Yep, know that, well, right.
	So this is a meme with Homer Simpson in a bar realizing that people around me are not like me.
	I thought they were, but they're not.
	And this is the most representative one, although not a particularly big account.
	It says American, at American.
	Very aggressive eagle here.
	The US flag before.
	Based in South Asia.
	Connected by South Asia App Store.
	See, it's the connecting via the App Store that really matters, right?
	Yeah, because it's got VPNs.
	Exactly.
	You've got VPNs or you could be traveling, right?
	But even when you're traveling, I'm still going on the UK App Store because that's what my phone is configured to.
	So you've got the dual way of checking and confirming there.
	You mentioned VPN.
	Yep.
	And it's not accidental.
	People right now in VPN companies are having a pretty good time.
	We have this from Scarface, this meme.
	People are buying VPNs to hide their inevitable West buying his VPN.
	We will talk about this, man.
	We will talk about this, man.
	Just easy West.
	Hope not hate based in the US.
	Definitely VPN.
	Connected via UK App Store.
	American here, right?
	We had an account.
	We had an account called Epic Maps.
	Oh.
	I like maps.
	Occasionally it's fun because also I love maps.
	And it says here, countries with the most handsome men, 2025.
	Who decided this?
	And number one, they have India, two, United States, three, Sweden, Japan, Canada, Brazil, France, Italy, Ukraine, Denmark, etc.
	Do you have an idea where this account is from?
	You know what?
	Why is Switzerland number 50?
	Does Russia not even make the list?
	I mean, it can't be used to being a Russian boss.
	Let's check where they are from.
	Shall we?
	Epic Maps joined December 2020.
	Oh, no kidding.
	Based in South Asia.
	South Asia, Android app.
	Connected by South Asia, Android app.
	We've predicted this.
	Now, we come to a distinct category of posting.
	Frequently, they have really hilarious replies, but I don't know about that.
	And I think it's people, women saying how hot they are and how much they're searching for a catfishing.
	Catfishing accounts.
	It's just so badly done, I've got to say.
	They always have like two followers and they've look at this picture.
	There is no way that isn't AI generated.
	She has 83k.
	Okay, all right.
	She's busy buying followers.
	Look how smooth that picture is.
	Sanya Obaid, love, I'm single from the US.
	I'm about 25 years old.
	And this year, I hope you'd like my pics.
	You know what?
	I love emoji.
	I'm not sure if you're a big ticket, so that's worrying.
	There's a lot of me, a side of me that's like, you know what, we're hating the players and not the game here, right?
	Like, if you're some guy in Pakistan, you're in some rural village and you've managed to get a smartphone and now you have access to the internet, you're like, I'm going to make a lot of money.
	I'm going to make unlimited hot women on croc.
	Exactly.
	And there are millions of Indian simps who are going to send me their rupees, right?
	Yeah.
	So actually, like, I'm going to make out like a bandit here, and my family are going to buy a nice big house.
	Just saying, you know.
	Account based in Pakistan, connected via Pakistan Android app.
	Move forward.
	Again, this is Anna Bi Alive, the same thing.
	She's connected via web.
	Account based in Pakistan.
	Right.
	We had also proud Democrat, professional MAGA hunter Ron Smith, account based in Kenya, and the account got nuked.
	So he had like 50,000, 60,000 followers or something.
	This is something that I've seen the left-wing media reporting on.
	Oh, all these MAGA accounts are actually foreign interlopers.
	Well, yeah, but a load of Democrat ones are too.
	Everyone was Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi.
	That's who we are arguing with on it.
	Is he supporting the Democrats because of Obama?
	No, no, his association with Kenya.
	Who knows?
	Maybe it is Obama.
	Yeah, me.
	MAGASCOPE here at MAGASCOPE.
	Prince MAGA, account based in Nigeria, connected Mughal.
	Playing both sides.
	That's why I come out on top.
	Right.
	R4, Tau Crate, English is not an ethnicity.
	As Carl points out, account based in Hong Kong.
	Yes.
	Saying that Hong Kong isn't part of Britain, Carl?
	Well, that's what he's saying.
	Gave it back, unfortunately.
	Also, Jackson Hinkle, who had a audience growth that I don't consider organic.
	He went from 400K to 3 million roughly today, a really hot Russian spy, yeah.
	A few months also touring the Middle East.
	Crazy to Yemen as well.
	That's the Houthi in Yemen.
	Just as a sort of pause here, I can't express to you how insane you have to be to support the Houthi in Yemen.
	And I'll just leave it there.
	Hassan Pika called out.
	Well, account based in Burkina Faso.
	As Carl says here, I didn't even know they had internet there.
	But accounting for connected via the US.
	And also, he's also traveled.
	But it was funny to talk about Burkina Faso.
	And you didn't know they had internet there.
	Right.
	Let's move on.
	Vladimir Putin based in Pakistan, connected via Pakistan App Store.
	Again, this is what I mean about hating the players and not the game, right?
	Because I bet none of these guys are really particularly invested in any of this that's happening.
	They're just like, you know what?
	I'm a hard-working young man.
	I've got access to earn some money here.
	I'm going to get on.
	This is something that you're missing there.
	There's a little something that you're missing there.
	In Lebanon, to my chagrin, fights actually break out every World Cup between the fans of Germany and Brazil.
	The Lebanese fans of Germany and Brazil.
	Yes.
	Right.
	Well, because Shia supports support Germany.
	So it's a proxy war.
	So it becomes a proxy war.
	So you see this kind of weirdness in ways that you don't have a mental map of.
	That's true.
	I don't have a mental map of it.
	That's all I'll say about the subject.
	And it gets quite hilarious.
	But yeah, please.
	Right.
	Here we have Make Europe Great Again, account based in South Asia.
	I mean, connected by South Asia, Android app.
	At least we can all agree with the sentiment, right?
