Hello Anna, thank you very much for coming. So last night I was thinking I wonder whether
Anna's forgotten about the arrangement from months ago I think.
It was in my diary yeah we had some difficulties finding dates because the summer was busy.
Yes.
Right well well done.
Yes.
Great to have you here on the 1st of November in Melbourne but Halloween for you in UK. Welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
In today's discussion this group was founded by Dr Stephen Frost during the darkest days of the
COVID scam responses with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health
and matters far broader than merely COVID.
Stephen Frost has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower
and activist, his medical specialty is radiology. I apologize for my voice. On Monday night I spent
a four, I did a four hour presentation live and Q&A Stephen to an audience of some 70 people and
I got too passionate and excited and kept talking so that's what's happened to my voice. I'm Charles
Covets the moderator of this group. I'm Australasia's passion provocateur. I practiced law for 20 years
before changing career 30 years ago and over the last 12 years I've helped parents and lawyers to
strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice. I'm also the CEO of an
industrial hemp company. We comprise lots of professions including doctors, lawyers, homeopath
journalists, scientists, filmmakers, professors, peacemakers, troublemakers and theoretical
physicists. That's you Benjamin. And we're from all around the world. Many of us thought that
vaccines were okay. Now many of us proudly say yes we are passionate anti-vaxxers. If this is
your first time here welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat and where you're
from. If you publish a newsletter or a podcast or you have a radio or tv show or you've written a book
put the links into the chat so we can follow you promote you and find you. Most of us understand
we're in the middle of world war three and that there are various battle lines as part of this war.
Most of us understand the development of the science and the science is never settled.
Some of us believe in viruses some do not some are on the fence. This meeting runs for two and a half
hours after which for those with the time Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting. Tom puts
the links into the chat if you're able to join. We'll listen to Anna Lutfi our guest for as long
as Anna wishes to speak and then we have Q&A. Stephen Frostfight long established tradition asks
the first questions for 15 minutes. There's no censorship that's a free speech environment
with appropriate moderating free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve
our human freedoms and I remind you that the communist playbook from which my parents were
refugees in 1949 to Australia the communist playbook is to start with the limiting of free speech.
If you're offended by anything be offended we're genuinely not interested we reject the
offense industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another. We come with
an attitude and perspective of love not fear. Fear is the opposite of love. Fear squashes you,
love on the other hand expands you. These twice weekly meetings are not just talkfests
an extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by attendees
in these meetings. If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help
people put the details into the chat the meeting is recorded and is uploaded on the Rumble channel
and now welcome to our guest presenter Anna Lutfi Barrister, Dr Lutfi, a doctor of law,
PhD in law I presume Anna and we thank you so much for giving us your time sharing your wisdom and
insights well done on your work on education we've all had a look at your bio that we shared in the
invitation and thank you Stephen Frost again for creating this group and for organizing
Anna to be with us today. Anna we are in your hands.
Well thanks very much for inviting me obviously I'm really thrilled and I can see lots of people
in attendance so thanks to all of you for your attention and for giving me time this evening
to talk about my work with primarily the Bad Law Project which is a project that I work as a legal
consultant to. The Bad Law Project was set up by Lawrence Fox who's the leader of the Reclaim Party
which in its own way is trying to challenge the sort of two-party stranglehold on our current
system where on many of the key policies some of which you've touched on the two parties seem
completely identical and then growing swathes of the population in the UK don't feel represented
so the Reclaim Party if it doesn't have a chance of getting into power at least tries to shake up
the conversation because as was just said the communist playbook does start with speech and
although I'm not going to talk about Covid today and I'm not going to talk about the science of
the medical industry and how it's constructed to serve particular agendas you will find that the
story that I'm going to tell has much in common with that particular narrative the Covid-19
narrative and the mandated vaccination program. So I'm an employment and human rights barrister,
I have my own chambers, I'm self-employed as I said I work as a consultant to the Bad Law Project.
Let me just say a little bit about why the Bad Law Project was founded because I've mentioned the
political wing of the organisation which is the Reclaim Party but the Bad Law Project is a separate
independent think tank that is available to people who want to discuss the problem of what
we call bad law in the United Kingdom and it's important that I define bad law because it's sort
of relevant to explaining the issues that I think you've invited me here to discuss namely the
primary issue being how has major institutions in our society been seemingly captured
by activists who wish to promote a certain political narrative and to sanction those of
us who wish to challenge that narrative. Now I think we're all aware of how
mono-dimensional our political and public cultures have become and how political classes but also
representatives of high-profile positions in both the public and private sector all seem to speak
from the same hymn book if you will but I think nothing makes us more uneasy when we see this
as when we see it taking place in our schools because if it's true that the communist playbook
starts with censorship and a chilling effect as we lawyers say on free speech it also starts
with indoctrination programs in the youngest among us in our society who are too inexperienced,
too vulnerable and too susceptible to question narratives which us adults in our own way we can
find mechanisms to challenge even if we don't feel completely empowered there are ways in which
we can organize and speak and think freely amongst ourselves but children don't have that option
because their minds haven't been developed for long enough to be able to exert sovereignty over
themselves and so they are absolutely susceptible to suggestion and the school is an institution
which holds them supposedly in loco parentis for hours and hours of every single day so most
children spend much more time at school with their peers and with their teachers than they
actually do with their parents and siblings and I think we forget that but whilst across the public
and private education sectors there are a variety of systems in place to vet and monitor teachers
in schools so that they are not behaving in ways that are considered to be inappropriate
whether that be in terms of what they're teaching and also in terms of their behaviour and comportment
there is a whole arena of stakeholders if you will who are not subject to any vetting or any
regulatory oversight whatever and they have total free access to our schools and in the UK
we call them the third sector and I'm going to talk about the third sector in a moment so what
the bad law project is trying to do is to identify where quasi private actors often posing as charities
often posing as consultants often posing as experts scientific experts
pediatric experts people who've got expertise in child development and education
how these kinds of actors that operate in the so-called third sector manage to get access to
institutions and in the process they rewrite the rules if you will and what is happening over time
is that society not just in schools but across different sectors of life is being transformed
away from actual law most of our institutions most of our lives in so far as they're conducted
publicly are regulated by legal structures but when you look at the role of the third sector what
it does is it tries to undermine actual legal structures legal regulations and legal sources
which at the end of the day faulty though they are are subject to oversight and are also
scrutinized in public authorities in spaces where public authorities hold sway such as the UK
parliament they're scrutinized and members of the public can have opinions on what legislation is
drafted and whether it's fit for purpose they can also apply to repeal it petition to have it
reviewed there are lots and lots of ways in which the public can engage with the legislators in order
to oversee correct and debate aspects of the laws that govern our lives but when you have
institutions operating according to policies and guidance that are drawn up by third sector experts
the law becomes irrelevant and everybody is working from documents telling them what to do
and what will be done and for what objectives and the timelines but nobody in the general public
has any idea who drafted that that policy how it was approved at what interests are served and how
it can be challenged and we all know that democracies rest on the idea that decisions
can be challenged that's the that is along with freedom of expression and debate the ability to
challenge law is a key way in which people exert their democratic freedoms and rights so when the
legal world starts to shrivel and you have lawyers increasingly working with electronic systems
on data using databases and cloud systems and online platforms it's only a matter of time before
we see that aspect of the law wither away as we become increasingly digitalized and algorithms
drive decision making but we're also seeing the written letter of the law wither away
because increasingly what is legislated is not actually what is governing how people behave
so our schools are basically governed by the third sector and these are not legal provisions that
we can challenge as a public the bad law project sets out to identify what is being done on a
policy basis and who are the actors behind the scenes and then trying to find means often non-
legal means such as general campaigning to show the decisions that are being made to try and identify
who's making them and the impact that it's having and to get the public behind campaigns to challenge
so it's basically a legal project that fights policies disguised as good law and we call those
policies bad law and the way that we call them bad is because they're not accountable
and they seem to have very politicized agendas which haven't been agreed to by the
the voting public and that we can't hold those policies to account as I said and so that that is
what we define as as bad law and we try to bring it out into the open so everyone can see what's
going on and so when we built our education initiative with the bad law project we were
looking at the role of the third sector in schools and the impact that it's having on children's
welfare now I'm sure all of you could think of millions of ways in which education is skewed
and indoctrinating children and trying to marginalize certain views and promote others but
really the the case that we're working on is to do with one issue in particular which does have
obviously strong connections to the work that you're doing on covid and that is the
the promotion in schools of something called gender ideology which in a nutshell is the
uh vicious lie unscientific and immoral lie that a child can be born in the wrong body
which is the starting point ideologically for a child to start asking all sorts of unhealthy
questions about themselves that is designed to lead that child very swiftly into
a sort of medicalized identity where they will be potentially susceptible to all sorts of medical
interventions psychological interventions that will again service those same interest groups
that we sell we see and we saw during the covid so-called pandemic namely the pharmaceutical
companies so so gender ideology is very much connected to pharmaceutical agendas and the
pharmaceutical lobby groups that exist behind the scenes if you will because obviously when a child
identifies as the opposite sex that there are myriad medical procedures which suddenly they become
a captured audience for or a willing customer if you like but the biggest problem with targeting
children in this way is precisely the reason why children are also an attractive audience for the
third sector the problem with children is that they are young and therefore consent is usually
required from their parents if they are to be making any kind of adult-like decision but the
reason that the third sector enjoys targeting them is because they're also susceptible and the
reason they're susceptible is because they are young so there's a kind of contradiction there
you've got a captive audience that will do what you tell them to do and that's why they're
not able to tell them but you have this annoying obstacle in the way even though you've managed to
get into the institutions you've still got these damn parents who happen to love their children
very much and 99.9 percent of them absolutely are unconvinced by gender ideology or the idea
that you can be born in the wrong body some for faith reasons some for secular humanist reasons
some for plain old common sense reasons some for scientific reasons but most parents do not want
to transition and don't think it's healthy or sensible for young children to be fed this idea
so they have to go how do authoritarian systems tackle parents well they usually set up clever
state-supported parental schemes that do the same work as parents do and they usually set those
schemes up to assist children from dysfunctional backgrounds children from impoverished or broken
backgrounds who don't have the sort of parental and family support that most children deserve
and we know that welfare systems across the western world have traditionally justified their
existence for precisely those vulnerable in society who don't have any other means of support children
included now most parents don't fall into the broken or dysfunctional category and in fact
what is fascinating about human beings given all that they are subjected to every day no matter
which culture or moment in history they come from is that they manage to successfully rear relatively
functioning human beings and they do this whether they're poor or middle income or incredibly wealthy
and they do this sometimes against all odds when they have very very disabled children
or very difficult family circumstances they manage to raise healthy children why because
they unconditionally love them because those children are their children that is a big problem
because it's very difficult for the state to come along and say we've got something better than this
unconditional love we've got a whole system of care that is equal to if not superior to parental
love the state simply can't do it well what we saw in the 1960s was the introduction of something
called the whole child approach which was the idea that children should not just be taught subjects
that the curriculum decides are good for them to know to prepare for professions or careers or life
