All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2021 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
01:18:54
Why is the Left doing this to us？
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I have a feeling I might be live.
See, this is why I need a crew.
Got to wait until everything catches up for me to be able to know.
Sorry for everyone who's watching if this is live.
But we're going to talk about something that I find very, very interesting.
And I love where this has gone from the perspective of someone who has very much left the left wing of politics.
Someone who is definitely someone who regrets being associated with the label left wing and looks from the outside in now at people who still consider themselves to be left wing and feels bad for them.
Hence the soul-destroying Wojack on the thumbnail of this.
Because I have been really, really busy, as people who follow the Lotus Eaters podcast will know.
And so this has been taking up all my time.
And it's a different kind of content creation that we're doing over at Lotusees.com.
We're starting at basics coming from the ground up and building a positive edifice against which we believe we can break the tidal wave of leftist arguments and still have something standing, unlike everything else now.
I mean, is there anywhere, anywhere on earth left that's untouched by social justice ideology?
I mean, unironically, my government is just awash with it.
The conservatives banned it recently, but they're still doing it.
Like, the activists in the organizations are still brainwashing people along social justice lines.
And it's not even sophisticated social justice propaganda.
It is basic bitch Tumblr blog social justice propaganda.
It's embarrassing.
We covered one on the podcast the other day.
It's being shown civil servants.
I can't remember which department.
But someone had leaked it to us because it was like, oh my God, look at this.
And it's literally check your privilege.
Here's, you know, you've got 13 points.
You've got to check off fingers.
So it's weird.
Dunno, they must have been doing this in like Cornwall or something.
But you've got to check your privilege.
And I ended up with one privilege point left.
And that meant that I was privileged.
And so, never mind.
And it's like, right, okay, that's very interesting.
But yeah, it's everywhere.
And why is it everywhere?
And it's because it's operating from a certain set of premises in a particular way that is crushing every argument that it comes against.
And it doesn't seem like there is anything to form a bulwark with against.
Everything seems to be demolished.
And so I wanted to look at the place that the left has brought us, that social justice, that the way things are have gone.
Like, where are the academics taking us?
Where is the culture going?
And it's going in a bloody disgusting way.
And man, like, I'll get to like allegations of ex-ism in the chat because, like, like, the idea of living in a kind of abstraction in the way that they're doing, I just, I'm finding increasingly quaint.
I've been on a very interesting intellectual journey for the past year or two.
And I am just, I don't even know where I'd place myself or describe myself because it just seems like everyone who's like, you're an ism is saying I'm autistic.
And it's like, no, I actually don't think I am autistic.
I might be, actually.
I'm not going to rule it out.
But the point is, if you're going to say I'm an ism, then you're saying I'm autistic.
That's all I'm hearing now.
Because it's like, okay, but that's one facet of reality, and there are many other facets of reality.
And you're like, yeah, but I commit to this facet of reality.
It's like, okay, you commit to denying the other facets of reality.
Okay, you delusional person.
Like, I'm just...
The idea of calling oneself an ism has become very gross to me, and I find it embarrassing.
Like, at one point, I was ever like, yeah, I believe in this thing and nothing else.
It's like, right, okay.
That seems really ignorant.
You know, like, the idea that one worldview has a monopoly on truth is just laughable.
And the reality of it from my point of view, as far as I've seen in the world, is that everyone's perspective is describing a small portion of reality.
And all of these things are all true essentially at the same time.
It's just the interpretations of them that seem to have a contradiction.
And the thing that you choose is essentially dependent on your personal disposition.
You know, you choose to care about X because you feel like Y and that's it.
And if you can frame something else in the same sort of framework as you'd framed X, then you'd end up believing that instead for the same reasons as Y.
It's like, well, then why even have a discussion about any of this?
You know, the meme of idiots are being like, yeah, well, you know, it's all about feelings.
And then the midwits are being like, no, no, science and logic.
And then the genius is being like, hmm, it is all about feelings.
I feel that that is true.
I've got to the point where I'm just like, hmm, that's totally true.
But anyway, right, let's get on.
Rather than me preambling continually, let's get on with what I want to talk about because it's just amazing.
Like I said, I don't use Twitter.
If there are any accounts on Twitter that are claiming to be me, they're not me.
And my God, am I just...
I'm so much happier on other social media sites.
And I just look on Twitter at the environment that's been created on there.
And it is a hellscape.
I'm not surprised that people act like they have PTSD from being on Twitter.
It's like compared to my daily life, which is this family life, office life, and then just reading, it's this maelstrom of just screeching idiots.
It's so funny.
Each autistic side is like, no, I have the truth.
I have the truth.
And they're all screaming about like the same object.
It's like, right, okay.
Okay.
Anyway, so yeah, someone sent me this, and I found this hilarious.
And I'm not meaning to pick on anyone or anything, but this is something that Shuan Head had posted.
And this is worthy of examination, right?
Because how is it that we've got to this point?
All in the span of a few days, as she says, right?
Popular science, go ahead, marry your cousin.
It's not that bad for your future kids.
Wow, that's nice, isn't it?
Is that a right-wing science journal?
Popular science, is it?
No, of course not.
It's going to be very Bernie Sanders supporting, if polled, I'll bet.
Every single one of them voted for Joe Biden.
New York Post, New York parents see it's okay to marry their own child.
Hmm.
New York, yes.
Very notoriously conservative area.
Hmm.
Very interesting.
Hmm.
Consensual incest should be decriminalized.
Advocates say.
Do we think those advocates voted Trump?
Just what do you reckon?
What are the odds?
Who's going to place a bet that these advocates are left-wing?
I'm not even going to look it up.
Not even going to look it up.
And when you look it up and find that they are, of course, Bernie supporters, who are now Biden supporters, well, then you'll find exactly the same position because all of this is down to a philosophy.
It's all down to a theory.
And because she was determinately against reading a book, which is a position, honestly, at this point, I'm kind of coming around to respecting.
Because she at least feels in a negative way about this.
She is at least, God, there's something horrifically wrong when all of these notable people and institutions are saying, you know what?
What's wrong with incest?
What's wrong with this?
What's wrong with that?
There's something dramatically wrong.
And so she does this Hell World series, I'm sure you've seen on her channel.
And it's funny because everything seems to be spiraling out of control, but she's got a commitment to being left-wing.
That means essentially it's a commitment to an autistic view that can't explain the rest of the world because you're essentially saying, look, I'm going to look only through this one particular lens.
And it's like, yeah, now I don't know why.
All of these terrible things are happening around me.
But if you just broadened your scope a bit, you'd realize, oh, that's why and that's why.
And oh, right, now I can put the picture together.
And so this is why I just find myself amused by people claiming dogmatism on my part when they are expressly dogmatic.
And like, you'll see this in any, any, can I find a leftist?
Right, let me find a leftist.
Is this a leftist?
No, it's a libertarian, right?
Okay, this is.
But you'll see them in their bio.
There we go.
He, him.
The fact that these are just attributes.
This is what they're saying.
They have all of their various attributes.
They list in the bio, you know, the personal preferences, the pronouns, all of this stuff.
And it's like, right, that's a really narrow way of looking at what a human being is.
And I think that there is something in Shu in her belief system that isn't expressly of this one dimension, but she can't adequately explain it.
But the thing is, so going back a few years, let's talk about the incest thing, right?
