All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2020 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:07:31
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #6
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
- Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters on Monday, the 16th of November.
Hope you're all doing very well.
I'm joined by Callum, and we've got an awful lot to go through, so I guess I'll just get started with whether Trump conceded the election or not, because that appears to be...
The narrative that is being popularly promoted in the media.
This comes from the following tweet.
Donald Trump tweeted out, he won because the election was rigged.
No vote watchers or observers allowed.
Votes tabulated by a radical left, privately owned company, Dominion, with a bad reputation and bum equipment that couldn't even qualify for Texas, which I won by a lot, the fake and silent media and more.
Straight after this, he tweeted also, all of the mechanical glitches that took place on the election night were really them getting caught trying to steal votes.
They succeeded plenty, however, without getting caught.
Mail-in elections are a sick joke.
And he also retweeted a status, a tweet by Greg Jarrett, who's a Fox News analyst.
We've already seen serious and valid allegations of not just voting irregularities, Sean, but outright fraud.
Today we saw Wayne County, Michigan, the Detroit courtroom in which there were sworn affidavits that were presented to the judge based on eyewitness testimony, yet we keep hearing from anchors and journalists.
Where's the evidence?
The response from CNN to all of this was immediate.
If we can play the first clip, please.
Turn up a little bit if you can.
What's on?
Okay, can you stop there for a sec, please?
So, that's very interesting, isn't it?
Everything, literally everything after he won because, you know, because blah, blah, blah, that's all false and we as Trump supporters should do the work ourselves.
Well, we did do the work ourselves.
But because this headline started travelling around the world...
I think what we can call an uncharitable reading of Trump's tweet.
Trump followed it up with another tweet that was not just that one.
No, it was that one.
Rigged election, we will win.
But then another one directly after that, in which he says, he only won in the eyes of the fake news media.
I concede nothing!
We have a long way to go.
This was a rigged election.
And then this morning, he tweeted out just in Block Capitals, I won the election, which is exactly the kind of communication that I want from a public official.
Direct, to the point, unambiguous.
So we at least know where he stands.
So, Rudy Giuliani, being Trump's, I believe, primary lawyer, has started laying out the evidence.
And in one tweet, he just tweets out, seems to be a fair point.
But in this explosion of news that has come out, we get to hear from what I guess we can describe as unnamed officials, as reported by Sky News.
The US election was the most secure in US history.
Voting officials insist.
Now, one of the things that is remarkable about this article, and many others like it, this isn't the only one, but this is just the first one that popped up in my newsfeed, frankly, but many others like it, there are no election officials actually named.
And the allegation, the claim that it is the most secure in American history, strikes me as being at least as bombastic as the claims being made by Donald Trump.
And from the amount of evidence that we have seen so far of malfeasance, I think that it would be laughable to call this the most secure vote in American history.
But as Sky report, the US election is the most secure in American history according to a group of federal and state voting officials.
A statement from the team of cybersecurity experts said that they have no evidence that the votes were compromised or altered in last week's presidential election.
The statement was distributed by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which spearheaded federal election protection efforts.
The officials who signed the statement said they had no evidence that any voting system has deleted or changed any votes or was in any way compromised.
The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.
Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double-checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the results.
There's plenty of evidence on social media, which we will cover shortly, that suggests that, in fact, there is plenty of evidence that the voting systems had either changed or deleted votes or in some way compromised, as well as the actual process on the ground in the polling stations.
Rudy Giuliani has been absolutely full-on on his commentary on this.
If we can go to the next one, he says, Do you know a foreign company, Dominion, was counting our vote in Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, and other states?
It was a front-force Smartmatic who is really doing the computing.
Look up Smartmatic and tweet me what you think.
It will all come out.
Now, Dominion was used as Breitbart reports in Georgia and Michigan.
And in Michigan, this was where thousands of votes, the 6,000 votes, had been tallied for Biden that were actually for Trump.
As they report, the software company Dominion Voting Systems glitched in Michigan, causing thousands of ballots for the Republicans to be wrongly counted for Democrats in the state's Antrim County.
Antrim is one of 47 counties in Michigan that use the same software that experienced this glitch.
The presidential election results for Antrim County were later corrected, flipping the county from Joe Biden to Donald Trump after the glitch was fixed.
Two Georgia counties which use the same electronic voting software also reported encountering glitches during the 2020 election, which caused their voting machines to crash.
A third county in Georgia, Gwinnett County, which also uses the same software, also experienced a glitch.
However, this caused a delay of counting of thousands of votes and no particular explanation was given for this one.
Election officials estimate that roughly 80,000 absentee ballots were impacted by this glitch and yet decided to push the impacted votes through, knowing that some of the votes would likely change.
This, to me, suggests that there is, in fact, quite a lot that is at the very least questionable and worthy of a deeper investigation, but not according to the New York Times, who published an article titled Giuliani adds fuel to discredited theories about voting machines.
I don't see how anything can be considered to be confirmed or discredited at this point, since everything is up in the air.
They say, Trump, after Giuliani had said this, picked up a similar refrain, stating in a tweet that the election was stolen by the radical left company Dominion, without providing evidence or explaining why Dominion was distinct among many other privately owned election system vendors that routinely administer elections in the United States.
Speculation, and this is where the media is just...
Obviously playing on the fact that people tend to only read the headline and maybe the first paragraph or two of their articles.
They say, in the same article, speculation that Mr.
Soros has any influence over Smartmatic or its operations has been thoroughly debunked and he does not own the company.
Excuse me.
Mr.
Soros' distant connection to the company is through his association with Smartmatics chairman Mark Malek Brown, who is on the board of Mr.
Soros' Open Society Foundation.
Smartmatic has been used in elections around the world.
In Venezuela's election, the software was manipulated to report a skewed tally, but the company said that it was an anomaly and cited the lack of election monitors as part of the problem in the United States.
Monitors from both parties are allowed to watch vote counting, which is something we will come on to very, very shortly.
If we go to Giuliani's next tweet...
We have plenty of evidence that in fact vote counters were not allowed into voting rooms in the specific states where things are being contested.
As Giuliani says, not allowing observers into counting rooms is due process and equal protection violations, which they appear to be.
On November the 4th, Fox News to Detroit reported this video, video evidence, of the Republican poll watchers, and this is the one where the windows were barricaded up from the inside to prevent the people outside from being able to see in.
Well, the group of people outside who were chanting, let us in, were Republican poll watchers, according to Fox News Detroit, and they...
Weren't allowed in to see the election.
So again, where is the consistency and the coherence between what the New York Times has said and what has been actually documented as happening?
And so finally, the New York Post yesterday reported, and this is a great headline, I really like this, Giuliani claims the presidential election will be overturned.
So we've got incredibly high stakes on both sides.
On the Trump side, the election is...
It's fraudulent and it's going to be overturned.