at vocations after they leave school the traditional subjects that we all know that we did at school
you know arithmetic and reading and writing and all that sort of thing and then going on possibly
some of us to a university degree system where we choose one specialized subject no the whole
child approach has been introduced with the express purpose of dealing with a child's life outside of
school again ostensibly it was introduced in the 1960s to tackle predominantly african-american
schools in certain parts of the united states where there were high levels of dysfunction or
family breakdown but once this was rolled out with huge sponsorship from international funds
the rockefeller foundation being one poured a lot of money into into this scheme so that it could
be mainstreamed across different jurisdictions not just the united states but once it had been
established in this couple of african-american schools it became a dominant ideology for pedagogy
generally across the united states and also in the united kingdom so from the 70s onwards we see the
whole child approach entrenching itself in the uk school system and as i say the whole child approach
says we don't just do reading writing and arithmetic what we do is we tackle things
that children need to know about life sexual relationships drugs dating friends health hygiene
dealing with anxiety depression things that don't actually have to do with the school curriculum
per se but will help equip them for a better world and and the more discerning amongst you
in the audience will have already picked up that once we introduce the whole child approach which
is basically defined as not the curriculum subjects you have a space and this space is not really
defined so it's not really clear what this sort of social personal education should really consist
of in the united kingdom it is mandated to teach something called relationships and sex education
which is basically an outcome of the whole child approach in our school system but it's not clear
what should be taught as relationship and sex education because it's not it's not like english
where there's a curriculum and everybody's sort of agreed that children will learn to read books and
discuss ideas and things like that personal social education or relationships and sex education
doesn't have a clear remit and and and no clear remit has been provided by government so you need
to have schools need to sort of know what they're supposed to do when they're mandated by the state
to teach it so what they do is they get these charities coming in whom they pay with taxpayers
money if it's public if it's a private if it's a state school sorry
they take these charities these consultants and they say look can you can you just tell us what
we're supposed to be doing here and these educational charities have reams and reams of
material which they have prepared for every age group taking them through the various stages of
what they say will give them a complete and appropriate age appropriate introduction to the
adult world and these people nobody knows who they are nobody knows what qualifications they hold
to know exactly how they're assessing child age appropriateness but the outrage that has been felt
by parents since this thing has been mainstreamed and especially with the appearance of gender
ideology within the framework of relationships and sex education has been remarkable so we're
now talking hundreds and hundreds of parents who are starting to become openly vocal about their
desire to translate their frustration into legal action and that's what we're working on at the
bad law project a legal action that will reflect the concerns that these parents have these parents
are concerned about several things first of all they're concerned about the fact that they don't
know what relationships and sex education is as i said it's mandated by government but
legally parents still retain a right to withdraw children from something called sex education but
they have to keep their children in school for relationships education as i say no one's ever
bothered to distinguish those two things and we don't know which lessons a parent could withdraw
their child from so there's a whole obfuscation there that frustrates parents because they
they know that what's being pushed in relationships education is often sex education by the back door
and sometimes quite graphic and quite inappropriate so that's one concern they have the second concern
they have is that when they ask to see the materials that these providers these third sector providers
are bringing into schools and showing children they will be told by the school that they can't
see those materials those materials are protected under copyright law by secrecy clauses and it would
be against the commercial interests of these so-called charities kwangos it would be against
their commercial interests for parents to see and possibly copy and share these materials
it's a nonsense of course but the information commissioner's office in this country has supported
schools that have denied materials to parents even when they've been challenged legally by parents
and i'm working with parents who have challenged the information commissioner's office and
and i know exactly how she struggled to get access to these materials and what she was told when there
was some sort of compromise done after the conclusion of her legal case which she lost
was that the school said she could come in and basically see the materials for five minutes or
so but she had to sign an agreement that she wouldn't distribute or disclose the contents
again for private commercial reasons so as this parent put it basically parents if they do struggle
to see the the the resources and they demand their rights as parents to do so they basically get
forced to sign some sort of non-disclosure agreement ostensibly in the interests of
protecting commercial property intellectual property but i think we can also think of other
reasons as well which is that the success of this third sector invasion of our schools
has largely rested on the fact that most people have absolutely no idea what they are teaching
now what are they teaching well i can't i can't tell you about all of it because it would take
too long but the parents that i'm working with to build a case against the department for education
are particularly angry about the constant references to gender identity as a
as a valid identity in the world and one that has been historically persecuted in the same way that
black people were persecuted in the united states for their skin color it's a ludicrous
ludicrous assertion but using and distorting our equality laws again bad law they take the equality
law which is good legislation and they redefine it interpret it change words around and in doing
so they can promote their own agenda through their own consultancy packages as good law but it's not
it's fraudulent law it's bad law and using this bad law approach they promote gender identity as
a protected characteristic under the equality act making it similar to race so that you couldn't
question anything that they say about gender identity because then you're the equivalent
of a racist who's challenging the idea that black people should be equal in society but the problem
that the many of the parents have is not that they think that gender identity people should not or
transgender people should not be equal it's that they don't think it's appropriate to tell a child
that they've been born in the wrong body and some of these parents have experienced horrendous
consequences as a result of being told as a result of their children being taught
that gender identity is a valid beautiful identity and that their parents shouldn't try to stop them
if they want to explore that identity and that there are lots of resources online that they can
go to if they want to explore their gender identity we have charities so called in this country
advertising chest binders to young girls as they're going through puberty and are probably quite
distressed by their changing bodies in any event imagine telling a pubescent child that the things
that are happening to their body can be reversed because they might actually be the opposite sex
it is psychological gaslighting it is sexual and physical experimentation by the pharmaceutical and
public state sector on our children when they are too young to be able to question
and and stand up to this this kind of indoctrination and i should add actually that in
uk law political indoctrination of children is actually prohibited under the education act 1996
and so parents are thinking about possibly using that as one of their legal strategies in to
building their case is to actually make the point that children shouldn't be promote shouldn't be
indoctrinated with ideas without there being a fair hearing for the other side of the argument
so that's that's just a side note on political indoctrination it is illegal unlawful to
politically indoctrinate children but it's happening in our schools and it doesn't seem to
matter because as i say diversity and equality and inclusion policies are taking precedence
over good legend good legislation and good law in our country and so the latter one tends to
to be left aside as the the political policy wonks take control of our institutions
so the parents are pretty pissed off about the secrecy aspect and they're pissed off about
if you excuse my french they're annoyed about the promotion of this very dangerous
mental and physical ideological assault on their children which for many of them
has resulted in their children deciding that they are transgender it has resulted in their children
changing their names and their pronouns which may sound innocent to many of you because it
doesn't involve medical intervention but talking to these parents i can tell you that when a child
who you've raised as a son or as a daughter lovingly comes home and tells you that they're a boy and
they want to use a male name the psychological impact not just on the child but on the parents
and siblings is huge it's basically imposing a sort of civil death of the child on the entire
family and if the if the parents don't celebrate this if they don't show the child that they're
enthusiastic about it the child will have learned from the equality diversity experts at school
that that is so-called transphobia that means that their parents are basically white supremacists
that means that their parents are basically fascists who want to destroy them and don't
love them and don't care about them at all and so we were also seeing psychological breakdown
in family relationships as a result of this idea in schools and then of course we have the children
that have gone further than that not just taking a pronoun and a name but also engaging with various
forms of chemical castration attempts to slow down or reverse puberty cross-sex hormones
puberty blockers as i mentioned chest binders and although there are very few children in this country
who have gone through a full medical transition through surgeries not not as many at least as the
united states the amount of children who are messing around with their identities in harm
harmful ways and often downloading things from the internet without anybody's intervention or
ability to stop them often signposted to those sources by the schools themselves is is very
worrying so to conclude my remarks the parents wish to bring a case and a very unusual case
against a public authority the department for education on the basis that as a as a group of
litigants whilst their stories are all different on some level on the facts they have something in
common which is that gender ideology has damaged their families and damaged the relationship they
have with their children and damaged their children both psychologically and physically
and they say that the department for education has not only failed to prevent this happening
which is an omission that we say amounts to a tort in negligence they have actively promoted
these third sector charity groups by signposting them in their guidance documents by listing them
as reputable sources of information by stating in their in their guidance that schools must
discuss gender ideology they don't call it gender ideology but they call it transgenderism or
whatever they call it so there is a way in which the policies mandate the promotion of this idea
without any balance or discussion about the other side of the picture so this is a statutory breach
of the education act 1996 which makes it unlawful to for schools to allow political indoctrination
and it's also in a way a willful positive act promoting a very harmful ideology that has itself
resulted in the harms which we say are foreseeable and therefore we're bringing our case
for negligence a failure to act and also positive promotion of a dangerous ideology and it is our
hope that we will lodge a claim in the next few months there's a lot of press interest there's a
lot of teachers who are interested in supporting us we've had a lot of whistleblower teachers who
can't be named but who are supplying us with information and as I say we have a lot of parents
who are who are who are grateful to have some sort of channel for airing their grievances but also
possibly getting the government to listen to these grievances so that active and effective change can
be enacted in our country to stop this happening which would be absolutely wonderful and I'll just
conclude with one point about the parents it's interesting that a lot of the children who are
are vulnerable to this idea of changing their sex are white middle-class children
I think it's to do with the fact that it's a way for white middle-class children to perhaps have a
diversity qualification at school that makes them special because they don't have the racial
they don't have the racialized victimhood they don't have the low-income victimhood so white middle-class
children in a society that encourages victimhood and suffering as a sort of form of identity
the transgender option is open to them and so we're seeing a lot of white middle-class children
who are being harmed by it but the parents who are concerned about it are parents from every single
walk of life and I've had a lot of religious faith-based community representatives reach out
from Jewish and Muslim communities obviously also Christians as well but I've also had people from
you know wealthy private school backgrounds who are educating their children at their own expense for
you know tens of thousands of pounds a year and I've also had low-income families struggling on
low incomes whose children are in the state sector so it's worth noting that the response
that we've had to the launch of our campaign we've had responses from people across the class spectrum
across the political spectrum from every creed color and religious faith men women fathers and
mothers so this is really something that speaks to people from very different backgrounds and in that
I think it can be a good way of highlighting to our current administration whatever color
its political stripe that this third sector control of our public institutions is being
watched very carefully by large numbers of people and hopefully that will also create waves outside
of education as well as people become more and more aware how much control the third sector has
the civil service for example over the decisions that govern our lives and how the political class
are relatively powerless in the face of those third sector actors so that's a general sort
of overview of the issues and the case I hope it wasn't too long and too garbled and that it made