	Like, you know, from an abstract, disinterested observer from South Asia, he's like, you know what, Europe used to be great.
	It should be made great.
	But it's really hilarious.
	And that's why I started with Radio Genoa.
	It's like one post is going to be Italy has fallen.
	And then the next post is going to be the Coliseum with the gladiator music saying, remember who we are.
	We're Cambodians.
	Also, what you said before, it's like the relationship we have with gossip and people who gossip.
	Everyone loves gossip, but they distrust people who gossip.
	Yeah, no one likes gossipers, do they?
	Yeah, but they love gossip.
	Because they love the game, but not the name of the game.
	Right here.
	So we have IDF babes being Nigerian dudes.
	This was the funniest psy-up in the world.
	Indeed, most affected, right?
	Yeah, it really is.
	But it's also like, yeah, guys, join the army.
	There's a bunch of models who'll be in the trenches with you.
	You'll find your girl there.
	It's like, no, obviously.
	Shira Shay Rivka, she said proudly, Israeli and conflict and war.
	IDF soldier in the account based in Nigeria connected by just on foreign deployments, Stella.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	The one thing I've never understood is, despite the fact that this is thousands of people, the way they express their account profile, their bio, and their messaging is always identical.
	Always identical.
	There's different words, so it's clearly different people, but they have this lexicon that we just don't understand.
	Israel Army based in South Asia.
	It does say Israel Army spoofed those.
	Yeah, it says spoofed.
	But yeah, but obviously based in South Asia.
	Yeah.
	But it's the army section now.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Russian army, again, Russian army spoof based in India.
	Okay.
	These people have got nothing better to do with their day, do they?
	Torah Judaism based in Philippines connected via web.
	I'm sure there's a Jewish diaspora in the Philippines.
	It's my response to what Carl said before.
	There was this meme: Chinese and Russian bots poking the US.
	Come on, do a civil war.
	Declaration of memes says, turns out it was actually Bangladesh and Nigeria.
	Right.
	You know, I think I know why they have that particular lexicon, right?
	And I think it is due to not being native speakers of the language and not being native livers of the political lives that we are, right?
	If I were to do something in French, I wouldn't be able to innovate on what already exists.
	I'd only be able to literally chat GPT.
	So they're basically like LLMs, right?
	They can only rehash those things with the advent of AI, where they could just say, how would a sexy European lady talk?
	They can't even type that in.
	Chat GPT is 20 quid a month, man.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Right.
	So they say here this America first account based in Bangladesh, but do check where they're connecting from.
	All of that take that with a pinch of salt.
	That's the message of the day.
	So war hamster here, based in United Arab Emirates.
	They say that they purport to be from the US, but their account is based in the UAE.
	In fairness, there's a lot of Americans in the UAE.
	There are.
	What app store are they connecting via?
	That's the question.
	Depends on which number they're using.
	If they're stupid enough to use their Imaratya number, then, you know, it's a problem.
	That is true.
	Right.
	We have Native American culture talking about in the smoke of ancient pipes, our ancestors whispered to the winds from the northern lakes where the eagle soars to the southern rivers where the jagger prowls.
	This red earth has always been our heartbeat.
	It's all native land.
	Turns out it's an account based in Bangladesh.
	Hating the player, not the game.
	This is a solid t-shirt pitch.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	Let's go grab those things.
	They clearly use Grok.
	You've got that.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So we have this account that was talking constantly about Japan.
	Colonel Otaku Gatekeeper talking about Japan.
	Weebs most affected.
	Based in Europe, connected via Europe Android app.
	And now we're moving to, I think, my favorite revelation.
	We have conscious philosopher who was saying in the American Civil War, Confederates were the good guys.
	I say author is Serbian.
	But what was interesting is that, contrary to others, he accepted it.
	He owned it.
	And he started going full Serbian.
	And let me just show you here.
	Says, love Serbia.
	And here he says, since I've gotten a lot of Serbian followers since telling everyone I'm a Serb for God knows which time, I wanted to tell you something in Serbian.
	And he says something in Serbian.
	I want to own it.
	Yeah, I own it.
	Okay, let's see that.
	Show us the translation.
	This is going to be hilarious.
	I would ask you before you start cursing me, threatening me, if you care about the truth, ask me to clarify whatever is bothering you or unclear to you because I know that a lot of lies have been circulating about me for years already.
	Long live Serbia.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	We have Gavin Newsom Groiper, one of the Burberry nationalism defenders.
	Okay, basically connected by US App Store.
	So illegally.
	I like to think that he's from the Korean.
	Right.
	Ivanka Trump News based in Nigeria, connected by Nigeria App Store.
	If it helps, that's probably authentic veneration.
	Right?
	They do like Ivanka Trump out there.
	Right.
	And the question remains: where is Inevitable West from?
	It says connected by UK App Store.
	My belief is that that's true.
	Yeah.
	You know, though, you know, have you watched Catch Me If You Can with Neido DiCaprio and Tom Hanks?
	It feels like right now, all of the online rights is at the Tom Hanks position, try to catch.
	I'd imagine at this level of account, there's probably someone in the UK being asked to log in to help the account.
	But it's funny.
	We have two million Indians in this country.
	That's also true.
	So the question is, he's not out of the woods yet.
	The question remains, Inevitable West.
	Where are you from?
	Where are you from?
	You're really from.
	Excellent.
	Hilarious stuff.
	Remember that Kenya has a lot of Indians there.
	So the guy from Kenya might still be Indian.
	What's the same with Inevitable West?
	Salsa and Nick Fuentes' base are.
	I can't imagine why everyone that actually wants MAGA torn apart would push Operation Fuentes to unravel everything and get the USAID H-1B griff back.
	And we have to make Elon's statue digger now.
	Bigger, I think.
	50 to 55 feet with silver eyes.
	He earned that much.