Let's, this, this, all of these will be covered in what I'm saying.
But the incest thing is particularly easy to hit the nail on the head here.
Because, I mean, like, who are the advocates?
Like, I want to know who the incest advocates are because I want to laugh at them for being disgusting.
Like, show me the incest advocate, the consensual incest advocates on Twitter.
Like, let them come at me hard, bro.
I want to meet them.
I want to see them.
I want to laugh at them.
The closest I have found to a pro-incest argument is a 2017 debate that Destiny did with no bullshit.
Now, no bullshit isn't someone I particularly have any respect for, but he was right on this point.
And Destiny is someone who I began with very little respect for because of arguments like these.
And in the last four or five years, he's actually really, well, not even that long, like two or three years.
He's really been working on his own view of the world very hard.
And he's actually, I mean, I don't think that he would avow this argument now in the present day, but I'm not sure that he would be able to tell you exactly why.
But I think I can tell everyone exactly why.
But let's have a quick listen to the pro-incest argument for a second.
You said, come on my show.
I'm going to take a stance that's pro-incest.
So you make an opening statement that's pro-incest.
Okay.
Here is my opening pro-incest statement then.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
Tell me.
So you're speaking in support of incest.
Sure.
So my Twitch TV supported by blue microphones.
Pro-incest speech.
So my opening statement would be that I would say that incest is a morally neutral action like any other sexual activity, assuming no one else is getting hurt.
Now, you must tell me why it is a moral wrong to commit incest or whatever.
That's amazing, isn't it?
I really wonder if he holds this position now.
Actually, why is it moral wrong?
Why?
Why indeed?
Well, the question really can be explained by if you look at the framing of what's happening here, right?
So go ahead, marry cousin.
It's not that bad for your future kids.
And then this one, universal incest should be decriminalized.
So the framing is that from the position of the universe, well, it's not something that's a huge deal.
And that's true.
Why would the universe care?
You know, where's the intrinsic, like, where is it built into the act?
You know, this is what they're arguing.
And I guess you can agree that there is scientifically, maybe you can argue, because Destiny ends up arguing in his point that, well, I mean, what if it's happening between gay men?
Then you don't have to worry about the idea of progeny coming out of it.
And so the practical, consequential problem of incest goes away.
What if they're using protection?
Things like that.
It's like, hmm, still not very satisfactory, though, is it?
You know, incest is okay as long as you're wearing a condom.
It's like, hmm, no.
I think that what we need to do is start considering moral content, right?
Where is moral content?
Where does it lie?
And moral content actually lies within us.
So we don't need to look outside of ourselves for moral content or moral justification.
Our own opinion on something being right or wrong on a moral level is enough.
It is sufficient for us.
We do not need the universe's permission to call something immoral.
And so there's no point, ever any point, of appealing to a contingent factor, saying, oh, well, in this particular case of incest, it didn't produce a child, and therefore that's okay.
That's not good enough.
I have to explain this to the left.
But sorry, that's not good enough.
Because there is moral content at each stage of moral deliberation.
Or moral consideration, sorry.
So at the beginning, you deliberate.
You're like, what would be right from wrong abstractly?
You know, if I were to consider no other factors, if it was just in isolation, in theory, what do I think is right and wrong?
And in theory, I think that we can agree that incest is wrong, right?
It shouldn't happen.
It shouldn't be that brothers and sisters have sex with one another.
Thanks the left.
Thanks the left for making me have to talk about this.
Because most people don't think about this at all.
Why would they, right?
And so a lot of people are kind of disarmed.
It's like, well, I just don't really, I don't know.
It just feels wrong.
Okay.
Well, is that not in and of itself sufficient?
Why should I find an objective criterion for saying that incest is wrong if my own feelings that it is wrong is sufficient to make sure that I wouldn't do it?
And if I wouldn't do it, why would I want it for anyone else?
You know, why would I want it for my kids?
Why wouldn't I say no?
There is something wrong with that.
But anyway, moving on, there is going into the act itself, moral content.
And the act of anything, anything that you do, can be considered to have moral content.
Now, some acts will have virtually zero or effectively null moral content, such as brushing your teeth.
Not essentially moral.
You could perhaps make a sort of, you know, big, broad argument of tenuous connections that there is some greater moral good if you brush your teeth because then you're causing less or fewer problems for dentists and that just makes society as a whole just incrementally and gradually better.
You know, you can make arguments like that, but it's not very convincing and tend to be punctured by give me an example, you know, draw the direct correlation.
So it's like, okay, we won't go down that.
Well, let's talk about the nature of morality and what we will call heroism and villainy.
Because I think that we should still be able to draw on these concepts.
Now, if we go back to the very narrow band that the left looks at things with, well, we're actually outside of that now.
So we're talking about things that aren't scientific, right?
There is no scientific metric of heroism or villainy, even though I think we can all agree that we have, personally, heroes.
Again.
Not from a universal perspective, but I actually don't need the universe's permission to have heroes.
I don't need the universe's permission to have villains.
I do not need it validated by science that there is right and wrong in the world.
And so we're outside of this framework now.
And so the left is obviously screaming all sorts of isms probably in my chat.
You know, I haven't, I'm not following it because I'm trying to make sure I'm coherent and I won't get distracted.
But there's all sorts of isms that may be ascribed after this point, but none of them are valid because I'm just not talking about those things.
I'm talking about the way that we relate to one another.
Now, this is the sort of the feelings base.
You know, when Ben Shapiro was like, you know, facts don't care about your feelings, that's true.
The material world does not care about how I feel about the material world.
But conversely, I actually don't care about how the material world feels about my feelings.
I don't give a damn.
You know, if all the science in the world is like, you know what, actually, incest is totally safe.
You can actually do this.
I'd still say, no, you're actually disgusting.
In fact, you're a totally immoral person, aren't you?
Aren't you, Mr. Scientist?
Why have you done a study to try and validate incest just out of interest?
I'd be really curious.
But my point is that human interactions, the relations we have, which are kind of intrinsic to us and the person we have a relationship with, and they're special, unique, particular, non-universal, totally exclusive.
Whatever particular relationship you have to me is exclusively yours to mine.
But unfortunately, because of the nature of parasocial relationships, it's very difficult for me to be able to engage in that properly.
But I don't want to go off on a tangent.
Talk about in real life.
So you've got your family and your friends, and you've got particular relations that are dependent on people's particular station in life.
And this is, again, why, definitionally, adults shouldn't be having relationships with children.
This is definitionally why mothers should not be having relationships with their sons and fathers with their daughters, because we have moral content bound up in the relation itself.
It is what I have described as a thick concept.
Now, this is the sort of thing I've been working on on loadseas.com.
I think it is very, very useful, which is why it's paywall.
Because obviously, you can't exactly rely on Silicon Valley and add revenue these days, can you?
It could be at any time for any reason that any of us are deleted.
And so we have had to build something of our own.
But I'm very, very proud of what we've built over at loadseas.com.
We've got some really good thinkers.
We've got producing really good regular content.
So if you wanted to catch up with what I'm doing, you can go over there and check that out.
But the point of these thick concepts is they are, at the same time, words that describe a situation in reality that is outside of us, objective to us, but also describes the will of the people involved in that event, in that circumstance.
And it also includes various levels of how we personally feel about it, how other people feel about it, and the social, I guess what we'll just call the traditional, which is, you know, the inherited morality of the past, the traditional way of viewing these things.