And on the, I don't know, the New York Post side, the side of the Biden camp, it was a flawless election, the most secure election that the United States has ever seen, in fact.
And there's no problem with these Dominion voting tabulation machines and the software that had actually been previously used to manipulate votes in places like Venezuela.
And you really shouldn't concern yourself with this citizen.
Move along and carry about with your day.
And don't forget to praise President Biden for his glorious victory.
What do you reckon, Cal?
I can't believe they brought up Venezuela in the article.
Like, you'd feel like if you were trying to push this narrative that there's absolutely nothing wrong, you just wouldn't mention it, or at least you'd try and hide it a little bit.
Like, just openly saying, yeah, they also use these voting machines in Venezuela, whose elections are a joke.
Yeah.
We're waiting for Giuliani's big reveal here, because he's obviously got something.
He's talking incredibly tough on this.
I mean, saying, you know, no, the election's going to be overturned.
And, I mean, there are other YouTube videos by statisticians who have been calculating through it, but honestly, I don't understand how this, like, can be proven, so I'm not the guy to...
Go through this.
You know, I've got to wait until this has all been properly analysed and things like this.
But, um...
That's for them to represent the case anyway.
Exactly.
I love one of these comments here.
You know, they mention in Venezuela it was an anomaly and in Michigan it's been a glitch.
Like, someone says, nah, it's not a glitch when it's a feature.
Yeah, well, that's the thing, isn't it?
Like, well, we asked Dominion and Smartmatic and they said it was just an anomaly or a glitch in Venezuela because voters weren't, and as the New York Times said, you know, poll watchers weren't allowed in to watch.
Well, it's okay.
OK, well, then we're looking at Venezuelan level elections in the United States, in Detroit, Michigan, Georgia, and probably Arizona, but definitely the first three.
How can we say that there's no concerns?
How can we say this is the most secure election?
We've got too much evidence of the problem.
Like, what is the difference, New York Times?
Like, if I give you footage of people not being allowed to poll watch and you're saying that's the problem with Venezuela, what is the difference?
Tell me.
Exactly.
And it's shocking just how brazen the New York Times is with just hiding all of the...
Not even just hiding.
Like...
Deliberately ignoring all of the evidence that has been presented.
And we'll actually get to more of this as we go on, because I've got loads and loads and loads to talk about on this subject.
But this whole thing is just staggering.
And the fact that the CNN anchor's like, well, we encourage Trump supporters to do their own research.
Okay, that's not exactly good for your position, is it?
Because it really seems to undermine everything that you're saying.
And again, it seems to be predicated on the idea that they think their audiences will just accept it and go, well, I'm informed now.
I don't need to do any further research.
I don't need to talk about this anymore.
The thing has been decided.
Everything was fine.
I can go about my day.
I mean, it kind of undermines everything they're doing and the fact that they want to come from a centralized position telling you what is and what isn't.
I mean, the whole do your own research thing, I mean, it also goes at odds with Twitter here.
I mean, I'm loving the memes that are coming out of all this with the fact, you know, like everything has election results are disputed by official sources and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
People redoing it for like the Iraq war or, you know, the Earth's not the center of the solar system and all this stuff.
Like it shows how ridiculous it is.
I like the Greek one.
There's nothing wrong with the Trojan horse.
Find out about why the Trojan horse is actually an offering from the gods or something like that.
Why Greeks are plentiful people who like to give gifts.
Yeah.
Can we get Trump's rigged election?
I won the election tweet back up, please, John, if possible.
Because this is the sort of primary example that you pointed out just before we did this.
They've changed what's underneath the tweet.
Yeah, right.
So Trump has written, I won the election.
And then the caption is, official sources called this election differently.
Now, the election has not been called by official sources.
No electors have cast their votes.
None of the process as laid out by the Constitution has been followed.
We're still waiting for things to happen.
So the election has not been called.
And the only official source involved in this...
Is Donald Trump.
Yes.
He is actually an elected representative.
The New York Times, the media, whoever else it is, these are not elected representatives.
Twitter staff, even Joe Biden and Joe Biden's team and all their staff, none of them are government officials.
The only government official at the time of speaking is actually the guy claiming he's won.
Yes.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but you can't then say official sources have called this differently.
Yeah, and if at best they're going on the unnamed voting officials who suggested that in fact this was the most secure election in American history, well, I mean, don't we at least deserve to know the names of the people who are making that claim?
Why would we not get to find out who's doing that?
Why would that be hidden?
Because, like, any unnamed official never really exists.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
No, no, I'm not saying they don't exist.
I think there are cases where unnamed officials do make statements.
But what this is is a kind of, like, institutional obscurantism, where they want to just hide behind, you know...
When they're put in a bad position, they're going to hide behind the institutional reputation and then sort of subsume every individual into just the institution.
And that's what the New York Times does.
This is what the media does.
They all have their kind of institutional voices, and that's what they're appealing to.
So effectively, this is just an appeal to authority.
What they're saying is, ignore the evidence of your own eyes.
You may well see vote counters saying, well, I have poll watchers saying, I didn't get to watch them counting the votes.
We weren't allowed in.
There are some serious concerns regarding these election machines.
And in fact, one of the serious concerns was a video you found about John Oliver, wasn't it?
Yeah.
John, tell people about it.
So I put it on my Twitter.
I guess we'll put it on the Lotus Eater Twitter afterwards or something.
Yeah.
And on Gab and whatnot.
But John Oliver last year, I think it was November 3rd, 2019, had actually made an entire segment.
It's about 20 minutes long.
Yeah.
Saying about how voting machines don't work, are very easily hacked, very easily corruptible.
And we shouldn't be using them.
And they're vulnerable as well.
Yeah, so the best part you get...
Well, there are two best arguments.
Firstly is in Georgia, which is that the software for protection hasn't been updated since 2005, so it'll be now 15 years out of date.
So Georgia's just flipped blue.
How mysterious.
And then the fact that these voting machines are pretty easy to hack if you know what you're doing.
So he gives a list of examples of people hacking them.
And then he shows that, well, you need access to the voting machine, right?
You can't just do it from home unless it's connected to the internet.
So how would you get access if, whilst everyone's in the polling booth, you're going to stand out?
Well, it turns out if you go to these polling booths a couple of days before the election, they're just left there.
The voting machines are just laid out.
No one's guarding them.
All the rooms are open.
And in fact, there was a professor that he featured pictures of who went around to the voting stations and just walked in and took photos of himself by the voting machines.
Two weeks before or something like that, he'd gone polling booth to polling booth just to show, yeah, here's five voting machines, here's another five, they're just standing around, and I know how to hack these, by the way.
Yeah, and there's no one around.
He's just, like, pointing to the machines.
It's like, okay, well...