	Yeah, I know.
	It's genuinely fun.
	Genuinely fun.
	Remember when Jussie Smollett allegedly got battered by Nigerians who shouted, this is MAGA country?
	It's coming full circle.
	Man, that is crazy, actually.
	I didn't even make that connection.
	Good point.
	Anyway, let's go on to the final thing that we're going to talk about today.
	Because I've had enough of stay-at-home mums.
	I've decided they have it too easy.
	Their loves are too simple.
	Everything is just too straightforward.
	And it's not actually a job title, as you can see from the BBC, which we will read from at length because they're determined to make this a thing.
	Many women returning to the workforce after having children, so they face a challenge, a challenge and welcome back.
	Professional networking site LinkedIn recently added a new feature allowing parents to use stay-at-home mum or stay-at-home dad as a job title.
	Will it make a difference?
	In January 2020, after more than a decade raising her two young children, Heather Bolan was ready to rejoin the workforce.
	On her resume, it was a master's degree and her record of a successful corporate career at Starbucks.
	But for the past 11 years, excuse me, she's been a full-time parent, not a title recognized by most recruiters.
	And so this, of course, was a real problem for her.
	She says, I hit a wall immediately.
	And this 11 years at home has been tough for her to get back into the corporate world after.
	I assume her children have matured to an age, where she can get a job now.
	And this is an implicit bias against women.
	Is it?
	Yeah, it is.
	What's so silly about this?
	We had babies.
	And as she says, this is an implicit bias against women.
	And you get lots of articles like this.
	This is from a Luna Mag.
	I've never even heard of these before I found before I started researching this article.
	But they were meeting Anna, a PhD scientist turned stay-at-home mum from career woman to stay-at-home mum, a position she really does not enjoy, a topic that's often untalked about.
	And so Anna tells us this: quote, my brain feels like jelly.
	I miss my job terribly, but I love my crazy children and they're constant talking.
	Yet I am on constant and complete brain overload.
	Like I never felt before.
	So I miss having something else to focus on.
	I miss feeling rewarded for my work.
	Now I get shouted at because I'm not perfect and I never get a thank you from the children.
	I constantly say the same things every single day, but no one ever listens.
	I mean, lately, even my husband is doing it.
	So we'll get to this.
	I'm setting this up, trust me.
	I used to be so efficient.
	As a scientist by training, I didn't have much of a choice.
	But I'm finding that since becoming a full-time mum, my time seems to be much more of a warp all day long.
	I never seem to stop still.
	Yet somehow the day goes by and I have no clue what I've done all day.
	And somehow I'm also much more tired than when I did have a full-time job.
	My husband comes home and wants to chat about his day.
	And I'm like, can we just sit here in silence, please?
	And so that's a big sell.
	Hang on.
	It's tough being a stay-at-home mum, according to the stay-at-home mums.
	So I say, let's hear from the stay-at-home dads and see what they think about it because they're not impressed.
	If we can get this to the beginning, just thank you.
	I feel like you're lying.
	Because of what I get to do for work, I can still stay home and pay all the bills.
	And my wife will have to go to work to make her money.
	And I have a one-year-old daughter.
	So I'll stay at home and I'll take care of my daughter.
	And while I'm taking care of my one-year-old daughter, I can give her three meals a day, change her on time, get her into her naps, play time, arts and crafts time, and still make sure the entire place is clean.
	And I can clean the whole apartment while watching her before 12 or 1 o'clock.
	And yes, I know an apartment is different than a home, but I have a 2,300 square foot apartment, so it's not tiny.
	But I do know that I can just be ignorant to a lot of people's situations.
	So, can someone please tell me when does being a stay-at-home mom become hard?
	Right.
	I mean, you can imagine how that went down with stay-at-home moms on the hand.
	Can we see the comments?
	We can.
	So, obviously, I'm being very sarcastic with this segment because this is obviously, I mean, what I love most about this is this guy being like, I've got a one-year-old daughter, and it's no problem for me.
	It's like, yeah, because she can't walk.
	She can't, like, she can't destroy as much as a three-year-old.
	My apartment's tidy all day.
	Oh, bro, you know, it's not going to stay that way.
	Some of the comments on this have been hilarious.
	I'm going to go through some.
	I mean, there was this one by a guy that was just brilliant.
	My wife's a stay-at-home mum of two kids.
	One just started school and the other is a feral toddler.
	You're on easy mode right now, champ.
	Update us when you have a kid that can move more and has malice in their heart.
	And it is malice against the tidy house that both of my nearly five and three-year-olds have.
	And yeah, so I figure what we do is we go back to the beginning, actually go through this in a sympathetic way.
	Because actually, I do totally agree that stay-at-home parent is a full-time job title.
	And actually, especially a stay-at-home mum when you're on your own and your husband's out at work, this is actually not just a sort of domestic duty, but actually, you gain a suite of skills that you basically don't get in the workplace because the workplace is a lot more structured and there are a lot more rules about how you interact in the workplace.
	And so, actually, being a stay-at-home mum gives you incredible administrative skills and managerial skills.
	And this is something I've witnessed in my own life with my own wife.
	If I need something actually done, like, you know, bills sorted out or something like this, I'm actually really bad at it.
	Yes.
	Because I actually don't tend to develop the skills to interface with all of these things.
	And my wife just gets these things done like that.
	And I'm like, oh my God.
	Like, if it wasn't for her, I would be deep in, I would lose papers.
	I would lose, you know, if it wasn't for her doing all these things.
	And then at the same time, managing my two incredibly rambunctious children.
	This is an unpredictable environment.
	And what actually being a stay-at-home mum does is teaches you how to manage an unpredictable environment, which is actually a really useful skill that a lot of people don't develop because the workplaces we're in.
	And as this other woman here was saying, the workplace was so straightforward.
	It was so logical.
	You know, everyone was an adult there.