And I think it's this that Shu is essentially forced to lean on because it appears that the left has erased, broken the bonds of these layers of concept to focus autistically on that very thin band.
And that's not terribly moral, in my opinion.
I think that actually leaves a huge amount of moral calculus out.
And that's why I have done this.
hour-long podcast talking about this and then a follow-up in order to be able to do the book club of Brave New World that we've done.
The next one's going to be 1984 because this was a question that they, in the sort of early or mid-20th century, were figuring out.
They were like, there is something wrong with our civilization.
There is something wrong with it is pretty much just the left.
And it is a kind of part of the heart of the Enlightenment, that there is a problem, an unresolvable problem in it.
And essentially, the logical conclusion ends up looking something like communism.
But this obviously is not very desirable.
And it's totally unaesthetic.
So it seems to be devoid of what we would consider to be real moral content from a human perspective.
And it's because of these layers of concepts.
Describing the situation is not enough.
We have to describe the human attachment to the situation.
And so we're talking about duties and obligations and morality, not science.
So when we say the word father, for example, there is a huge amount of information that is included in that concept.
And not just on the terms of what the biologically essential role of what it is to be, and this is what gets me in trouble.
You're a transphobic.
Well, I'm sorry.
I do think there is something biologically essential to being a man and father.
Being a father requires you to be a man, a man that has sired a child.
And all of this is bound up in that word.
But more than that is bound up in the word, because then you've got essential notions of duty and obligation to your children.
So now there is moral weight attached to the term father.
And it is not simply something you are.
It is something you become.
It is also a station in life.
And so you have to work to become a father generally.
It's not just so simple as merely being male, you know, merely being a man, merely being married, merely just having children even.
You could probably argue that a father truly is someone who actually works very hard and is concerned about the future of his offspring.
And so he fulfills the obligations to them.
And so as you can see, we're a million miles away from the disgusting, disgusting terminology that the left is using.
Because they're talking in very, very flat terms.
Well, where's the consequential harm?
It's like, well, I don't care.
I just don't care.
Even if you can find no consequential harm, it is still morally despicable to violate all of these sacred parts of morality that we have inherited in the way that the relationships themselves work.
It is a kind of mythological, sacred nature that is embedded in them, in the concepts as we define them and understand them and live them, because it's a part of our sort of emotive life, how we feel about our parents, how we feel.
There are certain kinds of sacred bonds that shouldn't be sullied through, in the particular case of parents and children, sexual interaction.
That is forbidden.
It is disgraceful.
It is disgusting.
And it is because of the way that we define and think about these things.
And if you don't think about them in that way, maybe you should question just why.
Just what has happened to your moral compass?
Why has the left done this to you?
Because it's only about stripping away the moral attachments to the event, reducing the thick concept to a very thin one, that you can arrive at that place.
And don't you wonder why these people are taking something away from you?
It's important.
These are your relationships.
This is why millennials are so nihilistic, because they have such bad relationships, because they've been so dominated in their normal lives by left-wing thought.
And the problem with the right is it has not been able to make this argument, which is essentially the argument from appropriateness, the argument from what is proper, the argument from relation, which is where the right is strongest.
The necessary ties, the deep, like, you know, human ties between communities, between families, what makes them sacred and why the left shouldn't be here to destroy them with their degeneracy.
And I think that this is something the right has really dropped the ball on.
These are real things that all parents know, you know, or at least the good parents, sorry, the bad parents, the ones, the Joseph Fritzels of the world, who would probably agree that maybe we should consensualize incest, legalize consensual incest, you know.
Those terrible people, I mean, I'm using it as a joke, but what a horrible, horrible person that would agree with this left-wing position that we should decriminalize consensual incest.
I'm sure he would think that.
Look up who Joseph Fritzel was, if you want, and wonder.
Ask yourself, where does he fall on all of these things?
You know, where does he fall on this?
The okay to marry your own adult child.
I'm sure Joseph Fritzel would agree.
Is that a person whose example you want to follow?
He could be a moral legislator for left-wing morality at this point, but he could not be a moral legislator for what I guess we'll just call thick morality, particular morality.
Like, this is important, and it is essential to the human condition, and it is what prevents a descent into nihilism.
It prevents meaninglessness.
It is good for you to find meaning in your relationships.
This is what Jordan Peterson was always hammering on about, but he never articulated the sort of metaphysical underpinnings because he's not a philosopher, he's a psychologist.
You know, he could always give you the scientific reasons, which are always valid if you believe in science, which of course you do, because why not?
But it's not the only thing that is true.
There are other things that are true, and these human relationships are true.
And this, I think, would prevent us from having to say this.
I will not live in a pod.
I will not eat the bugs.
I will not buy the air.
I will not fuck my cousin.
I mean, why not?
I know why I wouldn't, but why wouldn't you?
That's what you've got to answer.
And you can't really answer it from a left-wing position, because the left-wing position would be, well, there might not be any permanent damage from that.
And that's true.
There might not be.
And therefore, that's what they'll say.
And the left's position on all of this is hilarious, right?
So you've got like various people replying.
This wasn't recent, I think.
This was an old one.
I've seen this going around.
Banning incest because of birth defects is literally eugenics.
I mean, God, who wants to look at the world like that?
You know, banning incest because parents shouldn't fuck their kids is the reason to do it.
They shouldn't do it because of the nature of the relationship.
I don't care if it's eugenics.
I don't think it's in any way.
I don't think you could compare it at all.
I think that the moral content is in the act itself.
It doesn't damn the consequences.
Damn the consequences a priori and by virtue of.
This is just the funniest reasoning in the world.
It's just legalize incest because otherwise we're eugenicists.
Come on.
Come on, left-wingers.
Come on.
And then Destiny being like, oh, incest is a neutrally moral.
Again, I don't think he holds that position now.
That's an old position, I think.
But yeah, it was just something that came across.
And we happen to have done some good work on this to explain exactly why this is all wrong.
So I thought I'd just do a quick stream to drop in on what the left's doing online.
But I always thought this was like, what is the left doing online?
Oh my God.
They're busy justifying incest today.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Not the first time.
But anyway, how's it going, chat?
The concept of a mad king has entered the chat.
Yeah, the left is a lot like a mad king these days.
Like, what are they doing?
Yes, Vorsch has got many positions that he is going to have to walk back in short order.
I did DM him on Discord saying, would you like to debate this?
He didn't reply to me.
I don't know why.
I mean, the reason this is coming from the left as well, just in case.
Yeah, don't walk.
Yeah, Andrew, yeah, dude.
Love your work, by the way.
Old position, still an awful position.
Yeah, I know.
This is not new either, right?
You can go back decades and find serious organized leftist activism for every kind of degeneracy.
Literally, paedophile, the paedophile information exchange, which is something in the UK that Harriet Harmon, like the, she was in the previous Labour government, was a part of.
And then you've got Foucault Derrida and all the French post-structuralists in the 70s signing a letter to the French government to abolish the age of consent.
And it was only the other day that France put an age of consent in of 15.
Previously, it was younger, I believe.
But it was only the other day that it was 15.
It's like, I guess it's right-wing to have the age of consent.
But this is the thing.
The left is all about the abolition of boundaries because their one overriding goal is absolute freedom.
Freedom of the will rather than freedom of the agent.