I mean, you know, most secure election in American history is sounding like a very thin phrase that's been stretched over a very large abscess that we need to pop.
Yeah.
I mean, especially with the electronic voting, I don't know why the Americans allow this, and I'm going to have to look into why on earth certain states even brought this in, because it's a terrible idea.
best bits about John Oliver's segment on this was when the official was confronted and said, "Well, why are the voting machines connected to the internet?" He said, "Oh, they're not connected to an internet.
They just have a modem in them that we can use to access other sites." And it's like, "But that is being connected to the internet." You absolute fool.
Yes.
But this whole thing is, it just stinks.
And it looks like the media are desperate to try and implant the idea into people's minds that the question has been answered, there's nothing further to expect or nothing further to conclude.
And that's just not true, in my opinion.
I think that's fair.
And so let's go on to...
I'll do my second part now, because this just seems important.
Basically, there's no evidence if the media refuses to look, is the attitude that we're being fed.
So, according to the New York Times, and this is just their outright...
Again, the headline that is the lie...
Because it is the headlines themselves that are the lies, but often within the body of the text of the article, they'll just tell you the truth that contradicts what they've said at the beginning.
No, Dominion voting machines did not delete Trump votes.
And President Trump on Thursday spread new baseless claims about Dominion voting systems.
Again, their previous article, baseless claims, oh, Dominion voting systems can be used to switch counts.
Well, yeah, they did in Venezuela, but that's only because there are no poll watchers.
It's like...
Okay.
But anyway, new baseless claims that the New York Times admits are not baseless.
About Dominion voting systems, which makes software that local governments around the nation use to run their elections, fueling a conspiracy theory that Dominion software glitches changed vote tallies in Michigan and Georgia last week.
This is definitely true.
Now, the question is whether it's intentional, whether it was just an error or whatever.
And as the previous segment that we did, they have admitted that this is the case.
We know this is the case.
Edward Perez, at least we get the name of the person this time, an electron technology expert at the Osset Institute, a non-profit that studies voting infrastructure, so not a government body, says,"...many of the claims being asserted about Dominion and questionable voting technology is misinformation at best, and in many cases, they're outright disinformation.
I'm not aware of any evidence of specific things or defects in Dominion software that could lead one to believe that votes had been recorded or counted incorrectly." Well, he really should have waited until this New York Times article that he was being cited in had been published, because they give us a few.
In Antrim County, again, this is from the same article.
In Antrim County, Michigan, unofficial results initially showed by President-elect Joseph R. Biden beating Trump by roughly 3,000 votes.
But that didn't seem right in the Republican stronghold, so election workers checked again, and it turned out they'd configured the Dominion ballot scanners and reporting software with slightly different versions of the ballots, which meant that the votes were counted correctly, but they were reported incorrectly, state officials said.
The correct tally showed Trump beating Biden by roughly 2,500 votes.
So how is this election technology expert not aware of these things, if we're aware of them, if they're included in the very same article?
And do they not think there's anything slightly embarrassing about giving a literal conflicting result directly after his statement?
As if no one reads their article and no one cares.
But, um, in Georgia's Gwinnick County, the vote count was delayed because of an apparent problem with Dominion software.
According to a detailed explanation from county officials, the software properly counted the votes, but would not send some tallies to the state's central database.
Joe Sorenson, a spokesman, said that the county had since been able to report the accurate totals, but were unclear what happened with the software.
In Oakland County, Michigan, election officials also spotted an error after they first reported the unofficial counts.
They realised that they'd mistakenly counted votes from the city of Rochester Hills, Michigan, twice, according to the Department of State.
So not technically a problem with the Dominion voting software itself, but the people operating it on that end.
And there are two examples of other voting software, one from a company called Heart InterCivic and one called Nolink.
But these were also problems of the electronic bats, but they weren't dominions, so we won't include them.
But the New York Times didn't include them.
But the point is that there are lots of examples of this.
And this is the CNN response.
If we can get the clip up, please, John.
This is the CNN response to this, which is wild.
Is there any way you can make it louder?
Because I know they couldn't hear the last one.
You can't hear it.
It's just quite quiet.
It's just quiet.
It's just quiet.
Katie McEnany is actually holding up the evidence, saying these are sworn testimonies of widespread voter fraud that have been filed with courts.
We literally have the evidence, and the CNN anchor just...
As if it doesn't exist.
Oh, there's just simply no evidence.
The officials have said so.
Don't worry about what she's holding.
That's not evidence.
Don't worry about that.
I mean, it's literally the sort of, this is extremely dangerous to our democracy meme.
Oh no, that's just misinformation.
Don't worry about that.
Yikes.
Yeah, yikes.
With these clips, John, I noticed that you're playing the links and not the clips from the folder that I put across, because those are the specific parts.
Is there any chance you can get those up quickly?
Yeah.
I should have specified.
Sorry, man.
Although this one works anyway, because it's only a minute.
Well, it's...
I don't want to...
It's still long.
Okay, fair enough.
Sorry.
Because we've got a few clips, and I just want to get the specific relevant bits.
I just love the, like, Twitter IRL speak.
Yikes.
And then just moves on.
Yeah.
And the thing that she's referring to there with the binders is a bad word to use, is the fact that Mitt Romney, in I think it was 2012, said the phrase, binders full of women.
He has binders full of women because the allegation was, oh, you don't have women on your campaign or something like this.
No, I've got binders put on.
Yeah, and it was innocently meant.
It's just like, no, I'm considering many applications.
I don't really get what's wrong with that statement.
Well, there's nothing wrong with it.
But it just made him sound kind of out of touch.
Because in 2012, feminism was a much more powerful force than it's being used as now.
And so he was responding to the charge.
But he's saying, oh, I've got binders full of women.
Makes it sound like he kind of owns a bunch of women.
Oh, okay.
And it's a poorly phrased.
And she's, yikes, you shouldn't use the word binder.
It's like, why?
This is binders full of evidence.
That's fine.
That's perfectly okay.
It's not a sexist statement or anything like that.
But anyway, this is the clip that I was talking about.
Well, I think it is extremely dangerous to their democracy, because basically what we're doing is going through the things that they won't show us.
So if we can get to the next clip, this is just a poll watcher in Detroit who...
I just want to mention, I love how also you can see it was...
Hold on a sec, John.
Not yet.
We'll get this more streamlined, folks.
Thank you.
I mean, that's just staggering.
This can be ignored and not considered to be evidence.
I mean, this is eyewitness testimony.
If we can go to the next one, please.
please.
This is in Michigan.
You have to excuse the framing, people doing on their cell phones.
Okay.
So that's someone inside the polling booth.
Yeah.
I believe that was Detroit as well, actually.
And then you compare that with the clip of Biden describing his voter fraud organisation.
And it just really creates a kind of strange smell about the whole thing.
If you can just play that, please.