sense to people and I'm very willing to take questions. Yippee we love questions Anna now
Stephen's going to be ready for questions and I'll give him one minute to collect his brains
the interesting thing is every single one of us is an expert on education because we've all been
edumacated so of course of course everyone has a view about education the one thing that I bring
to everyone's attention is that as I saw a documentary on the value of each transitioning
child to Big Pharma and the lifetime value Anna on this documentary is between seven and eight
million US dollars per transitioning person so this is a wonderful business model this is a great
income income stream training exercise. I should say that Scott Nugent who is a woman who transitioned
to be a man in her 20s or early 30s and then de-transitioned was featured in the Matt Walsh
documentary What is a Woman an incredibly powerful speaker if you ever get the chance to listen to
Scott Nugent I mean you will be blown away but I think it was Scott Nugent on a podcast that I
heard state exactly that statistic that you just mentioned and I think that statistic I mean I
should make a note of it really because all you need to do is say that statistic and you've made
your case haven't you? Yep all right Stephen, Stephen over to you for the next 15 minutes and
the rest of you put hands up and you know there's so many questions that I have but I'm always
patient Stephen Anna you go first. So Anna thank you so much for that brilliant presentation you're
very very articulate my word were you listening to you so I saw you first being interviewed by
I don't know what his name is but he was in his maybe early 40s and it was GB News what's the name
of that guy? Andrew Doyle, Andrew Doyle, Andrew Doyle yes yeah and so I was I was completely
surprised by how well obviously you're a lawyer but you're extremely articulate you're very
passionate and you got a great response there was an audience there and they gave you a great
response at the end and I thought we must listen to you because we must have you on this
whatever you want to call it this show because actually what's happening in the schools in my
opinion is happening everywhere else you know this is all part of I don't know what you want to call
it but a transhumanist agenda as I see it so so they're confusing everybody with propaganda
about the Ukraine war the Russia Ukraine war the Israel Gaza war now which is seemingly
replacing the the Russia Ukraine war because Russia's going to win anytime soon and and and
then you've got the the the Covid nonsense and it is nonsense because I'm a medical doctor
and none of the measures in inverted commas it took me about six weeks to work out for my own
family because I had them ranged against me I said this is wrong in January or February 2020 I knew
straight away and but I couldn't get my family on board and I just was mystified as to why they
weren't listening and wouldn't listen but of course then I realized they were watching the BBC or
my wife in particular was watching it so I suggested that she stopped watching the BBC
but she didn't she doesn't watch it now but it's a bit late now and so anyway and then on top of
that you have the climate change nonsense so it's all the same stuff you know it's it seems to me
that it's a cycle you you mentioned this it's this psychological attack on human beings from from my
point of view as a medical doctor and I think that certainly with the Covid nonsense
which really did make people fearful I think they're suffering from Stockholm syndrome now
huge numbers of people in the United Kingdom and around the world are suffering from Stockholm
syndrome and nobody has actually thought to take this seriously I think it's extremely serious but
I have a problem convincing other medical doctors that it's um that it's important because they
don't seem to understand it um well why is that concerning uh you know states of stockholms are
with like 50 percent of the British population or more in a state of Stockholm syndrome and
not realizing it well it's hugely important of course because they're in the they're they are
in the control if you like or in the power of uh entities which they don't even understand
and they've been driven away from their families and from their friends and they're isolated and
that's what they want to do they want to isolate us all and so as I said before it's a transhumanist
agenda as I see it it's an attack on humanity I didn't understand this at the beginning but um
listening to all the people we've had speaking to us um and forming this view uh and it's very
difficult to articulate your brilliance at articulating um you know analyzing what you
are good at and then articulating those complex ideas it's very difficult to do and not everybody
can do it even if they're very bright so anyway uh I will I really encourage you Anna to really
nail this and take the damn department of education which doesn't teach these children
anything in my opinion mental arithmetic for example which I was very good at school they
don't even teach them their tables because they don't need their tables because they've got
calculators what what do you think yeah well I think you know you can you can make um the
these observations can all add up to an overwhelming pattern of learned dependence I mean
you would think wouldn't you that that as children go through developmental stages they're
being encouraged to be increasingly independent and there's nothing parents feel happier about
is I mean healthy parents not not mad parents but I mean healthy parents are happy to see their
children able to stand on their own two feet and go out into the world and form relationships and
get jobs and manage their money and have aspirations and you know that's what parents want to see their
children do so why is education increasingly organized around dependence dependence on on
medicines dependence on rules and regulations about where to stand what to wear how to be
what language to use what what what what issues are for Bowdoin today and what you know what you
must not say you know all of this highly highly regulated micromanagement of children it has
it has the effect of of increased dependence and medicalization of children is huge it's not just
the transgender thing you've got all of these schemes now being rolled out across the the UK
to address the pandemic of mental health mental um unwellness in young people and it's never really
discussed in any sensible way we don't know what is causing this epidemic of mental health problems
in young people of course the lockdowns are never mentioned but it's just we're supposed to accept
that as science gets better and better and people get wealthier and wealthier and we're more and
more progressive and we know more than we ever did and we're just more and more enlightened and
we should be so grateful that we live in the 21st century we never allowed to ask why it is then
that people are getting unhappier and unhappier and and unhealthier and unhealthier all children
are told is if you do feel unhealthy and unhappy don't look at what you're eating don't get exercise
don't come offline um don't develop hobbies and interests and skills that make you feel good about
yourself but just take this medication uh and sign up to this therapy for your for your mental
health issues and you know it's it's learned dependence they go to the canteen from a very
young age and they're encouraged to um to swipe a card to pay for their lunches which means that
they don't really understand how this is being paid for and they run up little debts at school
which parents have to then manage because the child is not regularly is not learning in any way
how to manage their own budget if you like and these these sort of i think in some schools now
they're they're they're working on these um fingerprint scan systems where the child just
puts their finger or their facial recognition picture to get their lunch i mean it's it's all
just a form of of teaching children that they don't really have an independent life outside um
these regulatory apparatus is it also about teaching them not never ever
uh to take responsibility for anything and of course that's what human beings do to connect
with other human beings take responsibility and try to but oh no leave that to others uh just think
of yourself it's so unbelievably evil this in my opinion and i think so i would encourage you as a
lawyer to i think you've got a very good handle on the whole you know on the truth on the on the
evil underlying all this nonsense so it looks as though it's random but it's not random um and no
it's not random it's a culture now you can say cultures are random i don't think they are i mean
there's a reason why uh the you know late roman imperial culture was decadent um as contrasted
with earlier manifestations of the roman empire where um you know a militant approach based on um
you know strength and fighting and military prowess was prevalent it's not random it's um
these cultural shifts are signs of something structural and deep um and our culture is not
just randomly in all areas um pushing the idea that human beings should not be independent they
shouldn't own their own businesses they shouldn't own their own property they shouldn't have savings
they shouldn't have life plans they shouldn't travel it's not a coincidence that all of these
things coming together it's because the structural modus operandi by which governance is being planned
for the future requires that human beings are inculcated in these systems of dependence
and they don't have autonomy over the transactions that they make and they don't have autonomy over
the decisions and plans that they have not just for their own lives but for their kids lives
i mean it's autonomy is really a threat at the moment because and they don't know anything
when they finished school and so they don't know what the you know you hesitate to ask a 16 year
old or an 18 year old what the capital of uh greece is you know um because they might not know it's
athens and then uh but you know with some you you're hesitating to ask if they know the capital of
france yeah and and you wouldn't find very many who would know how far it was to the sun
or even the correct order and how far it is to the moon so they don't and they don't know where so
they hear elon musk and go to other planets you know or is trying to go to other planets and i'm
thinking to myself what four light years to the next uh solar system well good luck with uh trying
to cover four light years um to get to the next even elon musk with his massive brain you know
so these people um oh it's a combination of everything so you've got all these celebrities
who are in love with themselves you know who think they're wise as well as as well as beautiful and
it's just crazy they don't know anything they've got no idea of the complexity and the hugeness
of the universe and and and and so what on earth are they teaching these children at school because
they can't write an essay they can't write a letter even um and they can't do mental arithmetic in
their heads oh no that would be far too dangerous to have people able to work things out in their
heads you know that's my opinion i'm sorry that this is really well i couldn't work out for a
while in my head i mean this is i'm not speaking now as a lawyer i'm just speaking as somebody who
who's tried to get my head around the sort of incongruence between teaching a child on the one
hand about um transsexualism or transgenderism which involves a kind of desexualization of the
self you know all the things that we become as sexual beings as we approach adulthood are the
things that make us our sex you know i mean you know you're a sexual being in a sexed body so for
girls growing into a sexual identity means embracing femaleness and being comfortable with
it same for boys they have to be proud of the fact that they are growing and you know developing
in that you know that their adam's apple is showing and their voice is dropping and these are
signs that they're becoming men and you know you can tell a child that this is awful or you can tell
a child that this is wonderful most normal societies have initiation ceremonies for young
people so that they mark the passage from young child to into an adult male or woman man or woman
so i was thinking how can you have on the one hand the promotion of this sort of androgynous idea
that children shouldn't be embracing their own sexed bodies how do you marry that with the then
very sexually graphic materials that we see also taught so alongside transgenderism is this constant
promotion of sexual activity and sex acts particularly acts so you don't for all the
talk of relationships education a lot of what passes for sex talk in schools focuses on specific
acts and the names for those acts and various things that you need to do to complete these sex
acts hygienically and successfully so if you're going to have oral sex with somebody you'll want
to have a dental dam that you can actually make yourself in one lovely lesson plan that i saw to
an unspecified age audience you can make your own dental dam i mean for those of you who don't know
what dental dams are i don't well i just i'm very jealous of you but anyway a dental dam is
something you wear to protect your yourself when you're giving somebody else oral sex now
that's obviously a it's a kind of covid mask for people having oral sex you know it's to stop
diseases being transmitted so you're teaching children to have oral sex you're telling them
the name oral sex so they know what that is they'll understand that oral sex can happen
between a man and a woman but they'll also be told oral sex can happen between trans people
and non-trans people it's just all very very weird and then they'll be told about the medical
implications of these sex acts and what and what they need to do to protect themselves so condoms
dental dams contraceptive devices abortion now what's the connection here because i'm like okay
on the one hand you've got this worship of eunuchs which are the most desexualized ideas possible
androgynous eunuchs i.e transgender people and then on the other hand you've got this pushing
of sexual arousal sexual stimulation and sexual engagement and body parts and genitals how do these
two things marry up they seem to come from very different approaches to sex a sort of castration
complex on the one hand and a very overtly libidinal driven highly charged view of sex on
the other almost pornographic well i think the reason is and this is a hypothesis so i'm not
going to say that i can prove it here the academics who are drafting some of this stuff
come from particular disciplinary backgrounds many of them will be queer theorists who
have have sort of come to academia from a very specific sociological background as
um people who were probably came out as gay i'm gay myself just for a qualifier so i'm not about
to say anything homophobic but who came out as gay as gay maybe in the 80s and 90s and really enjoyed
the sort of you know post sexual revolution liberation vibe of the gay scene now if you're
a man and you're gay and you go out and about from the 90s i mean from the 70s onwards it's
well known how promiscuous the gay male scene is how drug-fuelled it is and how um you know
organized it is around you know very specific kinds of sex acts which people have preferences
for and that leads me to the final point about the gay male culture which is it's very fetish
driven lots of fetishistic predilections and transsexualism as a as a subculture within the
gay scene um you know has always been a presence and there are lots of words that people have used
affectionately or whatever sociologically to categorize that group of men in in sexual kinky