Because the freedom of the will, will is a very important concept, right?
Freedom of the agent.
It's presumed that an agent is imbued with a will.
The will is a property of the agent.
And so what we're looking for under the concept of freedom of the agent is freedom to not be coerced by other agents.
So you don't have a tyrannical dictator telling you you can't leave your house for fear of giving someone the sniffles or something like that, you know, something totally unrelated to reality.
And that absence of oppression from that particular agent is identifiable.
And so we can say, right, okay, there is not an artificial person, like the artificial act of a person acting upon me to restrain my personal liberty and therefore I am free.
It's pretty empirical, pretty English view of these things.
And so it's pretty common sense.
Then you get the French view of these things.
It starts going into sort of the freedom of the will.
Hang on a second.
Am I being oppressed by nature?
Because my will is trapped and confined within this fleshy prison.
And you end up getting into a dichotomy between mind and body that I don't think exists.
And you end up going kind of mad and saying, well, actually, I can just do anything I want.
I should be able to just manipulate my body in any way I like when in fact it would make more sense to try and live in harmony with your inherent nature.
I don't want to go off on a big tangent, but the point is, if you're going to fulfill the demands of the freedom of the will and have everything open to you because of your whim and fancy and not and consider, that's the most important thing, consider the physical limits of reality to be moral offenses, then you end up in the left's position where every barrier has to be broken down to establish this totally all-inclusive playing field,
this is like kingdom of ends, where everyone can have everything at any time.
And the act of denying someone something is itself immoral, because fundamentally it's the sovereignty of the will rather than the sovereignty of the agent that is being considered.
Anyway, I'm not going to go off on a really big tangent about it, but it's why the left is just destroying every boundary.
And they can't help it.
It's baked into left-wing morality.
They can't bring themselves to admit that there is a sanctity, a sort of mythos around an individual that can be built up.
They do everything they can to disenchantness.
And I think we should be guardians of it.
I think we should actually say, no, there is something to being a father and a mother.
In fact, there's a lot to being a father and a mother and a son and a daughter and all of these familial relationships that the left spends its time breaking down, which is why they want the state to provide everything to you, things to you that your father and mother should have provided.
This is why we have like sex education in schools.
This is all part of this sort of left-wing drive to make sure that the state fulfills the function.
And so everyone becomes this atomized individual that lives on their own in the pod, eating the bugs, having sex with their cousins.
If not, what are you arguing from?
If you don't want that, why not?
You know, what is it?
And you think, well, no, I want to be the agent who decides the nature of my relationships.
And these relationships are built on necessity in many ways.
And this is something that is connected to our biology.
And maybe it's good for us to have this necessary biological imperative.
Maybe it's something that's good for us and our condition as a species, as the humans.
You know, maybe it's good for us to do these things.
But then suddenly, you see, we're a million miles away from the left-wing considerations on anything.
And they can't even have this conversation.
So, anyway, I'll stop waffling.
return to templar kind of kenny i just want to be left alone Yes, of course you do.
Of course you do, but you've got to understand they'll never leave you alone because everything that they want is universal.
And what you want is particular.
You want your own small thing away from the rest of the universe that you can draw up the sort of boundaries between.
But they don't want that.
Your boundaries are in their way to universality.
And so they will never leave you alone.
Ever.
I am a leftist.
Stop hating.
I'm not hating.
I'm just telling you the truth about your own position, I think.
You know, I would like to see a leftist bring this up.
And then someone's like watching Sargon trying to struggling to make religious points without being religious is hilarious.
There is nothing that is predicated on theology for what I've just said here.
Everything I have said is entirely secular, linguistic, and innately moral from an evolutionary perspective.
There is absolutely no need to appeal to anything other than that which we have.
It's just this is what the religious have been doing for a very long time.
And look at the size and prosperity of religions.
There must be something to it.
Otherwise, how did they succeed?
And I think that when it comes to relational view of the world and families, they're not wrong.
There is something inherent in humans, not in any one religion, because obviously humans, you know, even without religions, like to have relationships.
There is something inherent in humans as social animals that wants relationships.
And so as reason and enlightenment worshipers, we need to be able to understand that and not instead pretend that it doesn't exist because it does.
I haven't been watching Dr. Dutton.
I don't know who that is.
I'm afraid.
I've just been reading a lot of books and doing a lot of work.
But the thing is, as well, why dismiss this just because it is also what the religious have done?
Because if they, like I said, have focused on an aspect of reality, which is the kind of emergent, relational, traditional, incremental view of human society, and it seems to be in existence.
It's instantiated itself, it's propagated itself, it has thrived and flourished.
Why would we say there's no truth there?
There's nothing there.
It would surely be because of our own autistic position rather than the observation of reality for the religious people.
And again, I'm not religious.
I don't believe in a God.
But I do think that there is some merit to what they have said, even if there literally isn't an old man in the sky watching me take a dump, right?
Like there's still some merit in the behaviors they've exhibited.
and for good reason question do you think artificially born babies from the same sperm and egg but genetically modified to be far away from siblings as possible is still incest Well, that's a very interesting question that scientists would be debating.
Let me think.
I mean, I personally would consider it to be the continuous identity of the things.
So it doesn't matter whether my sister is genetically related to me or not.
The fact that I can categorize her as my sister also includes a moral prescription, which is another thing the left is terrified of.
Well, we can't have moral prescriptions.
Why?
Why not?
I think things are right and wrong.
And I feel that I'm actually in a position with enough knowledge of the world to be able to say that something is right and wrong.
I'm going to prescribe.
The left is busy doing it in their own way anyway, so get bent.
But no, I would say that because it is my sister, even though genetically totally different, then the very nature of it is haram, if you like.
And I think the same goes for step-siblings, obviously, and they're definitely not related.
So, you know, it's still haram.
But, but, yeah, no, I think it's baked into the relationship, baked into what the relationship is.
Human monkey chimeras, yeah.
Hasn't science been really doing the Lord's work recently?
My great human monkey chimers.
Oh, thanks, science.
That's nice.
Alex Jones's like, I'm right, Jar is getting bigger, isn't it?
I'm probably going to do a podcast at some point for the Loises because it's just amazing how much has come out that Alex Jones, literally a few years ago, was saying, and it's true.
I mean, like, the youthful blood reducing the aging process.
Classic Alex Jones.
And apparently, the way they found this out, right?
And this is the super moral way that scientists found this out, is by peeling off the skin of one mouse, a young mouse, and then peeling off the skin of an older mouse and literally stitching them together so the blood would flow between them.
It's like, God, if you did that in any other context, you'd be looked at like you're a psychopath, a potential serial killer.
But if you're in a lab, the lab code, look, I'm just stitching these mice together.
See what happens, okay?
Deal with it.
Nothing wrong with that.
It's like, yeah.
So just saying, I don't really like it very much.
I don't think it's very nice.
Yes, we did discover something we didn't, though.
That's true.
At what cost?
Just again, there is something mythical, mythological, that we can describe collectively as our humanity.
And I think that when you've decided that everything is interchangeable and nothing is special and particular, that you end up losing that.
And that applies to animals as well.
Like, you wouldn't eat your own dog, you know, but you might eat someone else's dog.
Well, that's the question, isn't it?
Bjork Bjork, how is this argument against incest any different to that being compared against homosexuality?
The answer is, of course, because I'm not making it from a religious framework.