Now that's basically also Rudy Giuliani's position.
This is a clip that's taken from him discussing organisations to prevent voter fraud, which I'm guessing were not very successful.
And people are passing it, oh, this was just him being a doddering old senile man, and saying, well, you know, he meant to say voter fraud prevention, or it could be a Freudian slip, and that this senile old man forgets that this is the quiet part he's not meant to say out loud.
The idea he sets up an organisation to stop voter fraud...
I mean, have you seen the story this week about his cancer initiative?
No.
They took $4.8 million in donations and grants, and they spent 99% on it, on salaries and expenses.
Wow.
So...
So not much of it went to curing cancer.
No.
So if he tries to kill cancer that badly, imagine what he does when he tries to stop voter fraud.
Well, yeah.
Um...
But then we get to just some outright fake news, like the CNN saying that the Trump campaign has dropped their Arizona lawsuit requesting the review of the ballots.
They established the story saying, Trump campaign has filed a lawsuit on Saturday alleging that some voters were confused on election day and feared their ballots were not counted if the vote tabulation machines classify their ballots as overvotes.
They were seeking a hand review of any ballots flagged by the machines as overvotes alleging it could result in thousands of votes for Donald Trump.
Then CNN goes straight to a statement from the Biden campaign team.
As we've said, the Trump campaign's lawsuit was frivolous and their motion to withdraw any claims of relief related to the presidential campaign confirms that this was nothing more than a waste of time.
President-elect Joe Biden won Arizona and now it's time to unite the country and move forward.
Well, that's a fascinating statement from Biden's campaign team.
But can we hear from, like, a lawyer or something?
And this is something that Corey Lewandowski, a Trump campaign advisor, just came out and categorically denied on, I think it was one American news network.
He just came out and said that this was just straight false.
So they haven't dropped the lawsuit?
According to Corey Lewandowski.
According to CNN, they have.
And Biden's campaign team, they have.
According to Trump's campaign team, they haven't.
Who knows what the actual answer is there.
But then you get Sidney Powell, who's a North Carolina attorney, and she, this is about a minute and a half clip, but this is just, if the allegations she's making here are true,
this is staggering. . this is staggering. .
. . . . .
. . . .
Sorry, I didn't catch the start.
She was talking about the owner or someone high up with Smartmatic, who's on Joe Biden's presidential transition team.
Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
So the voting fraud software that was used in Venezuela, the guy who is a CEO of that company is on Biden's transition team.
Not to mention you've also got ex-chief of staff for Nancy Pelosi working for them as well.
Yes.
I mean, the idea that this is just...
And then, you know, yeah, big yikes is what we can take away from this.
The media is well aware that there is plenty of evidence, and they are just ignoring it.
And they are just repeating the lie.
It is the big lie that is being told.
There's no evidence.
As you can see, there appears to be loads of evidence.
It's just being ignored.
So where we go from here, who knows?
I can think of one solution, at least, which is that the Republicans over the next four years need to make sure that these voting machines do not get used ever again.
Go back to paper ballots.
Because, you know, let's say this election is a write-off.
Let's say it's unable to find what's been manipulated and what hasn't, and they just say, okay, fine, we declare Biden the winner.
Yeah.
Well, in which case, you can't let this happen again, because this will keep happening until you're able to solve this.
And the easy way to solve this kind of thing is just use paper ballots.
Like, what's wrong with it?
It works.
Pottery shards.
Not necessarily.
Go back to basics.
But yeah, so that's the position that, as far as my research has shown, that the US elections is currently in.
It seems there's vast amounts of evidence that the dodgy dealings have gone on.
It seems that there are connections to Joe Biden's campaign through the very...
Definite allegations that are being made by people who are otherwise credentialed and respectable people, who are presumably just being sidelined by the media.
I mean, you have to go to places like Fox to get people like Rudy Giuliani and Powell talking about it.
And the media, in their own articles, will refute their own headlines.
So we're in a giant mist of fake news at the moment.
I mean, you can see why, though.
It's a demoralizing tactic.
Totally.
Like Ryan Hartwig, the Facebook whistleblower, I spoke to him the other day, and he's also saying he's been going out, because he lives in Arizona, and he spent the weekend going out, driving, collecting affidavits for people.
And then he got home, and I called him, and he said, oh, what's going on with this news?
And he saw the news about him dropping the lawsuit.
And he was really demoralised, and I said, well no, hang on, we've got this quote from the other guy saying it's still going on.
And he was like, oh, well never mind then, I'll go out tomorrow and get more.
But if he didn't know, then he wouldn't bother, would he?
Exactly.
And the whole point of demoralisation is just to prevent you from taking action.
Stop standing up for yourself.
Stop holding them to account.
Because all they need is for you to just shut up and go away.
Then they get everything they want.
As Joe Biden said, it's the largest and most inclusive voter fraud organization that they've managed to map out.
And the thing is, this is genuinely Giuliani's opinion.
In many different press conferences, he's come out and said, look, the democratic machine, when they take control of these areas, the machine rigs these elections.
And frankly, I believe him.
I think that in places like Chicago and Detroit, In any of these sort of deep blue, long-time Democrat-held areas, I do think that there probably is a lot of concern for voter fraud with the Democratic machine itself.
The people who screwed over Bernie would never do this to a Republican, would they?
Exactly.
Exactly.
And this is the thing.
The Bernie bros, the left-wing Democratic socialist types, do you really believe that the corporate establishment of the Democratic Party won't screw over...
I mean, they screwed your boy over twice, didn't they?
Or at least once, I would say.
And they'll do it again.
But we won't point fingers, we won't make it say, oh, that's just Cope.
It's like, really?
Okay.
Alright, let's go on something, let's go for your bit that's a bit more jolly.
It's a bit more jolly because we can actually do something about it, but the news is not great.
So essentially the Law Commission, so for people who don't know, my understanding of the Law Commission is it's a government organization that reviews the laws passed by Parliament and offers a recommendation.
So you applied the law in this way to these people, but not to these people.
We should remedy that so it's applied equally.
That kind of thing.
Perfectly reasonable thing for an organization to do.
So they've had a professor come in to write them recommendations regarding hate speech laws and hate crime laws.
And the recommendation they've come up with is we should convert to Islam.
No joke.
So the consultation is talking about inflammatory cartoons.
So I'll give you the quote.
Several recent incidences involving inflammatory images create grounds for concern over this potential gap.
The gap between the fact that inciting racial hatred by writing is law, so you can't do that, but if you use cartoons, that's fine.
So the fact that there's that gap...
Is a problem, according to these people.
These include Islamophobic cartoons cited by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Which ones were these?
So that's image 1-up.
So that's just giving you the first quote.
This is the image they used from the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I've put some censored logos on there because I don't want to go to jail.
Apparently this image is now a crime or is going to become a crime.