	Everyone knew the rules and everyone followed the rules.
	And so why is my life crazy now?
	And it's because actually you're doing something completely different and you're gaining a different suite of skills altogether.
	Let me put it to you this way.
	It's quite difficult when they're very noisy and they're running around the house and doing crazy things.
	It's much worse when you notice that it's been 10 minutes of quiet.
	Yes.
	And that means that there is a disaster that you just haven't discovered yet.
	Yes.
	So the hard bit is that the noise can, you know, all of a sudden you hear a very loud bang and you know one of them has fallen and possibly hurt themselves and you have to run for it.
	You hear the screaming afterwards.
	Exactly.
	Even worse if you don't.
	Yes.
	And then there is.
	Because my son, when he was young, he would stop breathing for a minute when he started crying.
	Oh, yeah.
	Which is a lot.
	Petrifying.
	Petrifying.
	Absolutely petrifying.
	But then when they're quiet and then you go and check on them, there's a 10% chance that they're just reading.
	There's a 90% chance that they're doing something that they absolutely should not be doing.
	And that's why they're being quiet.
	Marvelous work of art on the wall with the crayons, for example.
	There you go.
	Yeah.
	That's the least of it.
	That's the least of it.
	Because they used to really enjoy playing with the water in the bathroom.
	Oh, I bet they did.
	Which would flood the house.
	Of course it would.
	And so it's the fact that the silences and the quiet times are just as scary as the noisy times.
	And it's because they play with their toys all day, every day.
	And so the toys, they're noisy, you know, they throw them around, they don't care.
	Exactly.
	But when they've discovered something they shouldn't have access to, suddenly their entire attention is focused on that thing.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And they are artists at discovering the stuff that they really shouldn't be doing.
	Yes.
	And then doing it.
	Yes.
	And they're really brilliant at it.
	Yes.
	And so I do particularly love this guy.
	Well, this is so easy.
	Yeah, a one-year-old can't really do any of this.
	None of the damage.
	But not only.
	Not the actual damage.
	Not only that, there's the stress of it as well, right?
	So, for example, my two, sometimes they'll just have screaming competitions.
	Right.
	Where they're running around and they start screaming.
	And then the other one's like, oh, I can scream louder than that.
	Yes.
	And if I walk in the door, I can just see in my wife's face.
	She's like, can I have some quiet?
	Yes, you can, darling.
	You can go just sit in the bedroom where there's no screaming children for an hour if you want.
	I'm happy to deal with them, whatever.
	And I promise I am, darling.
	Trust me, it might seem impatient sometimes.
	And so this, but this whole thing teaches patience, right?
	It's a sort of.
	And I love this as well.
	It's like, what do you mean?
	I get the house done by 12 and then it's orderly for the rest of the day.
	It's like, it is an eternal struggle against chaos.
	So house chores are very time consuming.
	They can be.
	We may not like seeing it sometimes, but many of them are.
	Yeah, but the thing is, you don't have children yet, do you?
	Not yet.
	Oh my God, man.
	Like, it's not just, I've done the house chores.
	It is, my children are waging jihad against the order of the house, right?
	On a daily basis.
	For example, if you've got boxes full of toys, they won't take the toy that they want out of the box.
	That box has to go across the living room so they can pick and choose at their leisure for a few seconds until they're bored of that one and then bored of that one.
	And literally, it can be you go to the toilet, you come back in, and it's a bomb shelter, it's a bomb site.
	And you can see why, after having cleaned and tidied the entire house, your wife at 11 a.m. is just like, oh my God, I can't believe.
	And yet she's got no choice.
	If she wants to have an orderly house, which everyone does, she has to do it.
	And so it's one of those things where it is a level of personal control that the average PhD student has no idea about.
	And that's why the PhD student is like, my God, I feel like I can't think straight.
	Yeah, I bet you feel that way because that is actually what happens.
	No matter what it is that you're in the middle of, when there is the emergency, there is the emergency.
	And if you don't respond, you could end up with a puddle on the living room floor.
	Or worse.
	Or way worse.
	Or way worse.
	Oh, because my two-year-old has worked out how to poo and take off his nappy at the same time.
	Oh, genius.
	You know, that's so complex thinking skills.
	That's something to be proud of.
	And he's watched me putting clothes into the washing machine.
	So where is that dirty nappy exactly?
	I'm not joking.
	You know, this whole thing is just like the women are right about the stress of being a stay-at-home mum.
	Then I kind of agree with the BBC for once because Solishin is basically just a Hungarian family policy.
	Well, I mean, the thing.
	It's a max model that actually incentivizes women to get back to work.
	Yeah, but the thing is, like, there will come a time where the children are, like, you know, 10, 11, 12, whatever, and you actually don't need to be at home to look after them, right?
	They're going to be at school all day, and so the women will want to go back to the workforce full-time.
	And that's fine.
	And actually, I do completely sympathize with the ladies here saying, well, I have a master's degree.
	I've had a corporate career in Starbucks before I became a mum.
	And the corporations do act as if being a full-time mum was just her laying around on her laurels, doing nothing, learning nothing, you know, not developing any skills.
	It's like, no, the opposite.
	Like, you are developing a massive level of skills in certain things that you didn't realize you needed to do outside of the office.
	There was a phase when the children discovered that it would be really entertaining to empty the dirty laundry basket and spread it all over the stairs.
	Oh, that's kind.
	It took us a while to get them out of that habit.
	But then you'd sort of hidy up the living room or the kitchen.
	You're like, okay, I'm done for the day.
	And you discover that actually they spent the hour before bedtime tossing the laundry out of the laundry basket onto the stairs.
	And now you're about to go read them a story.
	And good luck for the day.
	You are never done.
	No.
	You are never done.
	And this is one thing that I do think the stay-at-home mums deserve a bit of recognition in order.