context or gay gay underworld context who dress in women's clothing so i think in the minds of
academics who've come to academia from those kinds of backgrounds many of them probably
don't have children there is a sexually driven element to the transgender person because it's a
figure that they associate with the clubs and the underworld where they frequented and come of age
and you know had sexual rites of passage and it's a scene it's a culture it's like punk it's like
gothic you know it's just a cool thing that they they think of as part of a great spectrum of sexual
diversity but of course in reality a 12 year old girl who has a double mastectomy
um does not really have anything in common with the exhibitionist gay guy who wants to you know
either perform in drag outfits or solicit sex from other men dressed as a woman for a kink
for a kink for kink kink reasons however because of the society we now live in we're seeing those
two images the two the 12 year old girl who's had a double mastectomy because she thinks she's a boy
and the fetishistic sexual provocateur from the gay male underworld those two images have been
completely fused under the banner of lgbt plus but anybody who's got a brain cell knows that
sex education for children should not be driven by a pornographic or fetishistic understanding of sex
as as as promoted in a very specific kind of niche gay male underworld when you're talking
about children really if you are to talk about sex at all you're not really going to be talking
about the sort of predilections and exhibitionist tendencies and drug-fuelled orgiastic extremes
that characterize a lot of sexual clubbing and i think what you're seeing in some of these materials
since you asked is an attempt to disguise in respectable pseudoscientific pedagogical
hygienic language the excitable culture of the gay male underworld and and there's no other way
to explain it you know the the references for example in some of the materials to fisting
which is something that gay men do and nobody else you know why do children need to learn about
fisting why do children need to be told that fisting is something that may cause pain and if it does
then don't feel you have to agree to it with your partner if it's causing you pain well i mean that's
that's just assuming that the fisting has already caused the pain before the child has had a chance
to even consider whether that's something that they should be considering and of course by pain
i mean a torn rectum i mean this is this is what we're discussing we're talking about pornographic
extremes which often engage sadomasochistic thematics and fantasies that at the end of the
day it's not my cup of tea but if two adult men want to do i can't i can't say as a lawyer that
they have no right to all i'm saying just to be clear are they actually teaching this in in any
schools in the uk yes yes they are and what age are the children anything from five to 16
i mean i'm five-year-old children in the uk can be taught about fisting there are glossaries which
are being distributed by um so-called third sector groups which our local education authorities are
downloading for schools to say to use these resources and there are no age specifications
on those resources it's not that they're being prescribed to five-year-olds but they're not being
prescribed as not for five-year-olds i've seen videos i've seen videos of um apparently discussing
female masturbation again no age label on this video which shows a cartoon of a woman clearly
stimulating herself because of the expression on her face and when the camera pulls back it's a
it's a girl stroking her dog and that is a cartoon for children about female masturbation and it leaves
the viewer completely confused as to what they've just witnessed a woman pleasuring itself which a
child may or may not be capable of processing or a child or a or a girl being pleasured by a dog we
don't know it's definitely ambiguous and i think deliberately so so steven that's steven that's
21 minutes already yes yeah but i just want to so this is um so the thing about uh you mentioned
about uh they talked about the pain that they might get from fisting that's surely encouraging
children at the you know maybe 18 but actually maybe 11 maybe eight maybe five even that
fisting is normal yeah there are other there are other terms as well which i can which i can list
and you won't have heard of them and i'll explain what they mean and you'll go oh my god um and i
won't i won't i won't torture you or your audience but um there are glossaries of these words
there are glossaries of these words including words that don't really exist in the english
language but i've had to i've you see the thing is these third sector groups not only um promote
ideas but they also make up words you know like cisgender and um qia plus as identities but they
also um will promote words that mean apparently sexual fetishes such as being aroused when standing
near somebody in a crowded space there's a word for that begins with f i can't remember it off
the top of my head the fact the matter is if you stand close to somebody in a public space
and you get aroused we have very very good laws on sexual harassment in this country
and actually our current mayor sadiq khan has put all sorts of posters around the um the public
transportation system in london saying if you stare at somebody it's a sexual offense so how
schools teaching people to get aroused by standing near total strangers in public i mean it's
extraordinary yeah so and who was it who was pushing that you know was that sadiq khan
the mayor of london it's on his watch i don't know who's decide which which i think i think it was
him pushing it and he was wearing it as a badge of honor that little oh well anyway everyone's
stephen we're way over time yeah so i'm really exercised by this and so very good that you are
taking them on i i wish you the best of luck and if we can help you in any way we've got
contacts all around the world uh we will do uh obviously if you ask parents put parents in touch
if you if you know of parents who want to talk about because i'd like to see this legal action
mirrored in other in other jurisdictions so i think that this is an attack on uh
come on enough it's about social bonds breaking social bonds like universe 25 experiments
okay okay we've got a string of hands up we've got lots of questions yeah well we have now yes
because yeah okay all right thank you stephen tom
okay hang on just one thing i just forgot to say this talking about oral contraceptive i have to
i have to share with you woody ellen's definition of the most successful oral contraceptive stephen
just say no anyway it's woody ellen line all right tom okay so i'm a member of this
okay so i'm a member of this the problem chance anyway so so it said i'm not sure
well um
go on i'm sorry sorry yeah thanks for the presentation um really interesting um so i'm
a member of um well actually i just got kicked out of the green party of wisconsin badge of honor
last thursday but um nonetheless i am a member of the green alliance for sex-based rights and
they came out of georgia and the entire state of georgia green party was kicked out of the
federation of all the state green parties because over this uh gender critical issue in other words
they were in favor of women's rights and in the context of the transgender issue
there are two lawyers in this group that i'm in it's a small group maybe 60 members from all over
the country massachusetts california texas wisconsin in connecticut anyhow uh one of the
issues is the librarians what they have to deal with in the grade schools and these two lawyers
were commenting in the last meeting about what a librarian has to deal with you know and it's
interesting because they have a limited amount of physical space and so they got to get rid of books
and then they have a budget to buy books and um they it was it was um uh very interesting and
it wasn't clear cut um but it came down to this issue of you know what kind of parental input
should there be um there is a budget the parents are paying taxes and uh oh what else oh then then
they went on to the issue of free speech and how schools manage speakers coming on campus which is
an entirely different issue but do you have um like an ethical position on say how a library
you know a grade school should manage that in a fair way i mean i'm not i don't think you should
necessarily um you know completely sanitize the books but i certainly don't want to the ideology
to be swayed all one way or the other um thanks thank you do you want me to answer that now or
just take more questions oh no answer as we go answer as we go oh okay yeah i mean i don't i i
i have to say i don't have that much experience of working with the library issue obviously i'm
really aware of it um that's it's been an issue here it's been an issue in the u.s. um are you
are you talking specific if you're talking specifically about books that promote sexual
you know they're they're sexualized in ways that are considered by parents to be age inappropriate
because there's also the drag queen story time thing which has been a kind of
yeah that group it's interesting the two there's two lawyers one ran for governor of ellinois and
the the the uh this uh gay woman lawyer in california was more tolerant i mean there's
divisions even within this group she was a little bit more tolerant i couldn't believe it about the
the drag queens but i would say the general sense in this group is that it's completely
inappropriate to have you know till titillating um if that makes any sense you know males are
trying to look like females in front of like five-year-olds it's very difficult that's not
right in my opinion i think that's a consensus of the people in this group it's very it's very
difficult though to attack it as a lawyer i mean um on its own terms so to say that certain books
shouldn't be in libraries already puts you into the difficult position of set of you know when
you're confronted with the obvious free speech arguments well what makes you the arbiter of what
should or shouldn't be in a library you know you basically start to be seen as someone sensorial
and the fact of the matter is that you know whether we like it or not there's been a since
the whole child approach was introduced in our education systems there's been a um an expansion
of a new literary industry called the teen the teen novel um and i think it really started in
the 80s when i was growing up with the work of judy bloom um that you know there were these
little novels for for young girls which would be really cool because they would be about sex and
you could you know you would you would you would be reading about people who were 18 and they were
having sex and and and it was exciting because you were 15 or possibly 14 or even 13 so it was that
sort of a loud naughty book but they were very mainstream and she she was seen as doing a public
service because she was basically doing this relationship and sex education stuff through
the medium of fiction and creating an entire career about it so now if you go into any
uh public book shop or public bookstore you'll see um in the fiction areas you'll see huge
swathes of books dedicated to teen fiction and so you know we've got a culture now where it's very
difficult um because the whole child approach has entered into uh popular culture there is a
whole assumption that films and books will help young people navigate tricky stuff like sex and
also drugs and uh social problems and you can't just walk in as a group of parents or as an adult
and and legally say right this library has to close this book has to go it's very very difficult
to argue especially if the book in question is is not obviously offensive because then you start
to be seen as if you're a sort of puritanical religious maniac or something like that so I
think the the answer to it can't be legal shut down the libraries or burn the books in the
libraries because we don't like them because it's a very difficult position and it's antithetical to
the freedom of expression position which we are using a lot in our in our circles to try and
be heard so I think what we have to do is focus on um the undermining of the parental role
because at the end of the day if your child goes to a library and you still have you command
influence over your child even if the child's a teenager and and has its own kind of life
if they respect their parents they'll be they'll be interested in what their parents have to say
and if they're young um and very dependent on their parents then their parents have a lot of
power over what they are exposed to and can can intervene so I think what we should be doing is
really emphasizing the importance of of the parental role in society and the rights of
parents to know what's going on and where young children are their children are concerned they
have a kind of veto power rather than seeing it as a societal censorship that we should get rid of
this book so that we're not corrupted as a society by it I think it's more appropriate for parents to
feel empowered to go into a library and say you know I don't want you know my child you know being
read that book if that's okay with you because I don't think she's old enough to appreciate it
and there being a societal appreciation that that is a perfectly valid thing for a parent to say
um so I think a lot of what I work with is is parents being ignored by the institutions and
things happening to children whilst the parents are at work and the parent doesn't know and then
when the parent expresses any concerns they're shut down or marginalized and I think the key
to our movement in this respect has to be building parental confidence and to believe in their legal
entitlements as parents to have jurisdiction over their children
thanks a lot yeah they they didn't believe in banning books it brings up this issue
librarians the process of getting rid of books you know selling them and everything
it's an interesting issue because they they they have a lot of ethical considerations
they okay thanks so much no thank you thank thank thank you tom and uh there's a group in
america called mama bears and there's in australia there are certainly groups of parents and uh and
I think all of us can help you spread the legal strategy with these parental groups I can certainly
do that in australia and all of us you know into this chat if you know of any parent parental
groups put it in the chat so that then we can share the legal strategies globally so that
parents can push back so tom thank you for that and we'll check someone might know what
whether mama bears deals with this question and anna I love your answer to tom that says listen
the librarian can go hey check with your mother whether or check with your parents whether it's
okay for you to read this book that's a great potential strategy thank you tom jeremy from
canada as you can see jeremy's from canada
thank you thank you charles um yeah from canada um I want to thank you and ever so much for your
presentation um I did go and look at some of the videos of your previous interviews uh and uh to
get a an idea of where you're coming from it's pretty obvious I guess I wanted to share with you
a couple of thoughts and some of my own experience um to uh to reiterate what charles was saying
about mama bears um or to play on that subject I can assure you that as a father of an adopted
daughter who's now almost 40 um it makes my blood boil too so I think the blood of papa bears can
get pretty riled up the same and I I would expect that the male any um fathers that are on this call