So there is no religious prescription against homosexuality in what I've said.
Because homosexuality between unrelated individuals, fine.
You may consider it, you could package in a thick layer of religious prescriptivity when it came to homosexuality, but I personally don't because I don't care.
But it's not terribly difficult.
Different, sorry.
And, you know, that's a sad side effect of it, that there are going to be people saying, well, this makes it seem like it's all been the slippery slope.
And it's like, okay, but we are talking about marrying your kids.
Like, this is where we're at now on the left.
Like, what are you doing?
Why do we have to marry our fucking cousins?
For fuck's sake, there's something wrong here.
And, you know, I think, though, there is a quite happy medium between letting, consenting adults do what they want and not being permissive of incest.
I think there is that.
I think we can find it.
We'll work on this together, Eric.
We'll definitely work on this together.
We'll figure out how we can allow gays to marry, but not allow fathers to fuck their children.
I'm sure we can do this.
I miss the West referring to ourselves as Christendom.
I feel like we lost something beautiful and collectively binding with it.
Yes, we did.
We lost an aesthetic, didn't we?
You know, this is the thing.
I was playing Medieval 2 Total War, and I just love the aesthetic of it.
I just love it.
It's very distinct and unique.
I'm not saying that it's something we can return to either.
This is the thing.
I don't want anyone to mistake what I'm saying for an argument to go back because there is no going back.
There's only ever going forward.
And I'm not in any way arguing that we should reject the Enlightenment or reject science.
These are incredibly useful tools and have done us a tremendous service.
So I don't want to pathologize the method by which we got here.
What I'm saying is maybe we can be a little less autistic about these things.
These are not the only way of looking at the world.
These are not the only way of finding right from wrong or truth from our subjective and relative perspectives, which at least the left now agrees that what we're going to feel is true is subjective to ourselves.
Okay, that's fine.
But then you're allowing a lot of non-scientific concepts to come in as well.
And so we may as well at least articulate what they are.
Offer says, can't return to religion, but can transform the good into secular equivalents.
Exactly right.
Much of the time, the atheist left, and that's just the left, really, isn't it?
It's just entirely materialist, wants to stigmatize and anathematize religion as being entirely wrong.
And whereas on the biblical text or the particular theological argument, perhaps, but on the overarching theme of people having a particular kind of life plan and an ethic of which they should carry out their lives, they're not wrong.
And it's actually science that is wrong about that.
You should have an overarching ethical framework and a plan for your own life because you only get one as far as I, the atheist, am concerned.
And you should do something decent with it.
But the religious people are right on that.
Dead Octave says, but I'm autistic.
I can't help it.
Tosh.
I will not hear any of this defeatist talk of, I can't help it.
We absolutely can help it.
A few years ago, my sister was like, I think you're autistic.
Maybe I'm not going to rule out that I'm not.
But that's no excuse, right?
We can struggle through this autism together.
And hopefully come out at the other side with a better understanding of at least ourselves, right?
But what I think is that no one can say that what I've said here is false.
All they can really say is, I don't like it.
And all they can say is, well, I just don't want to care about these extra bits that you are talking about.
And this is what Jonathan Haidt is talking about with his moral tastes.
The conservatives have the thick moral tastes, whereas the left only have very thin moral tastes.
The care, harm, oppression, freedom foundations.
And this is because essentially they're just materialists.
And I think philosophically we can understand why as well.
Kelly Miller, are you ever going to debate people again or has Vorsh terrified you into staying away forever?
I don't know where this narrative's come from.
Like I said, I offered him to debate against incest.
Oh, sorry, he can debate for it.
I assume that he'd want to.
And I'll debate against incest.
And he didn't get back to me.
I was kind of disappointed because it would have been really funny.
And Destiny did the same three, four years ago.
So I don't think he'd hold that position now.
And I'm very much enjoying Destiny's understanding that actually socialism is a problem.
And it's kind of the problem.
And it's not just socialism economically either, though.
It's socialism in social regards.
We need a Project Veritas in the UK.
Someone to look into the BBC and MSM News and hold them accountable.
Yeah, we do.
Dog of war, you're full of bad takes today, Sargon.
Well, tell me why.
I want to hear your arguments.
I've presented mine, and I think, like I said, what I was saying is true.
Where are the super chats?
I haven't got any super chats on this channel.
We're not monetized.
And I haven't set up a Streamlabs link or anything like that.
I'm not doing this for money.
I'm doing this for the interest in engaging with these ideas.
Because I think that don't worry.
I'm not saying that Destiny is for eugenics or incest or anything like that.
I think that essentially a lot of these content creators kind of find themselves pinned into a position that they didn't intend by the logic that they're using to win other fights.
And this is uncomfortable.
And so, like I said, I don't think there's anything I've said that's untrue.
And I don't think they'll be able to say that it's untrue.
I think they'll just say, I don't like it.
Look into the Tavistock Institute.
Yes, it's quite suspicious, isn't it?
Lots of activists in the Tavistock Institute.
It's the UK's single transgender clinic, and it has a very interesting record of success in transgender metrics.
Catholic Church banned cousin marriage-based.
I'm not doing it for the money, filthy communist.
Yeah, it's amazing, isn't it?
I take it you guys have seen the Black Lives Matter founder who bought the $1.4 million house, and everyone's like, ooh, that's a lot of money for a communist, someone who's openly Marxist, and then it turned out she had three more.
And then she came out and be like, Yeah, this is why it's okay for me as a communist to own four houses.
What these based capitalists on the left is with Vorsch, like all the money they make.
And it's just like, wow, that's incredible.
I should be doing that.
If I were a grifter, I'd be doing that exactly.
I mean, how would you not?
How would you tell between your average left-winger who, I don't know, transitions or becomes like a hardcore communist or whatever it is and someone who is just doing it for the money?
How would you tell?
Because there's always the same effect, the same financial incentive, the same subscriber incentive.
If I wanted those things, I would do that too.
Looking forward to my transition, Ark.
Where is the King Arthur red pill video?
Yeah, good point.
And I took it down under agreement with Scott because it was kind of magic we were working on.
And he didn't want to spoil it.
That's fair.
It was a good video, though, wasn't it?
Segwain is pretty based and red-pilled on the femoid question.
I've recently got myself into 40k and was wondering: is left more striving towards the stagnant elders?
They're slowly tiring to become the commie equal of the hive mind nids.
I imagine they'd end up more like the elder.
Because the thing is, they're trying to use science to establish those things that the impulses that are generated through intuition and desire.
These aren't scientific.
They're not measurable through science.
We're not talking about science at all when we're talking about the good for man or the desirable eudaimonic state that you'd be aiming for to be happy and satisfied with your life.
None of this is science, and there's no point using science to try and establish this, especially when there are so many other ways, like really old ways that people have worked really hard to figure out how we can lead a good life.
Because I assume fundamentally that is what's at the base of all of this, right?
And it doesn't have to be religious at all.
We've got many good secular answers to this.
It's just that they don't use science.
And that's not really what we needed.
But we're sort of trapped in this Enlightenment cycle where we're essentially trapped in Francis Bacon's inheritance.
Where it's like, oh, we will use science and conquer nature for the relief of man's estate.
It's like, yes.
And now we're abolishing the distinction between fathers and their children, mothers and their children.
Has man's estate been successfully relieved at this point?