At least according to this guy's advice.
Yeah, lady.
Oh, this lady's advice, sorry.
But what's interesting about that image for me is, well, where's the lie?
Like, the grooming gang issue did happen, and it happened on the basis that we would all be politically correct and not mention it and all the rest of it.
I mean, you can read the J report, you can read through any other number of government reports about this.
Yeah.
But the, yeah...
Yeah.
So if you publish Islamophobic cartoons, you will be sent to jail.
And the maximum prison sentence for inciting racial hatred is seven years.
So Charlie Hebdo were in the wrong, according to this guy.
Well, yeah, that's the funny thing.
You get that George Bush quote, we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Yeah.
And it's, you know, it's obviously false because you do in real life.
But the funny thing here is, is like the terrorists have attacked France.
They've attacked Charlie Hebdo and the other guy who showed the cartoons.
And we surrendered.
Yeah.
Like, we weren't even attacked or even asked that we need to do anything.
We were like, nah, we give up.
We'll convert.
Don't worry.
That's really weird, isn't it?
Yeah.
And again, why do we allow their moral standard to override our own to free speech and free expression?
I think it's like this progressive thing where you just don't want to cause offence.
It's very middle class British where it's like, oh, I wanted to make your feelings hurt.
So people just try and reroute the language.
And when this gets into law, it gets pernicious.
But we'll get into another theory later on.
So you can see how this relates to Charlie Hebdo because they're using the word several recent incidences.
But the next part, they directly make the comparison, saying, so this is in the arguments for why we shouldn't do this.
Discussing the infamous Danish cartoons, Dorkin acknowledged that while the British media were right not to publish them in the interest of public order.
So it's the Law Commission's opinion that we shouldn't publish them in the interest of public order.
So not whether or not it's a right to free speech or whether or not we need to tell things that are true, that are uncomfortable, or anything like this.
It's just, if it upsets people, we shouldn't do it.
Well, that's not much of a standard, is it?
Well, what they're saying is we don't want certain communities rioting in the streets or killing people.
Essentially, yeah.
It's very stunning and brave of them to admit that.
What would the disorder be?
Was it Tommy Robinson fans taking to the streets and smashing stuff up?
No, of course not.
Not going to happen.
Here's another quote.
However, if inflammatory material, for instance the posting of inflammatory cartoons online, it may not be caught by existing legislation.
It may be possible to bring a prosecution under separate legislation, Section 127 of the Communications Act.
It's a very famous one with Count Dankula with the Nazi punk and all that.
However, this does not carry the same gravity or labeling as stirring up offenses, stirring up racial hatred.
It does not reflect the fundamental harm involved, which is not that of offense, but that it incites hatred.
So when Charlie Hebdo published their cartoons, it's not that they've caused offense that's a problem, it's they're inciting hatred against Muslims.
That's the opinion of the Law Commission.
And the recommendation is that we change it so that those cartoons would be carrying the same weight as stirring up racial hatred within a speech or something like that.
So we're finally at the same level of Islamic jurisprudence as Pakistan and Iran with policing of anti-Islamic cartoons.
I mean, yeah, we're not quite at ISIS or Saudi Arabia level, because I think they have the death penalty.
Yeah.
Whereas I think Pakistan just has some jail time.
So seven years in jail.
Yeah.
Okay.
Maybe a few lashes, who knows.
But yeah, we're actually, the British government is taking advice on how to best police offensive cartoons on the internet.
Yeah, so I started to wonder, well, that Home Affairs Select Committee, where are they getting their evidence from?
Because why on earth would you believe this nonsense?
So if you can get that image on screen, this is just the witness statements, and I noticed the first two days there.
First one, Nick Lowell's Hope Not Hate, and then you've got, I can't pronounce his name, from the Muslim Council of Britain.
He's a very famous guy.
If you look up his Twitter, he's a nutjob.
Like, his response to every cartoon crisis is, will someone please think of the Muslim community at this tired moment?
I'm so sorry this is happening to you.
Yeah, it's like, mate, give it a day.
Jesus Christ.
But I love what Hugo said, you've got hope not hate, and then you've got behead not hate at the bottom there.
So why should we rename them?
But right.
Demonetize them.
Yeah.
Anyway, so the Free Speech Union are actually doing some good work on this, so it is being counted.
And I'll mention that it's up for consultations.
We'll put a link in the description or something at some point so people can actually fill out and say, no, I don't want this, I don't want any of this nonsense.
Yeah.
But the Free Speech Union is describing this as, The Law Commission says that the offence of stirring up hatred under the Public Order Act of 1986 should be extended beyond written material, which would mean that people who publish inflammatory images, i.e.
newspapers, magazine editors, could face up to seven years in jail.
So at least this isn't like Section 127 where it only applied to the plebs.
Like, they never went after the Daily Mail or anything.
I guess.
So at least this would be uniform sharia.
A universal tyranny.
Yes.
That's great.
It's not just a localized tyranny.
No.
Like, because I remember I asked Jacob Rees-Mogg about Count Dankula, and his, you know, we don't have time for the whole response, but it was essentially, it's a pleb problem.
Like, this isn't a real, serious issue.
Right.
I mean, that is true.
It is a problem that the plebs are having.
Thanks, Jacob.
Cheers.
Anyway, so I mentioned that there might be another reason for why this is happening.
Do you know who the president of the Law Commission is?
Nope.
I didn't either, so I googled it, and it's a guy called David Green.
He gave an interview before he became president about his lead-up into law and why he got into law.
Direct quote.
If I hadn't become a lawyer, I would have become a politician, he says.
I was a member of the Communist Youth League, the youth wing of the Communist Party of Great Britain, and then joined the Labour Party.
Of course he joined the Labour Party!
Oh, God!
My practice has allowed me to pursue politics through the courts.
I mean, if he just comes out and says it, I mean, great.
Yeah, I mean, that's fantastic.
Because normally we have to, you know, compile evidence on this.
And look, he posted this here and that there, but no, just flop it out there and tell us all.
It's not even like, oh, I'm a democratic socialist, or oh, I'm just a Labour Party member.
No, I'm an open communist member.
I used to be in the Communist Party of Great Britain.
But I also love, this is always like the right-wing, well, sort of a leftist meme of right-wingers.
Like, oh, they think that leftist people may take this long march of the institutions and then try and implement Islamic laws and all this nonsense.
It's like...
Yeah, but what if I have a quote from the guy in the government institution saying, I'm a communist, and I'm pursuing my politics through the courts, and the courts are passing laws which means that I can't blaspheme?
Yeah.
I mean, when does this not become a meme anymore?
What am I doing?
But how is it not literally exactly what the meme is?
Yeah.
So, that's what's going on there.
What's interesting is the lady who's compiled this seems to disagree with herself because she was talking about this back in September, and Spike published an article talking about her preliminary feelings about what should be done.