would feel the same way um papa bears can do a lot of damage once they get going um and a couple
so a couple of other topics the education system I'm 75 and uh I did an unusual track for my
education I uh took seven years off between high school which was 1967 for me and going back to
university in 1974 what I immediately found out or discovered was that my um my um classmates who
were seven years my younger as Stephen so well put it they couldn't write a sentence they didn't
know how to spell paragraph they were functionally illiterate so many of them anyway not all of them
of course and not only illiterate but innumerate so much so that the university I was going to
within I think two years of my uh beginning my education there 1976 they had to institute a
remedial English courses mandatory for all incoming students from high schools or colleges
so this has been going on for a long time if you happen to have read Alan Bloom's
Closing of the American Mind it goes back he was a an educator in liberal arts universities that
relates his experiences with incoming classes in the 70s and 80s
and basically has the same experiences that I had but much more eloquently put
my experiences both with my daughter and and the school system were were traumatic
I must say because um back then 40 years ago right away I was already um aware of some of
the things that were going on and we variously took our young girl out of the mainstream schools
we tried a Catholic school they wouldn't have us for a variety of reasons and then uh then a
private school a private Christian school and that worked a lot better but at that time back
in the early 90s I came across an author in Canada named William Gardner and he um as a Canadian
author he was an Olympic Catholic in the 60s as well amongst other books he wrote this one which
is called The War Against the Family in 1992 and I'll read you a few of the chapter titles
which gives you an idea what was going on then compulsory miseducation looking after their minds
looking after their souls moral values and sex and maybe you're familiar with moral values
clarification which was all the rage back then where schools abruptly stopped teaching any morals
they were taught they were teaching relativity right looking after their bodies and then the
solution take it back to schools of course then the femme you couldn't say this today the feminist
mistake women against the family and a little further down radical homosexuals versus the family
and in that chapter he talks about fisting this is 1992 wow I've got to get this book
well it may still be in print it's uh 600 pages that is fascinating it keeps you busy
so that's it there William Gardner okay thank you very much for that reference I'm going to
make a note of that thank you you're welcome and thank you yes Jeremy well well spotted back in
back in 92 it's very subtle isn't it's very clever they're very clever they march through
the institutions thank you um someone might in fact discover a pdf version of that Jeremy we've
got clever people on this call who and keep discovering free books you know that were
published a long time ago so perhaps that the free pdf is available Jeremy
Jeremy
Could be yeah very good well well articulated thank you Jeremy Jim
and Jim is muted we presume there he is he's coming now
you're still muted Jim
um thank you um great presentation thanks very much um the biological basis of the transgender
movement I put in the chat uh some interesting things about Albert Borla Albert Borla the ceo
of Pfizer is a um is a veterinarian um as physicians each of us studies have we each
have particular things that we research um Albert Borla's special research interests are melatonin
and the protection of of um uh fertility okay so taking melatonin may protect fertility his
particular research was in ram sperm um we've known that melatonin may protect against the covid
next thing Albert Borla the the uh doctor of veterinary medicine had research in was castrating
pigs with a vaccine a series of two vaccines was uh more efficient at castrating male pigs than
actually cutting off their testicles sorry about that um so uh so that begs the
question what exactly is the covid vaccine a series in Albert Borla's research a series of
two vaccines could uh could um decrease fertility uh or to the point of being equivalent of of uh
physical castration if we look at the ace two receptors on men's testicles um the ace two
receptors are actually most prominent uh per square centimeter on men's testicles um and there
is research that shows even after covid the sarz cov two spike protein and vaccine or virus form
by remains bound to testicles and ovaries and gonads with a lot of ace two receptors
so could this be the um the these could the sarz cov two spike protein be the biological basis
of the transgender movement if this is a biotera weapon and we've uh we're kind of maybe some
people are figuring out that this is is the sarz cov two spike protein actually designed to bind to
certain people certain races and cause uh decreased testosterone abnormal menstrual periods and um
and decreased fertility and if so could this be an overall if you're going to war usually you
try to castrate the uh opposition males so does this vaccine actually castrate the opposition males
the people who bind the ace two um that's uh that that that would mean that the biological basis for
this massively increasing transgender movement especially if we're if we're mandating that the
children get exposed to this sarz cov two spike protein could be the basis for the increasing
transgender um versions the university of miami did a study about people who were exposed to
covet or bad cases of covet and then had infertility and they noticed that the um the infertility
um they did testicular biopsies and so showed even after they were over the covet they still
had the spike protein bound to their uh bound to their testicles so um i'm asking if you if you're
aware that this sarz cov two spike protein could be the biological basis for this increasing
transgender movement and then and then uh if you have time i'll ask another question thank you
i i haven't i haven't had it explained to me in that way before i mean obviously um
you know i've heard people talking about possible impacts on fertility of of the vaccination i don't
know enough about that to speak to it but i i hear what you say um in respect of transgenderism there
is no doubt that one of the most heinous aspects of it is that it if taken to full um logical
conclusion then a child will do things to themselves that will destroy their fertility
there is definitely an issue around fertility and you'll notice that in all of the discussion
around transgenderism very very rarely is fertility mentioned which is extraordinary
given that sterilization for sterilization is an international crime i mean um you know
the sterilization of people during world war two and that continued until the 1970s with the roma
female population in switzerland and in parts of the united states african american women
were sterilized it's it's it has a it has in in liberal educated mindset for sterilization should
have very bad press if you're vaguely educated you should know about it and why it's an international
um human rights abuse and prohibited under international law but you never really with
a few exceptions hear people talking about you know the the transgender issue as a war on young
people's fertility and and and a form of forced sterilization i think it absolutely is that and
and your comments just um forced me to consider the wider implications of that very interesting
connection thank you and i would encourage you to actually write to albert borla and ask him about
his papers on on castrating pigs and since pigs are our closest relatives could could this vaccine
actually let's say inadvertently be castrating certain people now understanding that the biological
warfare weapons treaty convention has been signed by most six eyes you know the six eyes spy network
united states canada uk australia new zealand and the sixth eye is israel out of those countries the
only country that has not signed the biological weapons convention is israel so they are the
only ones who could make such a spike protein that would be racially specific that might
bind and and cause infertility in other races so just be aware maybe we need to
respectfully request documentation on whether the sars-cov-2 spike protein
is a is in fact a weapon and then who created it the only
uh very modernized country that is not under treaty not to create it
maybe israel so we may want to talk to albert borla who is who is pioneering their their work in israel
um and the israeli government and ask them very respectfully if they know the antidote to this
so that we can stop the uh if this if this sars-cov-2 spike protein actually does
cause bind to uh the gonads of of certain races if they wouldn't mind sharing with us the antidote
that has been designed along with this biotera weapon um if somebody has actually designed
um so uh thank you and then um uh yes um also uh i don't understand why you have to bring race into
every time you bring this point up i really don't because i don't okay i understand and the and the
issue is the the the issue is that uh the racial specificity is one of those i mean i'm very i am
i'm very grateful for this phone call because um we as scientists have to analyze every aspect of
things and um and that is one of the most taboo you know at first the most taboo topic was actually
saying that the sars-cov-2 spike protein was not naturally occurring um and now we know that that
was covered up and it was and it is and it is naturally it is not naturally occurring it was
made in the lab now we have to know that's actually because i think that the whole lab
thing and the gain of function research agenda sorry a narrative which they're pushing could be
actually a means of getting us to follow the narrative which is that we're in danger from
future deadly viral pandemics which i don't think are possible deadly and pandemic can't exist in
the same sentence we were taught that at medical school and i remember except if you and i argue
that that is in a naturally occurring something or other that's true unless it's i mean but we we we
in the military understand that there are child warfare weapons so i'm going to stop and let
let people thank you a little bit you know it's not my jeff you need to mute thanks jim
benjamin hans benjamin braun from switzerland and as you learned at the start of the show
hello your arms benjamin is an expert on the nord stream pipeline explosion we've covered that
stephen before i've got a lot to do when we finish this meeting thanks yeah no no back to
yeah no thanks for a wonderful presentation and i was trying to take a little bit of a general
scope but then actually go back to the previous question so what makes me wonder is how can
such a small group such as you mentioned you know have such a big influence in society and essentially
tilt the you know tilted i mean the whole education program but as we have seen it's also in in cove
it happens now with the wars it happens everywhere with every single issue which we are looking at
we see that it's a very small subset which has tremendous control suddenly and i think that only
can happen if there are structures in society which actually enables those groups of who have
influence actually to to take to take this influence and now specifically i think because
there everybody is doctors and we have heard that yeah okay as before and i've heard actually in
in the doc mollix podcast because i was presenting there a doctor actually presented the case that
the overprescription of anti-depressants actually reduces essentially the sexual identity of also
of you know in a juvenile age and we know that this actually has been become a big issue that
because of of the life in general you know young people can't live the lives as we heard you know
which they used to live and now could it be i just try to raise this issue could it be a connection
with the desire essentially you know that you that you lose the yeah your sexual identity as
sort of a side effect of prescribed medications and just actually i put it into the chat that's
just a saying a note there seems to be a tremendous over mortality of zero to 14 year olds at the
beginning of this year i have no idea where it comes from could you say that again say that last
again just because i missed one word that you said okay so i put it into the chat there is a
graphics euro mo mo is the european mortality database and there seems to be a huge increase
in mortality rates uh knows there are no specifics given it's a general thing
um at the beginning of this year i just you know and for young as they come from you know
and nobody talks about it i mean i just saw it like two days ago like wow you know it's very
very significant i mean no covid nothing is at the beginning of this year there's like a huge
peak i mean everybody can see it in the chat and it's it's alarming you know hans mandelman did
you mention an age group um zero to zero to 14 years it's the lowest age group in euro mo mo
wow so it's it's real and this is for the world this is no it's your more more it's
it's essentially european countries including uk
um eu countries including uk and switzerland but not so much actually the link i can put it into
it's that's very um well that's very worrying i mean i don't um
so that's the link to speak with any it's the official it's the official um
database mortality database how long did the increase last and is it continuing
um there's it's there was a big peak um well it is actually it is higher if you if you
probably smoothen it out you see that it's higher since 2021 i mean the beginning essentially of the
vaccination you know during 2021 it was never really below the baseline you know of the past
few years and in the beginning of this year how many times was it increased was it was it twice
or three times or oh i mean it's out of i don't know whether they they they plot a two sigma or
one sigma interval maybe two sigma it's like double two sigma it's like four five sigma out of range
sorry what's five sigma as hans benderman we're not all statistics
so okay okay well sigma is the standard deviation something which is five sigma it's like i mean
but it would that it would be accident i mean in physics it's a discovery right if something is
five sigma you can call it a new particle uh you know the sieben frost young
so so it is very very very significant
right yeah
yeah so in if you're not talking about sigma how many times
what what is the increase is it is it i mean it means that if if you have a random ensemble
right you have a gaussian distribution and essentially the sigma is where it's um what is
one over e right and so that's roughly one third right where distribution decreases to one or so
because it goes like e to the minus argument squared it decreases very rapidly right and if
you take like e to the minus five squared right e to the minus i mean it's nothing right i mean
it just shows it is absolutely highly significant
and and i just saw it i saw it two days ago when i have no idea what it is
yeah hans benderman can you send it to me because i want to need to yeah yeah yeah i send you the
link and everything yeah very good by email if you can send it by email thank you yeah yeah sure
thanks thank you thank you hans benjamin mark thank you charles uh anna thank you very much for
a wonderful presentation i'm very sorry that i was very um innocent i didn't know any of those terms
nor did my wife who is sitting next to me i'm very sorry i think that's okay that's okay we we