Because they were wrong, back in the 15th and 16th centuries, life was terrible compared to now.
Like you could get all sorts of diseases and die horribly.
Definitely something you would want relieving of as much as possible.
But now we're talking about how we can change our bodies as we're children, like with the Tavistock Center.
I'm thinking maybe that's a form of oppression we can permit.
Like, I wasn't allowed to chop off my genitals when I was a child.
I'm being oppressed.
It's like, yes, rightly so.
Just read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.
Good man.
That's what you should do.
Very stern proponent of stoicism these days.
We did meditations on the book club the other day and it was fantastic.
And I'll probably do the AE and Chiridion of Epictetus.
It's even more autistic.
It's great.
Red herring.
This isn't leftist thinking.
Enjoy playing with yourself and your shadows.
It's entirely leftist thinking.
It's devalued scientific thinking.
And try and find me a leftist that will talk in terms of mythology, talk in terms of the sacred.
You can't do it using left-wing morality, using left-wing terminology.
It is an entirely different and separate language that renders the kind of traditional language totally invisible.
And this is why they end up going, well, hang on, why can't cousins marry?
Because they're related.
Anyway, where can I find the book club?
LotusEaters.com.
This is the, I did two podcasts leading up to the Brave New World book club.
Because if I'll get up.
So this one about thick concepts and then the video about ethical knowledge.
Ethics comes from aesthetics.
So don't even bother looking in science.
And then this was leading up to the Brave New World book club that was very well received, actually.
And yeah, it's like really good comments on it.
It's very, very interesting because Orwell and Huxley could basically be writing in the same timeline, even though they had back and forth through letters arguing the toss about who's got the more accurate depiction of the future.
It's like, well, you kind of both do.
You know, you kind of both do.
Although, Orwell, in 1984, it was very sex negative.
And this, of course, turned out to be a false prediction.
It's very, very sex positive.
And were the left to have somehow fallen in to the sort of sacral nature of what it is to be a human, then they may well have embraced a more puritanistic position.
But of course, they didn't.
And Orwell was wrong where Huxley was right.
But in the long run, I think Huxley will be right.
And I think he is more right than Orwell in the big questions.
But Orwell is a better writer than Huxley.
He writes with a much more sort of humanistic, like egocentric position.
And it makes for a better reading experience.
And he very clearly was in touch with what was the sickness at the heart of the left, even in his day.
And so, yeah, that's where you can go and find it.
And I'll probably cover this in the 1984 book club.
I wasn't even planning on doing 1984.
It was just like, well, I mean, you know, I'd studied all of this stuff to be able to explain Brave New World properly.
And I swear to God, it's the best Brave New World review you'll find on the internet.
And it all happens to also apply to 1984 because this is what they were doing, what they were talking about.
Add a pin comment.
Okay, I'm sorry.
And I'll probably be.
My God, I can't pin a comment.
And I didn't realize there were 5,000 people watching me just flap my gums.
5,000 people watching and only 1,800 likes.
Come on, folks.
It's f ⁇ ing gold.
I've been working really hard.
I'm giving it away for free.
Like a communist.
I can't pin a comment, apparently.
There is a link in the description, though.
So you can just go click the link, go check it out.
Or you can just search for the podcast of the Lotus Eeters on YouTube.
And we are there.
Yeah, Ab the man, when people say where's the harm, counter with where's the good.
Absolutely correct.
Um, this is exactly the problem, right?
So, essentially, if you want to like the it's amazing, the question, where's the harm, is actually a really gross question if you think about it in detail.
It's like, okay, well, all you're doing there is damage mitigation, so you know you're doing something wrong, you're not building anything good, you're not like asking where's the virtue, where's the where's the excellence about the thing.
No, no, no, how is it harmful?
So, essentially, whenever anyone asks, where's the harm, what they're saying is, why shouldn't I indulge in a vice?
You know, I can't see any observable reason why I should not indulge in this vice.
But the thing is, by nature of it being a vice, you know, there's probably some reason, a thick reason that you shouldn't.
And at the end of the day, why aren't you off busy using your time to build something good?
Dislike is he's asking for likes.
I'm not asking for likes, I'm demanding likes.
Oh, wow, a lot of people actually did.
I was just joking about that.
I don't give a shit about likes, rubbing your hands together and begging for all those likes.
Yes, I'm not making any jokes.
You're not allowed to make jokes on YouTube anymore.
I'm sorry for ever making a joke on YouTube.
I'll make all jokes offline from now on.
Dan, oh, in fact, no, good point.
I nearly forgot.
There is a petition going around, and I should have promoted this, and so I will do now because this is important.
So, there is a petition that's going around, it's only got 8,000 signatures so far.
I'm going to find a way of pinning this in the comments, right?
So, you should find if I refresh this to make sure that I've done this properly, yeah, section 127 petition.
Where did that go?
If you refresh, you should find in the description a section 127 petition at the very top, which is an attempt to repeal the Communications Act of 2003 and expunge all convictions.
I didn't write the petition, so for the spelling mistakes in there, that wasn't my fault, but it doesn't matter because it is an official government petition in the UK, which means that at 10,000 signatures, the UK government will at least respond and say why they're not or whether they would, if merely 10,000 people asking to get this removed would be good.
Why they won't.
So, section 127 is the reason that anyone in this country gets in trouble for posting things on the internet.
It's why Cam Dankula was in trouble, and it's why there have been dozens and dozens of people who have been like people I know or like newsworthy reports of like people, you know, posting like rap lyrics in honor of a dead friend of theirs on Instagram.
And suddenly, boom, this is a girl in Liverpool, she was 19.
Two weeks, two weeks, like curfew or something with a tag on her feet for posting some rap lyrics that were in memory of her dead friend because it uses the N-word, soft R, a soft A, as I understood it.
But I mean, that's unacceptable, right?
And then you've got Cam Dankula having made a joke with his dog and all of this sort of stuff.
That's the, it's the root and branch that's kill is the thing that has killed free speech in the UK.
And the Conservatives are currently in a position to be able to undo this because they have a massive parliamentary majority.
They have such absolute power within the parliament that, and I can see people signing already.
Thank you guys.
They have such absolute power within the parliament.
They could probably do this tomorrow if they wanted.
Probably wouldn't take them five minutes to just write a piece of legislation that said we are going to get rid of section 127 communication 2003 Communications Act because it's clearly not fit for purpose, blah, blah, blah, blah, and get rid of it.
You know, let's get rid of it.
There's no reason that this should be here oppressing us and taking away our liberties.
I should be able to say offensive things on the internet.
It's not the same thing as hurting someone.
It's wrong to have inhibited my speech in this way.
So definitely do go and sign that because this is something that's, like I said, valid.
It's on their website, it's on the government website, it's an official thing.
And it would be nice for us to have some positive effect in the world.
Fewer people should be terrorized by the state for things they have posted on Twitter that left-wing activists disagree with.
And of course, the 2003 Communications Act brought in by the Labour government under Tony Blair.
Thanks, Tony.
That's just another part of your legacy that we've got to try and bully the Conservatives into undoing.
But we shall do this with this petition.
Let me go back to the chat.
I was enjoying talking to the chat.
It's been a long time.
The way things are set up now, things have to be necessarily different.
You will still vote for Tory next time.
Well, I mean, it depends what the options are.
You know, if this UKIP pull themselves together, I'm happy to vote UKIP again.