	You've got to create some societal gratitude, don't you?
	But not just that, because there will come time that a lot of them will want to go back to work because the children are now essentially not independent.
	We need to have a stay-at-home mum awareness month.
	Well, yeah, I actually think that would be much better than transgender awareness, whatever.
	At least a world stay-at-home mum day to go up on Google once a year, I think.
	That's UN stuff.
	We need a whole sorry.
	We need a whole month, I guess.
	Right, right, right.
	And so, like, I actually am strongly in favor of stay-at-home mothers getting some respect, actually.
	But doesn't this fundamentally talk to the fact that we don't value kids as well?
	Because it's the mothers, but the whole point is, and you know, you look at it from a purely, you can look at it from a utilitarian perspective, you can look at it from any perspective.
	A child is an economic unit, right?
	Let's just say they don't have a soul and a brain, according to Web Streeting.
	Then we can basically just look at them as economic units.
	Well, you need a functional economic unit to be a better workforce.
	So who's going to produce that unit for you?
	It's the mother.
	And not just that, the sort of Jordan Peterson-esque sort of, what kind of people do you want to live around?
	Yeah.
	You know, like children who are raised by their mothers are much more well-adjusted than children who are just shoved into nurseries all day.
	What kind of people do you want passing in the street?
	There's an element of it.
	Sorry.
	No problem.
	Bless you.
	There's an element of it that sort of comes from the fact that social networks between women are no longer that good.
	Yes.
	And interfamily as well.
	And within the family.
	So basically, if you had your sister living next door as a woman, if you were on constantly good terms with your neighbors because you have similar values and beliefs and you've grown up together, life becomes a lot easier for mothers.
	So the atomization of society also erodes these kinds of relationships between women that would have supported them in the past.
	And you saw that happen to the British working class when the council houses were built.
	For all of the faults of houses pre-council housing for the working class, the way that these neighborhoods had developed was very organic, meaning that big families lived next to each other.
	They didn't live in the same house, but they lived next to each other.
	It takes a village to raise a child.
	It takes a village to raise a child.
	So now the real difficulty is that there aren't other women who can sometimes lend a hand.
	Your children have grown.
	You sort of go and hang out with your neighbor.
	And as you do that, The fact that it's that atomized for the women is really difficult.
	Can I add the entire cottage core online right just briefly?
	Because this is the whole point.
	They look at 1950s housewivery as kind of the ideal standard and they think everyone lives on a ranch miles apart.
	No, there were women raising six children and going out to work on top with normally the fourth or fifth eldest raising the bottom three.
	That's the system that we used to have.
	And that was all the way up to the middle classes.
	It wasn't some phenom for the working classes.
	And there are lots of women comparing themselves to these Instagram trad wives who, and my wife says this to me all the time, she says, It's like, oh, look, her house is always so tidy.
	She's got nine kids or whatever she's following.
	How does she do it?
	And I'm like, it's all for shades.
	Most cleaners who are three nannies.
	Exactly.
	She'll bring the cleaner in the house and record the video.
	Yeah.
	And that's, you know, that's, and then you only see that.
	And you're looking at our living room full of toys and mess and whatnot.
	And, you know, you say, how does she do this?
	She doesn't, darling.
	She doesn't.
	It's all.
	There's keeping up appearances, but we're taking that a whole step further.
	But that's not what this is.
	No, it's not.
	It's the room where the camera lives.
	Exactly, exactly.
	And so it was just one of those things where I, like, for example, the woman is saying, you know, my brain feels like jelly.
	Yeah, I like that's what happens.
	You find yourself not having enough sleep.
	You find yourself not having enough just personal space.
	And with the atomization, women end up missing adult interactions a lot.
	So constantly talking to children is itself daunting because you have to talk at the child's level.
	Yeah.
	And that involves just brush your damn teeth already so that we can get moving.
	Yeah.
	Do this so that we can, you know, move on to the next phase of the day.
	And children are obviously going to be resistant to being told what to do because that's in their nature.
	But the impact of that is that you spend all of your energy speaking on these conversations rather on anything that is of a deeper personal interest to you.
	And you have to spend a lot of energy on these things.
	And you have to spend a huge amount of energy on these things.
	And so having some avenue for adult interactions is necessary for women's mental health, really.
	But you're in this highly atomized society where you barely have any interactions with your neighbors.
	Female conversation also is what you're talking about.
	Female conversations.
	It's not just female, it's adult.
	I think it's the adult.
	But also, how often do they get to make an interaction with another female friend?
	That's often part of it.
	Yeah, yeah, that's we can come home and talk about tanks at the end of the day, but you know.
	But it's not just that.
	You are absolutely right.
	It's about, and I've had my wife complain about.
	She's like, I haven't spoken to an adult all day.
	I just want to have a conversation like I would to any other normal person.
	Yes.
	And you can completely understand that actually there is a real issue with the breakdown of society.
	Because I mean, this is what happened when women en masse entered the workforce.
	Like, yeah, okay, well, there were a series of things that women did outside of the economic zone that was what we considered to be society.
	Like, you know, the arranging of things.
	Yeah, the parish.
	This is why all of the churches are run by church ladies.
	Yes.
	One of the consequences, they lived in these networks and they had a center of community, which was the church and the parish center next to the church or whatever it is.
	And that provided them with these outlets for adult conversation, adult organization, actual work that kept society together and kept a community together.
	And so you're not going to church anymore.
	That's a problem.
	Your family lives far away from you.
	That's a problem.
	That's a real problem.
	Your neighbors are strangers and they're constantly shifting.
	That's a third problem.
	So the ability to build lifelong friendships and relationships that are just as necessary for women as they are for men Is sort of gutted.
	I mean, this is the sort of thing that I.
	I mean, my dad was in the RF, so we moved around all the time.
	But I'd see it with my cousins, right?