learned something i'm not sure that we wanted to learn that but we've learned something
the local school
patient parents have been complaining and the official narrative is write a letter to the
the governor's for complaint um you mentioned that the pay these um uh parents could get in touch
with you how what is the best you know the best process for them to get in touch with you
well they can email me at my chamber's address which i can pass on to i mean obviously
you've got it the organizers have it so um steven has it and charles so you can contact me at my
chamber's address uh there's also the bad law project which has its own info i think it's
info at bad law dot co dot uk but if you go on the bad law website you'll find it find it okay
and uh how how would you um recommend that i encourage the parents to actually do something
because there's a lot of um apathy because they they really just don't trust any of the institutes
you know any of the institutions and therefore they're very reluctant to kind of like do anything
is there could could i do it on their behalf let's say you know do the collect the names
and forward them what would what would work best that would be wonderful if you could i mean it's
always better to get a single email with lots of information than uh 10 million different um email
correspondences because it gets very easy to overlook people you know after i gave one of my
speeches for the launch of the bad education project i was inundated with hundreds of emails
that were coming in at various different email addresses and i got completely overwhelmed and
i'm sure there are people i've overlooked still that i haven't um that i've missed you know so
i'm really i'd love that if somebody could could put you know um people that want to get
their contact with their permission obviously their contact details and
put it all into one email if you're able to do that are these people um in the same local area
yes they are they actually brought it up on a on a local website next door and it was closed down
and what are what are they specifically concerned about just um not being able to see
they wanted to find out what the uh sex education was what the other education was and when they
were told they weren't allowed to um discuss it see it um there was a lot of um obviously anger
but they didn't know what to do with that anger because i think they're being fobbed off by being
directed to the governors i mean the first thing they should do is download gillian keegan the
secretary of state for education's recent letter i think it was published in the telegraph i might
be wrong about which paper it was mainstream right wing uh newspaper in which she basically says
in a letter to parents in the nation so it's very strange for i mean i don't know when
this started to be the um the way in which government cabinet ministers conduct themselves
but she's written this letter to parents across the nation saying that she does not accept
that schools have the right to withhold materials from parents she thinks that's wrong
so they've got the secretary of state for education put that in black and white only a week ago and um
rishi sunak has also stated uh notably at the conservative party conference recently
that a man cannot change sex a woman is an adult human female and parents should know what their
children are being taught i mean he said those things so i think they should go back to the
school and not and not be fobbed off and say hang on a minute the secretary of state for education
and the current prime minister have acknowledged that parents are not to be denied um the right to
see materials so you need to have a you you need to sort this out because we want to see it we have
a parental right and really put their foot down and then if they really get nowhere they should
contact me and we can uh we can discuss a draft letter to go back to the school but i wouldn't go
to the governors that's that's just passing the buck they're acting unlawfully thank you very much
so if you go to the governor you can control everything but but if you go to individual
teachers uh it's a bit like the chief coroner for example we didn't have a chief coroner until the
the the david kelly debacle which i was involved in ana um but if you have a chief coroner of course
then you get rid of all the individual uh coroners who might go this way or that way
on very important issue when it when it comes to david kelly yeah and i mean the the parents that
i've worked with they're always fobbed off they're told to go uh to the local authority and then the
local authority tells them to write to the department for education the department for
education says it's a matter for the school the headmaster so you just get passed around and round
so i think groups of parents acting together is powerful it's more powerful than one parent
because they can't be just overlooked as a marginal fringe uh troublemaker and they should uh co-sign
a joint letter to the headmaster and say that they don't want to be fobbed off they want to see
they want to see the materials and they um are citing the prime minister and the secretary of
state for education when affirming and asserting their right to do so very good thank you very
much thank thank you mark and i point and i was for five years and for all of you i talk about
this in my book passionate people produce for five years i was the president of the local primary
school parents and friends association so this was in the 80s now the point is parents are not
involved anymore in such associations at schools mark and all of us you know with particularly with
our grandchildren some of us are old enough to have grandchildren you know if parents take no
interest because they're too busy in what's going on at the school as a group ana you know then
then of course each individual parent has no power and that's part of the strategy so so the
reformulation of such parents and friends groups in schools functioning is also a crucial strategy
i have some questions and on homeschooling which we'll get to after we speak to jeff jeff good to
see you haven't seen you for a while yeah thanks charles i've been there absolutely without leave
i guess for a little while but um back now so thanks ana for a fascinating talk um it struck
a chord with you know what you're saying about the um you know the speech being given in schools is
something that myself and my partner are really hot on at the moment we've got three kids in our
household 12 10 and 10 and um just the talk around you know the dinner table how many times
the word trans comes up you know patient and in my childhood we wouldn't even know what that was
you know we it didn't exist um and there's a lot of inappropriate age age speak so we've asked now
to see the course materials for the schools the kids are in and we've got a group of parents that
are very vigilant so i think it should it should help us um but i definitely back up what you said
that you know being a parent has never been more important to educate your kids at home or
re-educate them when they come home from school that day one question i have and it was to pick
your brains on consent you mentioned earlier in your talk that that kids um they seem to be given
a lot of control or autonomy regarding you know conversion support groups etc and that they don't
perhaps need parental input they can consent to a lot of things themselves i'm specifically looking
at my 12 year old because it seems that we have the opposite situation with vaccines um i'm finding
um because ironically you know my i was in a gp practice today and back in april i lost a court
case with my ex-wife she force vaccinated our kids for covid last year and the court sided with her
that she can vaccinate according to the nhs schedule so my hands are tied however my son who's 12 was
again taken to the gp practice and against his will to be given the flu vaccine he didn't want
it he thought he'd have an input and a say um i went down there to you know um not say i'm again
gonna fight the vaccination because that's the courts have made that decision but just to make
sure that he was consented properly because he was distressed you know he actually tried to run away
and was locked in a car being taken there it was horrendous it brought back memories to what he
went through before and i tried to engage with the gp and his mom to to mediate because i could
see that this was going to be a flashpoint for him and it was but to cut a long story short the gp
said we're gonna encourage you know we're gonna support the mum vaccination because that's what
the court wanted and completely and said he's not feeling competent and i said okay well i disagree
with that he could you know i think he can form an opinion at 12 years old but it was
irrespective of that i said look he's in he's in tears he doesn't want this he needs to have some
sort of mediation with his mom and a gp i'm happy to sit that one out before this happens so your
primary concern as a gp surely is to make sure that he's mentally comfortable with what he's
being proposed for him you know calm him down and perhaps let's do that first come back for
the vaccination another day rather than to jab today i don't see the emergency to jab with a flu
vaccine if he's or nasal vaccine if he's that upset and they spent about 30 minutes to an hour
talking to him asking me to not be present so i said okay i don't have cause any problem i won't
be present i'll just wait in the waiting room till afterwards and um yeah as far as i know
wore him down said he's not able to consent for himself and uh i was just shocked by that
but an extreme extremely important intervention that you made with your comments and i'm
obviously you know sorry for what you've been going through um but you you do raise really
really crucial issues there i mean why are we seeing on the one hand um and i've seen this in
the materials the idea that you know sexual consent isn't actually a legal thing i've seen
that in many materials where there's no discussion of the actual statutory age of consent for sexual
intercourse which if you are not of that age and you have sex with somebody that is statutory rape
it's never mentioned any any of these materials the assumption is that sex is something that you
enjoy and um it doesn't really matter what age you are so you are told from basically age five
upwards where the conversation begins with the discussion about touching that there's good
touching and bad touching good touching is touching that you don't mind bad touching is touching that
you do mind obviously a five-year-old is therefore replacing the law by deciding what
sexual encounters are lawful by themselves based on whether they are able to identify the touching
as as as desired or not but of course we have proper criminal laws which it's completely
irrelevant how a five-year-old child feels about touching or any other kind of sexual activity
these things are governed by legislation not by a five-year-old's what a five-year-old has been
taught at school about nice versus not so nice touching the whole thing is ludicrous but the
point is that the child's idea about consent is being taught to you know that it's a way in which
that the consent actually replaces protections for the child the child is able to consent its
way out of protection and the and the and the sole function of this seemingly very liberal approach
to consent where all children have complete sovereignty over their own bodies from the age
of one upwards the sole function is to erase the parent as the decision maker and place the power
over the child in the hands of organizations that are not familial that is the point when it comes
to parental say so the child will be taught that their consent is absolutely crucial because it
the child's consent is the only thing that can break the parental voice so so what i'm trying
to say is that children will be taught on one hand that they are totally free to make decisions
over their own bodies where that decision might clash with that of their parents but where the
child's decision clashes with that of the state their consent will be completely erased so that
that to me would explain why we are seeing this this double teaching where on the one hand you're
totally free to have sexual relations at any age irrespective of what your parents say whereas on
the other hand you are not free to make decisions as a young person over your vaccinated status
because that is what the state wants and so all of the entitlements that a young person is given
by the state to be free and autonomous only apply when it's to stop the parents having any say
but when it's the state or a private company that is having the say the child is reduced to the same
you know dependent non-sovereign non-autonomous individual that the rest of us are so i think
i think that that that i that is how i would explain the discrepancy and on gilic competence
i would say that when i was at the height of the the whole movement to inject children in schools
the schools were distributing to parents literature that had purportedly come from the
nhs it was an nhs fact sheet about gilic competence and it explained to parents that children
uh have gilic competence which means they can make decisions without their parents
having to approve it but that's not what gilic competence means the nhs deliberately
misrepresented a legal category that was the invention of the supreme court in the famous
supreme court decision in gilic about whether or not a child could consent to using contraception
against her mother's her catholic mother's wishes now gilic competence as it was established in the
supreme court is um a state of mind that a an adolescent may have to make decisions that are
adult decisions even when they're not legally old enough but that has to be decided on a case by
case basis in a court of law on the judgment of a of a of an appointed judge you cannot say as the
nhs said uh children have gilic competence plural doesn't make any sense it's a judgment that is
made on an individual case by case basis by a judge so again this idea that when it comes to parents
all children are gilic competent is a very convenient way for the state to have total
access to children but when it comes to um the state children are not gilic competent and they
can't decide for themselves whether they want the vaccine because it's it's the state ultimately
that decides what happens to children and parents are just an obstacle so so so the logic of these
arguments about when children have rights over their own bodies change depending on on who who
has a stake and an interest in what that child does and it will always fall on the side of the
state over the over the parent in relation to a child and so you can get completely contradictory
outcomes that a child is able to decide when they have sex uh but they can't decide whether or not
they want a vaccine. Anna could I put you in touch with Jeff because Jeff told us a horrendous story
um where his son was isolated with a doctor I think it was Jeff was it um and the and the the
doctor uh did in fact uh succeed in vaccinating his son is that right Jeff I I remember thinking
it was absolutely outrageous what was happening. Yeah that was a story that Jeff just told us
that's precisely what we were doing discussing. Oh yes but that's now I thought it no no no
there's two this is part two it's like it's like Jaws Revenge and um you know it's it's terrible so
the first one was in August 22 and he was isolated with a vaccinator so not a doctor his mom was
present and she's a GP um wow and yeah he was didn't want the COVID vaccine you know we've
been through the pros and cons months before um and he decided he didn't want it was in tears