Dankilla's running, by the way, for the Scottish Parliament, Holyrood, for the Libertarian Party.
So I would vote Libertarian if I were in Scotland, and you should too.
Good God, does Scotland need some sort of constitutional alternative to the Nazis and the SNP and the even worse that's going to come out of whatever else is created?
Like, good God, vote Dank 2021.
Land is sacred.
Ownership of land and natural resources like air and water is immoral and sinful.
How do you come to that conclusion, Johnny?
I'd like to know.
Is Steve Stevens actually a guy?
Yes, I have actually spoken to him, or at least he sent us a video message.
One of the things we do on the site on the podcast is if you're a member of a certain tier, you can just, you know, film yourself with a camera, send us a video message, and then we'll play it and respond to it.
So we do know.
We do know who he is, and he's just a regular concerned citizen like the rest of us.
After Calm's recommendation, I've also almost finished Mao's Great Famine.
I'm the one who made him read that.
It's really good.
I don't think I've ever read anything more depressing.
Yeah, okay, when I say really good, what I mean is really informative.
Not like a jolly story that you'd read through, like Gulag Archipelago.
It's the fact that there are still socialists on the internet and that are accepted in public life is a testament to how much ignorance there is about what happened in Asia.
Asia had some horrific things happen to it in the 20th century, and we should talk about it.
Yeah, Sadiq Khan's going to win in London.
You know he's going to win in London.
He can't possibly lose at this point.
You look healthy.
Oh, thank you very much.
I've been working very hard, as always.
But it's totally enriching, though.
I've worked really, really hard and built up something really, really good.
And my family life seems to be going okay.
You know, the lockdowns are over, so I went climbing the other day for the first time in like a year.
Oh, my God, my back and shoulders, and like, like all across here, just all ache because you're just pulling yourself up.
But it's a good ache.
You know, it's one of those like, oh, yes, you know, feeling getting back to feeling like a human being again.
Has the SNP changed their name to the National Socialist Party yet?
Pretty much.
Malicious communications, you should be targeting not section 127.
Well, no, it's section 127 that specifically includes the grossly offensive bit.
I mean, I can concede that there can be some form of malicious communication that you don't want to happen.
As in, if someone is emailing someone or ringing them up or something night and day, saying, you know, giving them threats of rape or something, obviously, you don't want them to be able to do that, and that should be illegal.
But posting something to the internet that might be considered grossly offensive can get fucked.
I like gross offense.
I don't think gross offense should be something that the state should be able to terrorize me about.
And that's exactly what they do.
And it's again, grossly offensive to who?
You know, I mean, okay, I find like the advocacy for the abolition of the moral prescription against incest and paedophilia to be grossly offensive.
Are all of these activists who have said all of this on Twitter and various uses?
Are they going to be arrested by the British state now?
Nope, sorry, this is it.
£800 fine.
Because Sargon of a CAD found that grossly offensive.
Of course not, right?
And so it's not a standard that's going to be evenly applied.
And it's a terrible standard, even if it was evenly applied.
So let's get rid of it now.
Looks like you've lost a few stone.
Yes, I have.
I've lost about two and a half stone, I think.
And I feel great.
Riding my bike to work every day because I set up an office about half an hour away from where I live.
So I've got some exercise.
We're actually hiring, by the way.
Things are going really, really well.
So you can actually apply for a job, which is careers at lotuseaters.com.
If you want to email that, the provisos are you have to work nine to five and you have to work from the office in Swindon.
But if you can, we're looking for content creators and video editors.
So if you are a political commentator and you have an expertise in something, we would like people with qualifications if possible.
But even if you don't, send your CV.
You know, we'll see how it is.
But we are hiring because we're working very hard.
And thankfully, this is rewarded with patronage from people who agree and like what we're doing and what we're producing.
So we'd like to expand.
Anyway, what kind of bike?
Just some mountain bike.
I don't know anything about bikes.
So it's just, you know, it's quite a nice one with a light frame.
Wasn't gross offense used to convert gay people.
I have no idea.
I'm glowing.
Oh, well, I don't think I'm pregnant.
But I'm not going to rule it out, you know.
Are people wanting incest simply to appease the people who are concerned about the birth rate?
God, I dread to think.
Ask Crown Teeth some content.
Well, I would, but he wouldn't even reply to me, apparently.
Will you debate this nebulous thick stuff with either Destiny or Vorsk?
Yeah, of course.
They're pretty sure they'd be interested if you ask him.
Well, I have.
So I, you know, waiting for Vorsch to get back to me.
See which side of the incest debate he falls on.
Maybe you're a fed.
God, I hope so.
So it's terrifying nothing that you're not a fed, though, to be honest.
Because you realize that if you think that, you think, Christ, I'm actually on my own.
And if I get cancelled, then where do I get food for my children's mouths?
So I would like to identify as a fed if possible, because at least I've got a guaranteed income.
I can identify as pregnant, says Andrew.
That's correct.
I can identify as pregnant.
And that's as far as that goes.
Sargon looks healthier the more right-wing he becomes.
Well, I think it's wrong to look at things in terms of left and right, but I can't help but notice that seems to be true for a lot of right-wingers, though.
Like a lot of right-wingers seem to look healthier and better, whereas a lot of people on the left look strung out, stressed out, like they don't get enough sleep or don't get enough sunlight, and so they're pasty with massive bags, and it's just like, oh, my God.
You know, look at what you're becoming golem, basically, on Twitter.
Twitter is turning you into golem.
And like I said, I'm not on Twitter.
So it's just like, I don't know.
I see this howling, raging mob on Twitter.
It's like Tasmanian devil.
You know, when he's spinning around in this whirlwind, and it's, that's Twitter to me.
And I'm just like watching it goes.
Oh, God.
Wow, what's trending today?
Jews, Hitler, and the Holocaust.
Man, I didn't think about the Jews, Hitler, or the Holocaust once in my day up until Twitter came along.
It's like, you know, this is doing on Twitter.
Oh, God.
I just, I'm just going to go get a snack.
I might go play some football with my boy or, you know, get puked on by my baby son, who's nearly five months old now and doing very well.
Thank you.
He's very, very fat, which is good.
You want fat, chubby baby.
And he's generally quite happy, though.
I didn't get any smiles out of him today.
And again, already you can see I'm a million miles away from debating Jews, the Hitler and Holocaust, Hitler and the Holocaust on Twitter.
Like, it's just what a weird life to have to live, to be debating that day in and day out on Twitter.
It's such a strange drug.
Not of your own accord.
Well, that's true, Scott.
That's not of my own accord.
But it's better to be broken of an addiction involuntarily than to still have that addiction, I would say.
Even if it wasn't voluntary.
That's right.
I didn't do it by force of will.
I had it thrust upon me and I am grateful for it.
What are you doing?
Just working on the website, really, and working on the podcast and working on the thick concepts, the ideas.
I've been working very hard on a kind of relational view of the world that I'm not prepared to unleash yet.
But tomorrow's podcast is going to be very good, right?
Because I'm really enjoying the tremendous cope articles that are being published by women in their 40s and 50s who are basically like, hmm, it's okay that I don't have a future and I don't have any kids and I don't know what I'm doing with my life.
And I think this is a really terrible, really terrible message to be sending to young people.
And I shall be deploying the forbidden argument tomorrow on the podcast.