And her feelings at the time were that essentially the problem was that Section 127 was one thing and there was another thing.
So what we need to do is reform everything into a hate crime act.
But initially her feelings was that you should make it on specific medium and make it much more narrow than it currently is.
So it would be, you know, let's say you publish...
In a mainstream newspaper, something that breaches racial hatred laws, and therefore we're charged with this crime.
It didn't sound too bad.
Even Spikes were quite excited for what she might do, because she might try and reform things.
But then we finally got the results, and the results seemed to be, yeah, how about we criminalize more stuff and make everything illegal?
I love the questionnaire as well.
In some of those questions, it's really weird, because it's not just blasphemy they want to bring in.
They also want to bring in blasphemy against women.
So...
Yeah, if you can commit hate speech and a hate crime against women on the basis of them being women, I think they're debating whether or not they should call it misogynistic hate crime or hate crimes against women.
But in the questionnaire, the next question after all these sections about should we make misogyny a hate crime is, do you think this should also apply to men?
Nah.
Their opinion is just, well, we're not sure, so we thought we'd better ask the public.
It's like...
Even in your own intersectional worldview, how is that not incorrect?
Because surely they're all about, well, if we apply it to one side, we've also got to apply it to the other.
But I guess...
That's not how intersectionality works.
Well, not the progressive side, no.
No.
What you're suggesting are people who might be interested in fair laws.
People who pursue fairness would weigh up the merits and demerits of both sides and then...
Come to a conclusion, but they're trying to achieve equality.
And so if hate crimes are being committed by men against women, that needs to be addressed because men are the dominant power in gender relations, according to this view, which means that women can't be misandrised or hateful towards men.
And so why would we even need the category?
But of course these people don't understand any of the philosophy that they're espousing.
But it's good because it's quite telling that they had to ask in regards to men because it then...
I think it opens up the fact that something we've always known but not been able to prove, which is that when you come to the other categories they use, they use race, for example, black, white, blah, blah, blah, or they use disability or anything else.
It only goes one way.
They're not interested in it going the other way.
And I believe there was a leader who was beaten up by two Muslim women in Britain.
I don't remember what the argument was about, but my understanding is they were shouting white B-word at her as they beat her, and she tried to claim a hate crime addition to the sentence because, well, you guys did this on the basis of race.
And the judge just said no.
I don't care what she called you.
It's not a hate crime.
And this is something that harks back to the testimony and statements of the convicted groomers in various courts, like the Rochdale one, where they called the victims white slags.
And various other epithets that are very much focused around race and then would let out of the court yelling Allahu Akbar.
And somehow this is not a hate crime.
Ella Hill's been talking about this a lot.
She's a victim of it, where she was saying, if we can at least get it to be a hate crime, then we could try and, in the court cases, get these guys longer sentences.
And I can see the argument, but I don't think I agree, because so much more comes along with that.
It's agreeing that we should have hate crimes in the first place.
I mean, I'm really confused as to the practical distinction between a man who is murdered out of jealousy and a man who is murdered out of racism.
Do the families care?
What restitutive principle are we operating under?
How does it make things better for the family?
How does it change what happened to the victim?
It doesn't.
I mean, that's obviously the point.
It's not about individual justice.
It's about group justice, or social justice, if you want.
So it's the fact that, you know, this white guy beats up this black guy because he's black.
We'll give him a harsher sentence, not because his motives make it worse or anything like this, but we need to send a message to society, which, you know, I kind of understand.
I mean, I'm not for racism or the rest of it.
Obviously.
But the idea that you use, because it is a political thing.
I mean, you can't say.
Yeah.
So the idea that you import the, okay, if this guy politically disagrees with me, therefore he should get a harsher sentence.
I mean, where's the limiting principle on that?
Well, there is none.
And the thing as well, it seems to be conflating intent with motive.
The motive for killing someone, or the motive for taking action, could be, you know, you're jealous of someone, or he's personally offended you, or you're a racist, or you're a misogynist, and you hate women, and that's the motive behind it.
But the intent to take action is not the same.
So you might have intended...
Only to scare them, and then they fall over down a flight of stairs and die, right?
So you didn't intend for them to die, but you intended to take a racist action to frighten them, or something like this.
That will then be a racist hate crime, whereas the results are the same.
The intention wasn't to kill, and common law doesn't deal with motivation.
It doesn't have anything to say about the ideas in your head that lead you up to taking an action.
I don't think it does in sentencing.
I'm pretty sure it does in conviction.
So to find if you're guilty or not, because it's what it's called, mens rea or something?
Yeah, that means guilty mind.
That means intent.
So what that's saying is, did you intend for the consequences to happen?
Did you intend to kill this person?
Not why you intended to kill the person.
And so what we're doing is we're conflating the motivation with the intent.
And the motivation really is not really very important.
If you intended to hurt someone, why do I care why you intended to hurt them?
What difference does it make?
It doesn't change anything.
But if you're political and you've decided to value certain things above others, sort of like policing people's actions and behaviours is more important than people being free, then, sure, then suddenly anything that falls within this sort of political umbrella of things that you're bothered about, you can categorise them as much worse crimes than other crimes that have exactly the same outcome through the same intention.
And I think this is wrong.
I think we shouldn't be doing that.
I mean, one of the absurdities with the questionnaire you have to take is, I mean, like you said, let's say you kill a woman because you hate women, or let's say you kill a woman because you hate women named Grace, for example.
Should the fact that you kill women named Grace be considered a protected group?
And this becomes apparently absurd when you look through the petition, sorry, the questionnaire, because it goes on, should we make violence against women a specialized category?
Okay, well, maybe you agree with that, maybe you don't.
But then it goes into, what about subcultures is the word it uses?
Well, what's a subculture?
I mean, define it.
I mean, I've seen the BBC talk about this, and they say, okay, maybe emos and goths because they have a very...
Hate crimes against goths.
Yeah, but then why not Kekistani?
Why not Trump supporter?
I mean, what's your limiting principle there?
Because they're not born goths.
They're not...
Hate crimes against MAGA chuds.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, well, we get into a philosophical argument about whether or not you're able to believe things or choose to believe them, but, you know, you're not But the point is, you're part of a subculture.
You're being targeted on the basis of that subculture.
For all of the things that you would define aggravated attacks based on race, like racism, can be applied to other things.
It was demonstrable physical attributes that you were looking for.
It was methods of association, cultural actions and activities.
All of these things could be used to describe self-associated subcultures rather than We're good to go.
Of the culture is effectively, in her view, considered to be a race, a classification, a sort of racial group.
And this is why they, I think, deliberately use the term race, because it sounds incendiary, and it benefits people of colour to racialise these things.
Whereas, really, what is being laid out in the intersectional worldview is the classification of goth as a race, as a protected class.