	When we went to visit them, like their neighbor, we'd go to their neighbor's house, and so their parents would have some free time while we're like playing PlayStation or Nintendo or whatever in their cousin's friend's house, you know.
	Because everyone knew each other, everything was, you know, they're all friends and totally trustworthy.
	They'd live next to each other their whole lives.
	But now women are basically finding themselves completely self-alone.
	Like it's genuinely the sort of rugged individualism has been forced upon stay-at-home mothers.
	Yes.
	And it's rough.
	That is really rough.
	And it doesn't suit the women much more than it doesn't suit the men because women are a lot more social.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And they need these outlets.
	They need these, you know, they also need a meeting place.
	I think this is something we've forgotten, right?
	And that used to be the parish.
	You know, my parish is quite, I would say, forward-thinking.
	It's actually looking backwards and what it does.
	I mean, you know, there are Sherry evenings.
	There are, and these are regular events.
	These are, you know, at least bi-weekly men's groups, women's groups, you know, parish family days, all that kind of stuff, picnics, whatever it is.
	The opportunities for people to meet.
	They don't have to come to everyone, but they can connect and they can go away and they might find out they live next door.
	Yes.
	And then they can actually build that network themselves.
	Yes.
	But the problem is we don't have a where are you going to meet?
	You're going to take your child down the pub?
	I mean, like, exactly.
	They used to, but like, it's not just that, though, as well.
	It's, it's like with the loss of this sort of the stay-at-home mum community, I guess we could call it.
	Yes.
	It's the unexpected intercessions, right?
	Where like, oh, little James and his sister are going over to Bonnie's house to, you know, because she's baking a cake.
	And do your kids want to come over for a few hours?
	And, you know, the mother's like, oh, thank God, a couple of hours.
	I can get the house clean.
	I can have a bit of peace and quiet for a couple of an hour or so.
	Like these random events that alleviate some of the burden all disappear.
	And you've all got to check that her surname isn't blue because that would be a real problem.
	Well, yeah, obviously.
	I was just off the top of my head.
	I was trying to think of an old-fashioned name.
	But the point is that there were always these series of unexpected and pleasant surprises that, you know, and then you do the same for them.
	You know, there's always like, you know, I'm going to go down the street.
	Which is always a gift and dig because it's neighborhood.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm walking down to the local shop.
	You know, do your kids want to ride their bikes down with my kids?
	And then you've got an hour to yourself.
	And it was always this small lattice of things that are happening.
	And that's just disappeared.
	And if you could have them play with other children, you could sort of say, well, you know, you get to play in this room and you don't get to go up to the bedrooms.
	Whereas if it's your children on their own, they have free runs.
	Free run the whole house.
	So the damage is contained to one room, whereas working on the others.
	So this ability to shift burdens by having social networks is absolutely critical.
	And now it's just mum on her own.
	Yes.
	There is a practical, there's a practical element as well about knowing who your kids are playing with.
	That's the other issue that now, because I think a lot of parents, particularly conservative parents, get insular because they feel like they're going to be literally going around to Bonnie Blue's house or whoever.
	It could be literally anyone.
	You know, if you just let your kids play in the street, they're probably going to end up, you know, coming back with Western treating on the occasion.
	This is generally one of the problems is that you don't, because of the diversification of society and the mobility that people demonstrate in society now, like you, not social mobility, but like physical mobility.
	Yes.
	You don't know who the people are around you.
	And so.
	No, stranger danger is real.
	Well, it's not even, it's not even that you think like that.
	It's just that you don't know that person.
	It's a low-trust society.
	Exactly.
	And so you never built a bond with them.
	And so it's not that they can just go from that kid's house or their kids can come into your house.
	It just doesn't work that way.
	The erosion of shared values means that you don't trust your neighbors as much as you could, as much as you should in a healthy society.
	And the source of these shared values was pretty obvious.
	And it was in part homogeneity and familiarity and people growing up next to each other and being able to say, Well, he's my childhood friend.
	Of course, I trust him and his wife.
	And this is gone.
	And the atomization is daunting.
	It's really exhausting.
	And especially for women.
	And this is the point of all of this: that it is not unreasonable for this PhD woman, you know, scientist, to be like, I am frazzled trying to raise just two children as well.
	She's not that, you know, just two.
	You know, completely frazzled.
	I can't seem to find anything solid or secure to stand on.
	No, I've got no one helping me.
	I'm on my own during the day.
	And by the end of it, I just want to have an adult conversation and a bit of quiet.
	That is a totally reasonable response to the circumstances that are put in.
	But they shouldn't really be in these circumstances.
	They should have wider networks of support.
	And modern liberal capitalism, as you know, as we are in, actively undermines that.
	Yes.
	And deliberately makes this more difficult.
	Yes.
	Anyway.
	So that's our version of feminism.
	It's having women as women being women.
	Not wanting them to be men.
	That's the long and short of it.
	And having their own networks and their own independence and their own parallel society.
	I actually am against rugged individualism for mums.
	Yes.
	I am against it.
	And I think that's what it genuinely, as you say, like a proper feminism, like a womanism, would actually be more geared towards making that life easier.
	Yes.
	And that's, I think, what would be more.
	And it involves a high trust society and involves a shared set of values and involves stable housing situations for people.
	And it involves development, economic development across the board, not just in London and the Southeast.
	When you think this way, it has implications for pretty much everything.
	So if you put life first and if you put the welfare of children first, naturally you put the welfare of mothers first.
	And then you ask yourself, what is the best society for a mother to function in?
	Well, it's got to be high trust.
	It's got to be economically stable.
	It's got to have shared values.
	It's got to have good neighborhoods.
	Everything else follows from that.
	Yeah.
	And you can tell that this would be a community that had a kind of internal vitality rather than a series of individuals who feel like they're barely hanging out.
	But then that's the irony of the left because they're always trying to cater for outliers.