was telling everyone he didn't consent and they just wore him down so he said I just gave up and
had it in the end he was completely traumatized loss of trust in mom everything like that
and that trauma hasn't been addressed you know um from that so on on the back that first vaccination
cut a long story short I had to file uh you know an injunction for stop dose two because not only
did he have go to that experience within two days he had chest pain breathlessness lethargy which
lasted about six weeks and since then you know Ross Jones has had a look at the medical records
and said in all likelihood you know this kid had myocarditis it just wasn't diagnosed at the time
mum took him to the GP didn't let me know because she's concerned about his pathology breathlessness
but she didn't let me know about his appointment and declining bloods which would have confirmed it
so Ross Jones wrote a strong letter that wasn't allowed to be submitted to the court um and the
court in April this year went with mum to proceed with vaccination even potentially another you know
covid dose two outrageous so yeah could you could he appeal that to Anna and could you help him
the time has kind of passed for that I mean I got a pretty shut down through the court um so you've
got the what sorry Jeff it was a pretty strong shutdown with the court I mean well even more
wrong than even more wrong you know I wasn't sorry go ahead no no you go ahead just just very
brief briefly to summarize what what happened since April so that was the court decision which
I had to respect that that mum could follow the NHS vaccination schedule so I then went to see
the GP because Maxi was extremely anxious whether he'd have the covid dose two on the back of this
decision and the GP you know Dr Harris she was actually lovely she said well Maxi you won't be
vaccinated with anything that you don't want to be you know you're going to have a say in it it's
your body so don't be concerned and that she offered to mediate with mum to have that family
discussion which is needed I was like great this is a more less stressful more peaceful way forward
um mum's been invited into the practice three times and has declined not taken up the offer
to have that conversation and that was in May June now we are October and mum decided this morning
to vaccinate him with the flu vaccine and you know he was extremely stressed because of
what went what happened previously really um he then said to mum if you take me I'm going to run
away so today I had a phone call from them to say I've run away from mum oh yep and then oh she's
coming back she's seen me and then a text message to say she's locked me in the car and is taking me
to the vaccination centre that's very that's very upsetting you know and that was upset is you know
I have a court order and I should be notified of any GP appointments health decisions that are being
made and it's just to support him through it to make sure that his voice is shared he's consented
he's not anxious etc and um yeah so this is this was part two today and uh
well absolutely shocking this isn't it yeah it is it's shocking yep look we can't we can't even
we've got to keep moving we've only got 25 minutes left it's a it's a it's a bad situation and
Jeff email me with a with a summit one page summary if you can of everything you've said
well you can't put everything down but yeah yeah I've written it all down and I'll send it to Anna
great thank you okay all right yeah I do also I won't take any more time Charles because I know
I've spoken a lot but in that email Steve and I'll put a bit about fertility you know in the
vaccine because I've looked into that having had it myself and um that would be interesting for
Anna to read the drop in fertility etc and some chats I've had with with Gary Hawkins about
potentially um we maybe should consider writing a notice of liability to that damned
GP practice oh it has has to be I mean it was just scandalous that they would not put his
well-being first in his mental health and say have the conversation to make him feel
just one last thing this is really upsetting so the doctor who was assuring him the very nice you
said assuring him that this little boy would not be vaccinated against his will was talking to a
little boy who had already been vaccinated against his will yeah yeah and what happened the first
time that the vaccinator said look just come into the room I'm not going to vaccinate you I just want
to talk to you yeah that's the point the point was that she was assuring this little boy
something that is reasonable that he would not be vaccinated against his will did she know that he
had already been vaccinated against his will at the time she said that to him well I don't think
that the nurse today did and that's why I said look you need to have Dr Harris speak to him because
there's a history here and this need we read carefully that's all I'm asking for well you
can't expect a nurse to get involved in that all right come on come on okay I'll send the email
we are yes okay Stephen talk to Jeff commiserations Jeff okay Jeremy your hand went down was that
deliberate or oh you didn't know no it's meant to be up sorry I didn't realize yeah can I carry on
yep I just yeah okay yeah um Anna sorry it's great great listening to you here and Jeff sorry my
heart goes out to you I can't imagine a worse situation and I just wondered a few things with
Anna I just my wife's a doctor I'm a dentist and we cannot understand our colleagues and
the behavior of some of them and I just wondered how many other lawyers are acting as you are
you know obviously with integrity and really following the do no harm and supporting people
in that way because I just find so many of our colleagues aren't questioning anything and I
are you finding that in your in the legal profession I find so many intelligent bright gifted people
just seem to be shut down they don't question anything and even when you approach them and
put facts in front of them and ask their for support for other things they're not there they
cannot engage um and is that what you're seeing as well with other members of your profession
or are your chambers just um sort of target driven and
it's not so much that I see in the legal profession as I see it in all professions I mean
the point is that there are very high stakes now I mean you know we live in a society where a lot
of these issues um they're not they're not simply partisan so you have debates about the vaccination
policies of the government and then you have debates about gender ideology and education
and parental rights we don't have debates anymore we have um we have these positions that are imposed
on us and which are the only position that you can have if you don't want to be horribly ridiculed
so it's not even that you're dismissed you're you're treated as somebody who's actually
potentially a terrorist if you question them and that's the point of using these um
epithets like white supremacist or racist um when people you know try to raise
questions about them so so sorry yes the music is slightly distracting apologies it's just
interfering slightly with my thought process so what I would say is there are high stakes involved
and people um will not only risk being dismissed from their jobs if they publicly ask questions
or take stances on things um but there are whole teams of activists who go around and that's their
sole purpose in life is to find out where people live who've asked questions about things and report
them to their employer I've been reported twice to my regulatory authority for transphobia
and uh you know I'm lucky that you know on both occasions my my regulatory authority has taken a
very civilized view of the fact that I have a right to freedom of expression under the European
Convention on human rights now that's that's so far so good but I can understand why for lots of
people it's just not worth it I mean I've invested thousands of pounds and years of training to become
a barrister and I don't want to lose that because some scruffy activist decides to report me and
say lies about me when actually all I'm doing actually is representing people who instruct me
which is my legal obligation as a professional or exercising my free speech to talk about issues
which are of huge concern to large numbers of people and my views are wholly uncontroversial
I have no controversial views at all so it's a if it's if it's hard for me to state things
which are not controversial which are perfectly legitimate knowing the law as I do and still risk
losing my professional status I don't think it's because people are stupid or cowardly I think it's
just people need to have lives and they want to be able to get on with their lives and visit their
children and await the birth of their grandchildren and go on holiday and pay the mortgage and
that you know these things require incomes which have to be got through having a job and you just
why would you throw it all away for some comment made on social media most people aren't prepared
take that risk and I completely understand them and I myself don't use social media at all
I think it's a horror I think it's a contamination that is ruining everything irrespective of what
view you have we should all abolish it we should all boycott it yeah I mean it's interesting here
and I feel exactly the same way because it have to be regarded and what we say you know that's
as interesting your view on the on the legal profession because I just don't get it and then
the the most recent example I've had is just they're trying to stick 5g
mouse up all around us and I was trying to educate people is that your music in the background
yeah I'm sorry my my son's practicing is practicing his organs I've moved to another room
we've got a church organ that's fine so I've moved into the corner of the kitchen
away from the hallway like you know professional recording oh yeah he's good he's really going
for he's going for some bark at the moment he's really I don't stop him when he gets going it's
hard yeah yeah it's lovely um yeah so one of my other comments was um I just find it's unbelievable
you know the 5g stuff's going up at the moment they need that to instigate the authoritarian
regime I think they need and to you know put in place cbd cb cds and oh all the rest of it might
them may be coming you know maybe maybe that's true maybe that's not but people just aren't
interested in the fact that this radiation is really bad for them really bad for their children
I just find it this disconnects with what's going on around them um absolutely bizarre but enough I
don't want to comment they've got Stockholm syndrome no they're yeah I mean one of the
thoughts though of what you're saying was was in the chats Siobhan put something on was whether is
it is it possible to get the the state the state to recognize the family as uh is it Siobhani posted
this you might want to talk about it the post revision of the um some Irish law which already
has it stated I imagine I imagine this what I understood from Siobhan's comments to me is that
there's an existing provision or clause which acknowledges the the the the work the value that
a female brings to the the country as a whole by staying at home it has GDP value it has social
value it it's good for society that there are women working and performing well in the home
that's what I understood so it when she said there's potentially going to be a referendum on that
provision I imagine this talk of removing that clause because it's probably going to be called
sexist yeah well there's another one this is the Irish constitution number 40 41.1 I don't know
anything about yeah the state recognizes the family is the natural primary fundamental unit group of
society and there's a moral institution uh possessing inalienable and in in in prescribed
inprescribable rights antecedent and superior to all positive law and the state therefore guarantees
protect the family and the constitution and authority as the necessary basis of social order
uh is indispensable to the welfare for the next station nation the state I mean it sounds like
the we need to put that back into or put that in as an inalienable right of the family in UK law I
don't know if it's there or not because the family's under can it clearly it clearly reads
from another era doesn't it yeah all the words that are there moral family nation state already
that we are living in a society which is moving away from the nation state as the jurisdiction
or the legal apparatus in which we are governed is not through nation states any longer it is
through supranational organization yeah families are increasingly being redefined to mean um you
know relationships between individuals and the state or individuals and client organizations
stakeholders if you will and morality I mean morality is you know Marx Marx made it quite
clear in his writings that morality is bourgeois and uh you know it comes it's a sort of it's a
sort of symptom of having property if you own private property in a classical marxist um world
you you have this fake morality where you you're shocked at things because you know you just want
to submit you want the whole world to submit to your way of seeing things so all morality is an
expression of being a bourgeois patriarchal property owning uh parasite and so the marxist
worldview teaches us that when we overthrow the bourgeoisie as an exploitative oppressor class
and establish the proletarian state what we must also do is establish we must abolish religion
and we must abolish morality and the family and if we can't abolish them we must create conditions
wherein they wither away over time and become obsolete so you know this is this is marxism 101
and uh I mean well you know I'm not going to I'm not we we those those are very powerful ideas and
they have been proven to have incredible effectiveness in turning younger generations
against their parents um and you know I I think to this I get a bit tired when people talk about
cultural marxism today but I think um what marx was trying to do was to find or find the key points
at which a society that he disagreed with was vulnerable and he wanted to attack those
vulnerable points because he wanted to attack the whole society and unfortunately the things that
he were attacking he was attacking were not just supportive of bourgeois exploitative capitalist
societies in the 19th century post-industrial revolution they are the things that support all
societies across all time and space and he failed to grasp that powerful distinction that it's not
that uh because there are families in capitalism the family must cause capitalism it's that
capitalism exists in spite of families and families exist in spite of capitalism and
if you go outside of capitalist societies you seek families they are a constant so um yeah I mean I
I suppose what I'm saying is that um that clause in that Irish constitution uh is very clearly of
another era and I'm not surprised in the slightest that they're trying to get rid of it because they
want to get rid of all references to local um governance and they want to get all references
to to the to privacy and the right to privacy which is the right to a family life and to the
family itself so it's it's it's very clear to me that yeah that clause will go and that and that
referendum will be engineered completely to be you know as a sexist clause it will have to go and
young people will come out with pink hair and scream you know get rid of the clause get rid of
the clause we are not you know we we don't accept the patriarchy and it'll all be presented as a kind
of me too thing with women's rights and empowerment it's not it's just state overreach again.