So if you want to know what that is against single, childless, 50-something women, well, you have to tune into loadseeds.com at 1pm UK time to hear about that.
But I'm really looking forward to it because I think you can't refute it.
And it's not like bigoted or anything like that.
It's just one of those things that there may be a thick obligation here that you're not considering.
And the great thing in the article is as well, I always love when they do this.
I challenge anyone to tell me that this is wrong.
I'm just going to be like, you know what?
I'll do it.
I'll be the guy.
I'm going to shame you.
Just me at the back.
Oh!
You've got the legs.
I love the meme.
I'm going to approach it in a much more genteel manner than that, of course.
I'm not going to be mean about it.
It's going to be very nice.
But yeah, I've been really enjoying my life recently.
Really enjoying what's going on.
Just been working hard.
Debate your kids on you as in charge of the redistribution of playtime.
Dude, I have to do that every day.
And I've decided that actually socialism requires a dictatorship.
You know, if my house is a socialist household, then it's a socialist dictatorship.
And I'm the dictator.
No questions about it.
Then someone come and go, yeah.
I'll have the argument with Dev, Short Fact Taka, like, yo, who owns your kids?
And I'm like, I do.
I own them.
And I refuse to give this up.
Anyway, I should probably go.
Will Britain collapse and split up?
Well, if we're lucky.
No, I'm joking.
I don't want the dissolution of the Union.
I'm just really sick of the devolved parliaments.
They should be abolished.
All they are is good for is for separatism.
That's all good that they have.
And it means that the English can't have their own parliament because obviously that's Westminster.
So that's occupied by the British Parliament.
And so it makes people resentful.
It means that some have things that the others don't have.
It's just a way of breaking up Britain.
I don't really want to, but if it has to happen, and if it ends up that people vote for it, then fine.
You know, I'm pretty consensual on the matter.
I don't mind if England becomes an independent state.
In fact, now that you said it, you know, returning to being the kingdom of England, you know, it's quite a good ring to it, doesn't it?
You know, it feels very medieval to total war, doesn't it?
You know, oh, the kingdom of England again, are we?
Okay.
And the thing is, even then, it's like, okay, well, if for some reason they were like, we're going to get rid of the monarchy, that's not really what I want because I like the aesthetic fabric that the monarchy provides to the country and the nation of England.
But even if we were to have an English republic, I mean, that doesn't sound bad, does it?
You know, an English republic.
I kind of do like the sound of that.
You know, and I'm not here to argue for it or anything like that.
And I'd be happy being the Kingdom of England, again, for many other reasons.
But it's not a terrible idea, you know.
And then the Scots and the Welsh will be like, well, Gibbs.
And we're like, no.
Why would we?
You wanted independence.
And independence means we don't have the Gibbs.
But like I said, I don't want the breakup of the United Kingdom.
It's just, you know, stop threatening me with a good time.
But no, as Patriot Brid, God save the Queen, exactly.
God save the Queen.
You're Welsh.
Well, half Welsh.
English Constitution, give us a second amendment.
Yeah, I'd like that.
That's the thing.
That's the appeal of an English republic, is that we could get a constitution, possibly.
I mean, this would change the nature of the country somewhat, but the nature of the country has pretty significantly changed in the last 20-odd years anyway.
We may as well at least change it in a direction that's better than the way that things are going right now.
The sort of European change.
So I'm not against the idea of changing into, say, an English republic.
But I don't want to get rid of the monarchy.
So I'd rather be the king of England.
It's not the end of the world, though, if that would happen, in my opinion.
Scots are not the equivalent of our equivalent of joggers.
That's not fair.
That's not true.
That's not true.
That's Liverpudlians.
I'm just teasing.
I'm just teasing.
It was just bants.
I'm just joking.
How about an English Commonwealth from Aberdeen?
What Cromwell strive for?
Yeah, I mean, I'm not against the idea, but what's the difference between that and like a republic, really?
You know, in form, in function, it'll basically be a republic, won't it?
with I assume like an elected Lord Protector every five years.
Calling someone a bitch on Twitter or even just an online argument is a malicious communications offence.
It's one of the most investigated crimes in the UK, Section 21, very rough prosecutions.
I'll have to look into this.
I'm sure that we established that it was section 127 and grossly offensive.
But I mean, maybe you're right.
And maybe after we've got rid of section 127, we need to get them to go after the other one that you're talking about, the malicious communications offense.
I'm not in any way against getting rid of that.
just saying that this is the petition that we have for anyone who has just joined and is not aware of what we're talking about.
We have a petition linked in the description to get rid of section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act because it's cancer.
It's why people are getting in trouble with the law.
Link in the description.
Please do sign it.
And if the Conservatives don't want to get rid of it, I want to hear why.
You know, why don't you want to get rid of it, Conservatives?
I'm curious.
Give me your reasoning.
And then I'll run that by Kemmy Badenock.
The Queen is a huge tourist drive.
It's financially worth keeping them.
It's not even about that for me, though.
It's about the sort of thick substance, the aesthetic substance that is England.
Like, it feels right that England should have a king.
Like, there is a contract between the working people of England and the monarchy.
There always has been.
There always will be.
And it is baked into us, I think.
And I think it would be revolutionary to try and get rid of it.
And I'm not sure I want to be a revolutionary.
I wouldn't argue for it.
It feels like it's too much for a single person to know and be confident of, right?
There would be a lot that would change that would be unpredicted, and it could be for the worse.
And I don't think it's like, I don't think it's unbearable to have the monarchy.
So I don't really want to get rid of it.
England has a constitution.
Kind of.
Like, I wish, you know, but a proper formal written constitution that isn't just historic.
There is definitely an argument for it.
And I wouldn't be against it as something that would happen.
But I wouldn't mind seeing a restoration at some point.
What about a Sultan of England?
Well, let's not predict too quickly.
The Queen isn't even from Germany.
I know, the monarchies of Europe, they're not really from the nations of Europe.
Glad to see you coming around and praising the Dark Tower.
Yeah, yeah, that's excellent, Dark Tower.
Love it.
Shakespeare never existed, did he not?
He left a lot of work for somebody who didn't exist.
Broken Prophet.
Well, Carla's not fat.
No, it's been a lot of work.
But I don't even get tempted anymore.
Now I'm happy.
Stuff and stuff.
Ethelstan is our true king.
That's correct.
Will you look at William Cluston's SDP party?
I'm not familiar with it.
So anyway, right.
I'm going to head off.
So if you would like more from me, you can follow the links in the description.
Please do sign the petition because I think that's important.
And I think please ask other content creators to make videos about it and get them to start promoting it.
Only 8,000 signatures is pretty disgraceful.
The free speech movement online needs to, you know, get their arses in gear and start getting...
Because, I mean, we had a previous one about the grooming gangs, which we easily got past, like, 130,000 signatures that John, our producer, had started.
We have this new one now.
We need to, you know, get awareness, you know, get 100,000 people sign it.
We've done this before.
We should do it again and we can get something done.
Admittedly, we didn't get the Grooming Gang report yet.
It kind of got log jammed in the home office.
But, you know, and then it was a whitewash when it did come out, basically.
But at least it puts these political issues on the radar and gives us excuses to talk about them and produce content about them and, you know, hopefully push things, push the Overton window back to a place where we're actually concerned about the terrible things that are happening rather than offences against left-wing morality.
▲
Export Selection