	Yes.
	But only in a society like that are outliers catered for.
	Yes.
	Exactly.
	That's the problem.
	So in a society like that, if family X had a tragedy and the father was out of work or died or whatever, you can easily see the community coming together and saying, well, we have a duty towards this family.
	Yes.
	And we have a duty towards these children.
	Of course.
	And we want to make sure that their living standards may not be the same, but they're not living in a world.
	They're not going to go hungry.
	They're not living in paupery.
	They're not going to go hungry.
	They have clothes.
	They have food.
	They have the basic necessities.
	In a charity like that, you can afford to be charitable to your neighbors.
	Yeah, of course.
	Whereas what we have here is a new coerced charity by the state, which ends up supporting the worst elements of society.
	And you would want to help your neighbors as well.
	You wouldn't resent it.
	The new axis coming up, and man, am I already really resentful?
	Like, insanely resentful.
	So, you know, but I wouldn't obviously, I'd be very happy to help.
	Yes.
	Exactly.
	So, anyway, the point being is the way that we're doing social life and family life is just wrong.
	And I'm actually very sympathetic to what state-owned mothers have to go through, frankly, on a daily basis.
	So thanks, darling.
	I much appreciate your sacrifice.
	Do we have a love our wives?
	Yeah.
	Do you have video comments today, Harry?
	No, right, okay, great.
	Martin says, invoking Christian morality, we shall too.
	Let those who lead the little ones astray be thrown into the sea with the millstones around their necks.
	There you go.
	Yeah, man, your sentence was mad, wasn't it?
	Omar says, the term someone who experiments in defiance of nature and the natural order is a mad scientist.
	Excuse me, these lunatics are so steeped in the sin of pride that they think they can play God ethically.
	And that's the thing.
	It's just so mad that they say, yeah, so we're going to experiment on some kids now, irreversible, irrevocable, and possibly life-threatening experiments.
	And we're just going to do this.
	It's just normal.
	Because this is what the scientific process requires.
	Yeah.
	Because this is what the process requires.
	This is what this is what will set these children free.
	Insane.
	Baron von Moorhawk says, and it literally is creating eunuchs.
	We're going to create a eunuch class for whatever goddamn reason.
	In any other period in history, these types of doctors who want to experiment on children by injecting them with chemicals and slicing apart genitals would have been burned at the stake by now.
	History will not look upon this favorably.
	Yeah, it's pretty mad.
	There should be trials for all of these people at some point.
	There have to be trials.
	The thing is, I don't think there will be, because I think that they, because they sincerely believe what they are doing is right, nobody believes them to be evil, right?
	Like, the average person doesn't think.
	The average child sacrificer thinks that he is doing the right thing to appease the gods.
	This should be treated in the exact same way.
	Yeah, but there's no just anger.
	That's the problem.
	So yeah.
	There should be just anger.
	Yeah, but there should be.
	Why isn't there?
	There isn't because everyone's been pacified.
	Everyone will prefer to go along.
	You see it all the time.
	There's that famous experiment where someone gets treated unfairly in a class, and the whole point of the experiment is to show that no one does anything about it.
	We've been neutered as a society.
	We don't have a just morality.
	I think there's more than that.
	I think that basically the prevailing morality of our society is more freedom is better, right?
	And so we're streetings of the world saying, well, we're trying to provide these poor children with more freedom.
	Yes.
	It aligns with the prevailing morality.
	It goes back to frameworks because what is freedom?
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	Freedom is just totally different to completely agree, obviously.
	But the point is that it doesn't flag up red flags for us.
	Whereas if someone's like, well, I'm a practicing Aztec and now I have to sacrifice some humans, we would naturally take umbrage with it because it goes so against the grain of our own morality.
	But I think the problem is because it's flowing down the same river of our own morality, we just can't muster the outrage and the indignant.
	Steve says, I think the only way that I will be okay with this is if we perform these experiments on life-sentence criminals.
	The thing is, there are no children serving life sentences, so it can't be done.
	So basically, it should be an area of science that is essentially effectively off-limits for moral reasons, if not for the practical reason of dementing a person's body.
	Ben says, I don't think Christianity is actually a solution to this.
	Christianity failed to stop this, failed to condemn it, and in many cases openly supports it.
	So all of the cope of atheists did this falls flat.
	Don't go to mega church, Pastor Bob.
	Firstly, and secondly, I mean, the 20th century is most characterized by atheism, arguably the 19th as well.
	So, no.
	Definitely the 20th.
	Definitely the 20th.
	The beginning of the 19th was the high watermark of Protestant proselytizing across Africa and wherever else.
	So, you know, I don't think I'd argue for that, but definitely the latter of the 20th century has just been the death of religion.
	Also, the earlier half.
	Well, I would have said a slow decline than a falling off cliff, right?
	Yes.
	If you want to know what Christianity thinks about this, ask an African Christian the same question.
	Exactly.
	Where they haven't been tainted by this ideology, and they'll tell you the answer.
	Yes.
	Exactly.
	Thane Scotty says, it's all well and fair saying, don't hate the player, hate the game.
	Oh, no, I'm being called out now.
	But people have agency.
	So, no, I will hate the player.
	And the game.
	The game is being held up by players who choose to do so.
	Okay, he's got me here.
	I mean, you know, what am I going to say to this?
	Moral determinism in South Bangladesh is at an all-time low.
	I should be able to hate groups of people whose culture is based on lying and deception, especially when it's an attempt to try and pass themselves off as one of my countrymen and ideological fellows.
	Skinwalkers, changelings, sirens.
	We have traditional warnings about creeps which appear to be human, which aren't.
	People who wear your face in an attempt to deceive you for their own benefit should be despised and genuinely cascaded.
	Okay, that's me told.
	What am I going to say to that?
	I don't think there's an answer, mate.