All right I just love the clarity of your thought process thanks that's one of the best descriptions
I've heard in years of the state we're in how we get out of it I don't know but we've got to keep
trying. Thanks Jeremy all right um Janet then Stephen we're finishing in 12 minutes and are you
okay for another 12 minutes? Maybe you could Charles's suggestion might be to so that thing
that impressed Jeremy me too and maybe you can edit it out and make a separate video or double
video. You can all check it out and just I'll get a transcript of that piece and that that um
two minutes 280 words there you 140 words a minute everybody when you're speaking at the speed that
I'm speaking and Anna's speaking. Janet then Stephen we're finishing in 12 minutes go Janet.
Okay yeah thank you um what are schools teaching children about paedophilia since paedophilia is
illegal and is there any indication that children are taught that if they consent it is acceptable
to have sexual relations with an adult and is it in effect legalized grooming? Yes yes yes yes yes
yes exactly right so yes as I said that um it's quite it's quite obvious that um children are
being inculcated in ideas about touching from very young age before they're really able to
really reasonably or or practically understand anything sexual so you know these guys aren't
stupid they know that they can't go in there and start talking about blowjobs to five-year-olds it
doesn't work like that the materials are quite carefully put together so they do seem age
appropriate and a lot of the stuff that's aimed at five to six-year-olds or six to seven-year-olds
is bright and colorful and talks about nice things like um you know do you have a nose do
you have ears oh that's lovely point to your nose point to your ears um I don't know how that affects
people whose ears are missing or who have you know no noses because obviously we have to take
disabilities into consideration but anyway and then it says does your friend have a nose does
your friend have ears point to your friend's nose uh compare noses aren't they lovely um
um don't you realize how lovely these two noses are even though they're different so we're all
different and everybody has a nose and everybody's nose is different but it's also beautiful so let's
jump up and down and be really excited about everybody's noses you're reading this drivel
and you're thinking what the hell is this all about and then it suddenly says okay ears nose
um knees ankles fingers toes penises and then you have the whole game again right who's who's got a
penis point if you've got a penis yes you've got a penis and you don't have a penis okay but just
to be clear everybody um those of you who've got penises you know that you could be boys or you
could be girls with penises okay so it doesn't make you a boy just because you've got penis
right who doesn't have a penis right she doesn't have a penis that doesn't make her a girl that
makes her a girl or a boy because um you know boys can not have penises this is how it works
and you're doing this from fix five to six with little games about body parts and they throw these
random references into genitalia so that they can start banging on about sexual fluidity
and gender fluidity and once they've done that they start talking about touching and saying
you know what's a nice touch here put your fingers into this bag what can you feel and the bag will
be filled with things like jelly or feathers do you like this feeling do you like the feeling
try this bag what put your fingers in here what do you like about that oh you don't like that okay
well that's that's that's because you didn't like it that that that's what that's that's not nice
is it so that's not nice feeling that's not a nice touching whereas the feathers oh you like that
okay that's nice touching this is how they do it oh my goodness and they yeah and they construct
this idea this nice touching and not nice touching and then once they get to sort of 11 or 12 that
quickly is supplanted by discussions about sexual consent and whether or not you have you know you
have to be in control and you have to draw boundaries but basically from the age of five
children are learning that if they like something it isn't technically a problem and now that sounds
fine and there are very few tired parents who hold down two jobs who've a got the chance to see this
material and b have a chance to complain about it but i could quite understand why a busy parent
with two jobs looks at it very quickly and says well what's wrong with saying you know you've got
to be okay with things you've got to draw boundaries at the end of the day isn't that going to protect
children against predators well i i don't see it that way i think that children can't consent to
touching nice or not nice and the children shouldn't be badly well asked how they feel about
being touched adults know damn well who they can touch and who they can't and if an adult doesn't
behave themselves appropriately with young people then that adult goes to prison because it's a
criminal offense and yes you're right janet any material that inculcates this idea that the sexual
statutory age below which sexual contact is rape any any material which suggests otherwise
is grooming and i think that's a case waiting to happen and i hope i can be part of it although
not a criminal lawyer so you know what i think hang on hang on hang on
stephen stop thank you janet we are stopping in seven minutes hard and you've been here
my voice is going plus and it's got to go to bed and so stephen last couple of questions to you
and then we're finishing so so ana listening to you so talking about the noses and the ears and
all the nonsense ankles and and then the penis um uh this is grooming by confusion right it's it's
deliberate in my opinion they know exactly what they're doing it needs to be called out
and yeah i don't know what the what is the best way to to call it out it's just ridiculous
and the fact that the information commissioner goes along with it and deprives parents uh oh that's
outrageous too the information commissioner i've had dealings with the information commissioner
it's just a just a a stop you know it's there and you think you can get information but guess what
the information commission is always on the side of the state yeah and the people that run it are
not necessarily of the jurisdiction i mean i believe the the one of the individuals whose
senior decision sort of high up senior position in the ico is is just cinder a herm's ex um advisor
on something or another um so you know he's these are international operators
yeah so it seems to me that um this is this is grooming for pedophilia in particular
because actually you've got statutory rape as you point out but what they're trying to say to the
children is oh you can you know you can you can like things you know and if you like it then you
can allow it that's the message i think that the children would take away i think it's very easy to
get sometimes a little swept and i think it's depressing and i don't want to encourage a
depressing feeling that people have of this absolutely hideous evil um treatment of children
treatment of children who are so vulnerable and and to exploit them in such horrible ways
it's very easy to sort of feel um that there's this kind of visceral evil demonic force that is
uh all around us if you like but i would prefer to put it like this if you if you how many people in
the world are oil um experts in oil extraction very very few if you compare the whole of the
population of the earth with the amount of people who are experts in oil extraction
you're talking about an absolutely tiny fragment of the population and yet if oil is discovered
in some place some deserted place where a few people live um the oil rigs will be built the
companies will come to invest in the oil there'll be a whole infrastructure that is organized around
the oil rigs there'll be prostitution there'll be drugs there'll be um shops and bars opening up
houses will be built as as people come to the place to to work in the oil industry and the
industries that it supports and before you know where you are you have this huge flourishing
infrastructure that derives from this one fact that oil was discovered in this place and it will
create huge chaos in that area formerly sleepy um and and and provincial where everybody knew each
other it's just transformed into a wild west town of of sex and and and promiscuity and um
and wild living and um a corrupt financial corruption and and and i'd like us to think
a little bit about our situation in that way it's not that there is this um hideously efficient and
demonic uh enemy that is so organized it's that um there are people who have a lot to gain from
the idea that human beings have no defenses if humans have no defenses they can be uh they can
be um exploited to all sorts of gains and so lots of different actors with lots of different agendas
are united in the idea that what's important is to break down the protections that surround
individuals um that's why humans have to be alone as much as possible because they are protected
when they are with others they are not encouraged to form lasting and meaningful relationships
they're not encouraged to look after their health they're not encouraged to um live you know a life
that is meaningful and their children are even more targeted because children are naturally
defenseless the family is is criticized because the family is a protective thing and it creates
protections for people young and old especially the old actually uh so so what we're seeing is a
kind of all-out war like the wild west wherever gold and oil are discovered and people rush
to to be the first to capitalize on it that's what we're seeing we're seeing a rush for the
human being as human beings are left more and more defenseless because there are less and less social
provisions in place that protect them whether they're young middle-aged or elderly all of these
actors governments companies uh profiteers sexual perverts they're all cashing in on the utter
defenselessness of the human person so uh it don't focus on the evil of this one enemy that's
behind the curtain just treat uh human profiteering as a multifaceted phenomenon and realize that the
way to deal with it is to protect protect protect we must all focus on building protections that
make us strong and robust and um and supported uh that is what we must do and these these these
these people hovering around trying to make a buck out of our flesh and the flesh of our children
they'll soon bugger off once they realize um that they are dealing with an empowered and confident
and protected species and so we must focus on the positive and think about how do we stand
protected in the world and how are we to be emboldened and empowered and confident and healthy
and brave and you know all of these things and teach our children the same don't focus
on some wretched you know minor attracted person who's standing at the in the telephone box at the
bottom of your street total waste of time focus on you know the protections that make your home
a happy one and the relationships within it strong that's my advice to close beautiful
difficult to come on steven it's very difficult to do that no no that's it we're stopping it's
two and a half hours that was a beautiful closing statement steven let's just leave it there
because we could go for another two hours without difficulty but then a beautiful closing statement
i'm very so i'll summarize it down in my way they're exploiting the predilection for cults
and human vulnerability good thank you steven that's true all right anna thank you so much
big round of applause for anna thank you for your contribution we need your legal cases so what we
need is to share amongst people anyone who wants the articulation of the cases being run in the
uk to run it in your own jurisdiction please send me an email and i'll be in touch sevin and i will
be in touch with anna that's very great that's very appreciated thank you very much both of you
and thank you for the kind invitation and for all your fascinating questions and insights
wonderful anna wonderful thank you anna thanks everybody so much thank you great job good night
good night good night bye bye bye