But again, why have any protected classes?
Why isn't it just protected individuals?
You know, what difference does it make?
What the class that I arbitrarily fall into from your categorizations, what difference does it make if the individual is under attack?
Why is that not the consideration?
Yeah, I mean, there's the eternal Ayn Rand point, which is that the smallest collective is the individual.
The smallest minority is the individual.
The smallest minority, yeah.
Because they're going, okay, what about this minority?
Oh, this smaller minority, but then a minority.
And it's like, well, you're just going to end up at the individual person.
Yes.
And we started at that point anyway, so why don't we just ignore all of this intersectional nonsense, the equalization of society, and just carry on as we were?
Yeah.
I also love the conflation between, what would you call it?
So, they're saying you're stirring up racial hatred by publishing Charlie Hebdo's cartoons.
It's like, well, which race?
The Islam race, I guess.
That's the point.
You know, I'll have a word with the king of the Islam race at some point.
Yep.
See if we can get around to that.
But like I was saying with Falguni Sheth, it's anything that can be identified to be a social group.
Yeah.
So that is the new term for a race.
And ironically, it's kind of like the old term for a race as well.
If you go back like 150 years, you'll find British authors saying, oh, the British race is superior to the German race.
Churchill.
Churchill said this specifically, yeah.
And the way they're using race is to essentially mean civilization.
You know, this civilization is a group of people that they use the term race.
And so the term race, frankly, is not very useful anymore.
No.
I mean, you see someone in the chat named, you know, what about gingers?
And I don't think that's in this petition.
But how could that be exempted?
My understanding is the Law Commission actually did think about it at one point.
What choice do they have?
If it's an identifiable group, based on certain characteristics that are predictable and consistent, and people can take targeted action based on these, how could you say that they could be exempt?
Red power.
Gonna have red-roving gangs around Scotland.
Have you not seen the South Park?
Yeah, I have, but I didn't explain.
Anyway, there's only a couple more things to say about this, which is she's also the lady proposing that anti-vax propaganda becomes illegal.
And the Labour Party has already endorsed this, and they've sent a group letter with everyone signed to the Culture Secretary to tell him, you need to make this law.
He doesn't have to accept it, obviously, but he's a conservative.
So he will.
He'll bend the knee.
Yeah.
And just so people understand, this at least won't make the people posting it criminals, because the way it works is that it tells Facebook if there's a piece of anti-vax propaganda, you are legally obliged to take it down within a reasonable time frame.
So when you get your stuff deleted by Zuck, it's not even his fault anymore.
He can't even do anything about it in Britain.
He might want to keep it up, but too bad.
Labour Party says no.
Zuck's just like, well, I'd love to have that Holocaust denial material up.
I mean, I think it comes from a place of honest conviction, but look at what they're making me do.
Which is actually what he said.
That's not even a misrepresentation of his position.
So, you know, based Zuck is on our side, but the laws aren't.
Yeah.
So, I guess in a few months we can also look forward to Zuck taking down every anti...
Yeah.
I don't know what it is, but you say anti-Islamic stuff.
It doesn't sound...
It suggests that pro-Islam is the default position.
Yeah, that's the problem.
Yeah, and I mean, obviously, we as English liberals do not agree with Islam as a moral philosophy.
I don't think...
I'm an atheist.
Why would I agree?
Exactly, yeah.
I mean, but not even that.
Even if you weren't an atheist...
You, A, might have a different religion, so obviously you reject Islamic teachings.
But B, you might have a secular viewpoint on the Sharia law and say, no, sorry, this violates a bunch of moral principles that I hold, and so I can't agree to this.
And yet you're assuming the default position is, of course you agree to this.
Look, these Muslims agree to it.
Why don't you?
Are you an Islamophobe?
It's like, well, if that's going to be how flexible the definition is, who isn't an Islamophobe?
I mean, you mentioned liberal.
Like, if you're a liberal, you can't accept this.
And that's true.
But, you know, the conservatives shouldn't.
The traditionalists shouldn't.
And in theory, the socialists shouldn't.
But why are they doing it then?
Because is it just because they want to then turn those laws around and use it against blasphemers, against communism more?
God knows.
Well, I guess we'll have to ask the President of the Law Society about his days in the Communist Youth League and get it out of him.
I mean, I'm just so glad that you'll come out and just tell us, though.
Unironically.
I'll put it in the description later, but it's just, I was a member of the Communist Youth League and I want to push my political agenda through the courts.
Of course you do.
Thanks, mate.
At least I don't have to prove it.
Yep.
Right, do we have any questions?
Yeah, any questions that we want to take before we wrap up?
We've been through a huge amount today and...
No good news.
I'm sorry.
Well, we've got the commission.
I'll put it in the chat, actually, just so people can get it.
I don't know if it's in there.
So there we go.
So fill that out.
Go and fill that out and give them a piece of your mind.
Obviously, be polite.
Don't say anything rude.
Just fill it out sensibly.
As a responsible citizen, yes.
You are a responsible, tax-paying citizen.
You vote.
You have a say in the way that the world is run.
So it's time to exercise that.
There's nothing wrong with that at all, and you should.
Do you have any questions?
Oh, sorry.
If anyone's got anything they want to ask us, feel free.
The website, unfortunately, is still down.
It's being worked on.
I wish I could give you an ETA. And for anyone who had managed to sign up before it crashed, don't worry, we're going to make sure that you get a coupon so you won't lose any money when the site comes back up, so you won't have paid for the time the site is down.
We're really, really sorry about this, by the way.
But we're doing our best.
Someone's saying, can the UK finally annex Norway?
I'm not sure why, but Norway actually has stricter laws on hate speech than we are.
Yeah, Norway just put in, what was it, biphobia and transphobia?
Yeah, transphobic speech and biphobic speech are also illegal.
But bad news, part of that questionnaire is about transphobic speech and biphobic speech.
Also, asexual speech.
So if you're blaspheming against asexuals, I guess.
So if I'm blaspheming against amoebas...
Yeah, you're a criminal.
Seven years in jail, mate.
Seven years in jail.
Hope it was worth it.
It was worth it.
There's a me, biz man.
Why does Carl look like...
Is it because of the keto diet?
Why do I look like what?
I don't know.
I missed it.
It went too fast.
I'm guessing it's because of your weight loss.
Oh, well.
Thank you for the compliments, by the way.
When are you going to stop it?
Why would I do that?
I don't know.
I enjoy the diet.
Are you still losing weight?
No, I've been hovering around 14 stone.
So maybe this is your...
It's not that.
I've been eating as much as I want.
And I should be eating a bit less than I want, really.
Will you be getting vaccinated?
No.
I will.
Will you?
Yes.
Okay.
So there's two vaccines out at the moment.
One in America that's apparently 95% good.
One in Belgium that's 90% good.