	There's literally no comeback to this.
	We thank you, Thane Scotty, and we agree with you.
	I concede the point.
	Jordy Salzman says, Inevitable West is obviously Josh's alt.
	How can he ensure a steady stream of segment material?
	Yeah.
	And Omar says, the slopper counts have been doing their thing too where they announce breaking news, such and such count as Indian, where they've self-admitted it on their timeline years ago.
	Doubtless.
	Stay-at-home mums on that bit.
	The mother of hate monsters says, I've been a stay-at-home mum for 20 years, and these women are full of shit.
	Tell us about your neighbors.
	It's not that hard.
	It's literally what you were built for.
	Yes, it can be tiring at times.
	There's literally nothing I would rather have done.
	Now my kids are 20 or 15.
	I miss them being younger and all the ups and downs that went with it.
	It was awesome.
	So what I like is that, you know, I think that what we were saying was generally true, but they're always outliers, right?
	You've got the mums who are just built for this kind of thing, who got it down.
	In fairness, is what their build is for.
	It is true, but.
	And I'm not commenting on her particular situation, but like, for example, with my eldest son, he was absolutely just the most lovely, cooperative child in the world.
	He was good all the time.
	And we left it about like six, seven years until we had more.
	And we took for granted just how lovely and cooperative he was because the other two are little terrors.
	And it is built into them in the various earliest moments.
	It is part of the core person that they are, that they will just act in the way that the character is.
	And so we were very lucky with the older two.
	And I mean, we're very lucky with the younger two, but they are just stop doing stuff.
	Stop.
	Well, actually, you made a really good point that can be reversed, Sally, which is that you learn this set of skills through being a stay-at-home mum, but society used to teach those skills before you got there.
	And because society is geared towards going into career, for both men and women, you don't learn what it means to be a father or mother.
	And also, siblings don't have the same interaction they used to in larger families.
	And if you have a larger family, the eldest children are trained to be able to.
	They become the de facto mother at some age.
	You pull your little brother off the edge of a cliff or whatever, then you're already.
	My eldest daughter does this.
	My eldest daughter does take care of the other two extremely well.
	And you can see that she's learning skills that are going to help her.
	And you can see that the more of them there is, the more of them are going to learn this skill.
	And it's part of instinct.
	That's why there are these stereotypes about the youngest kid being always lazy.
	They're all kind of stereotypes, but the youngest, oh, he's going to be absolutely lazy and spoiled.
	Whereas for the others, it's just not an option.
	You have to take care of somebody smaller than you, and you have to learn how to do that.
	Not only that, they are occupying them as well.
	A lot of the trouble that my youngest two get into is when they're just bored.
	Yes, oh, you know, my four-year-old will find something and he'll bring over the two-year-old, and they'll be water all over the place.
	And if there was like, you know, a seven or eight-year-old around also playing with them, that wouldn't have happened.
	Yes, they will get it in the neck from the parents.
	But more and less destroy things.
	Yeah, yeah, that's that's such an ingrained impulse.
	You see it in dogs, you see it in children, you see it in human beings.
	It's uh, not that children aren't human beings, but I just compare children to dogs, it's in our nature.
	Uh, Lady Sarcastro says, Child psychologists have been saying uh for years that children need a parent at home for at least the first six years, preferably 12 years, with the absolute ideal of 18 years.
	Uh, study after study shows the reason our children are going off the rails is usually due to a lack of mothers going back to work too soon.
	I don't know how we make staying at home socially acceptable yet, but we really need to.
	Well, this is part of the whole community around it.
	Yeah, the whole of society has to be geared towards the welfare of women, and the welfare of women doesn't mean them going to the workplace.
	These are two different things.
	It's the welfare of children, but that requires the welfare of women, and that requires the work of the men.
	So, there's you know, outward concentric circles on this, but that's ladies.
	This is the reason that I was covering this.
	It's like, look, like the and it was in particular this guy's TikTok, where I was just like, Man, you've no idea what's coming, you have no idea.
	If you think you think stay-at-home moms being lazy, you have no idea what you're in for.
	So, my one-year-old Logan has something to say, and I want to sort of let him say it.
	Uh, look, I don't care how much they complain.
	If I find a woman that's willing to be a stay-at-home mom, I'm putting a ring on her.
	I don't care if I have to work 60 plus hours to support her.
	That is the right attitude.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Yeah, but uh, but this chap is that for me, it was there was some sort of uh you know pleasant naivete about it because they take a mid-morning nap and they take a mid-afternoon nap, and then mealtime just involves sitting them in a chair and feeding them.
	And it takes, what, 20 minutes, half an hour?
	And they can't do that, and they can't cause the kind of damage which they will.
	My eldest, when she was young, was when she was one, she could do things, yeah.
	It's not they can't do things, it's just that they don't have the sort of manual dexterity and physical power to really do anything terribly destructive.
	Uh, mostly it's opening drawers, finding jars, and throwing them, yeah, but you know, that's that's the thing is, it gets it gets worse.
	Um, anyway, uh, and uh, Arizona Desert Rat says, if your children are ungrateful, that's most likely a you problem.
	Gratitude is almost always needs to be taught since the child's default setting is selfishness.
	That's definitely true, yes.
	Uh, and stay-at-home mums and dads are also the people usually end up volunteering at schools and charities, and as you were pointing out on the local parish, uh, which is definitely true.
	But anyway, so uh, thank you for joining us, folks.
	Uh, thanks for joining us.
	Uh, Joseph, where can people find more from you?
	Uh, well, on X, you can follow me at JR Types and um, Joseph Robertson UK on Instagram and JR Types on Substack as well.
	Okay, great, and we're going to be going live, Joseph and I, in half an hour and having a long conversation about the condition of Britain and how to fix it, what to expect from reform, a lot of other juicy subjects.
	So, please join us in half an hour.

▲