It's not out of any love of vaccinations or anything like that.
I'm not against vaccinations at all.
I want to go abroad and that's the requirement.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of vaccinations.
It seems that vaccines...
Oh, what's the name of the guy who invented them?
The smallpox vaccine.
Oh, I know what you mean.
I should be able to remember this.
Everyone learns it in school in England.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
Everyone learns it in school.
Revolutionary idea, brilliant, etc, etc.
I just don't really trust a vaccine they've rushed out to save us from this pandemic.
And it's not that I think that these people have bad intentions either.
I genuinely believe the people involved have good intentions.
I just don't really want to be one of the test subjects.
I'm going to let the thing be used, see what happens.
If nothing bad happens, then sure, maybe I'll get it.
Edward Jenner.
No, that's not the guy I was thinking of.
No, it doesn't sound right either.
Maybe type in the guy who came up with the smallpox vaccine.
That'll come up with it, I think.
Maybe it was Jenner.
Does it?
I just don't recognise that name.
I'm getting major sort of...
Yeah, people in the chat are saying Edward Jenner as well.
Maybe we were just wrong.
Yeah, I'm getting major Mandela effect vibes, though, from this.
Because I'm sure it was someone else.
It was Rudy Giuliani.
No, it wasn't Rudy Giuliani.
He's done a lot of great things, I'm sure, but that isn't one of them.
But yeah, no, it's out of no particular concern for a vaccine.
It's just, mistakes are made, man.
Like, if you go through the history of science in the 20th century...
There are loads of things that have just been outright mistakes that scientists have made because of the way they think about the problem and not because of their scientific expertise.
And honestly, I think they're making claims to knowledge that they don't really have.
This has all been happening too fast.
And, you know, rushing out a vaccine.
Okay, well, if you're vulnerable, may as well give it a go.
But I don't think that I'm in the vulnerable category, so I'm not really too worried about it.
You just want to give it longer.
Well, you know, it's your choice.
I mean, this is the funny thing about, you know, a lot of countries are making this debate at the moment about whether or not you need to enforce vaccines because to get the COVID crisis over in the country.
There is absolutely no way I'm taking a forced vaccine.
I can't think of a more insane position.
The idea that you're just going to be like, yeah, we should have the ability to inject whatever we want into a citizen.
I mean, I get the, okay, well, this vaccine, let's just say this vaccine is absolutely fine.
It's got no problems, all the rest of it.
But come on.
Like, you think every generation after you is going to be just as wholesome and, uh...
It doesn't even matter.
The government does not have a right to inject me with anything.
Ever, under any circumstances.
And this is a line we have to draw in the sand firmly.
We have to make sure that they understand there will be no mandatory anything when it comes to what I put into my body.
Alexander Fleming.
That sounds more like it.
I don't know who Jenna was.
Maybe he has two names.
Maybe.
Yeah, it is Alexander Fleming that I'm thinking of.
Maybe we've been lied to.
This is more fake news.
But yeah, as Peter in the chat said, look at thalidomide as being the quintessential example of the 20th century.
A generation of kids just have their bodies messed up by this thing.
Would you take a Russian vaccine?
Duh.
It's okay.
The disease would have to be a lot worse for me to want a vaccine.
I mean, what's the survival rate?
It's 99 point something survival rate.
And the average age of death is like 80.
83 or something like that?
82, and the average UK life expectancy is 81.
Yeah, and so this is very comparable to a flu that goes around every year, a different strain of flu that goes around every year.
What do you make of this long COVID argument?
Why would I bother taking a vaccine for something that otherwise wouldn't really merit discussion?
We don't talk about flu vaccines every year, we don't shut down, you know, we don't do any of this, so why would I bother?
But you hear the argument that, well, that's the death rate, but what about, you know, just getting the virus or long COVID is what people are talking about now.
I don't know anything about this, by the way, but I'm just saying that's the argument.
Well, you had it, didn't you?
I don't know.
I didn't have it confirmed because we couldn't get tests.
At the time there were no tests.
Yeah, but I had to self-isolate.
I think it was two weeks or something like that.
But you felt like you had a really bad flu.
Yeah, I had all the symptoms.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, there we go.
Weren't great.
Anyway, nothing like Jamie from Joe Rogan.
I had it for a day.
What was he?
He's fine the next day.
Well, yeah, yeah.
Took some Regeneron.
Yeah, yeah.
Did we get a couple more questions?
Yeah.
Yeah, the very idea of the state saying they have a right to inject you and you have to have it, I just...
I don't know, man.
I'm just sitting here thinking, well, 1776 is going to commence again then.
I can't stand it.
You're going to stand with my boy president-elect Alec Jones?
Yes, I will.
He was clearly right.
Someone's saying, do you believe there's a deep state?
I think it's gone now, but...
Well, we have this guy from the Communist Party who's literally saying, you know, I'm going to use the apparatus of the state to push my agenda instead of going through politics.
Yeah, I mean, the term deep state, I think, is generally not too helpful, and I try to avoid using it.
But I think that you can't deny that there are networks of associations within the civil service and various other organs of government that have...
Similar agendas and essentially create a class of people with concurrent interests.
So they're all concerned about the same sort of things in the same ways and will act in defense of one another.
That's inevitable.
I mean, when the communists were trying to plan out Their ideal society.
One of the things they realised is that you are going to get a...
I mean, this is what...
Not just the communists.
Going back to all of the sort of Enlightenment revolutions, they're aware that interests create classes, and this is a problem.
And it's probably inevitable that there will be classes of people like this.
So the deep state, I think, probably is something that describes a real phenomenon, but isn't something that can necessarily be changed, frankly.
Yeah, I mean, John's put on the screen, what about Syria?
I mean, this was overwhelmingly true that people were lying.
Yeah, I haven't actually looked into the deception that I suppose is being alleged.
You did a couple of videos on it back in the day.
People trying to push it before it started?
No, I don't recall it.
I'll have to dig it up.
I swear you did.
Maybe I did, but I've made thousands of videos.
But yeah, lying about the number of people being withdrawn from Syria.
I mean, what's the punishment for generals and other chiefs of staff and whatnot to lie about the number of troops they have occupying foreign countries?
There must be some punishment there.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I mean, I imagine all government jobs are pretty hard to fire people.
I would hope the military is tougher, but...
To be honest, with the amount of corruption that happens in normal politics, I can't imagine military politics at the top are much different.
Wow, I mean, you would hope so.
I mean, have you ever seen that movie?
What was it?
You know the Bradley?
The M2 Bradley?
Troop carrier?
It's got the rockets on the side?
Yeah, there's a movie about...
I think it's called...
Pentagon Wars, it's great because it just shows you all the politics within the Pentagon about people offering favors to each other.
And they're trying to make this troop carrier, which is meant to carry, I think it's eight troops and just has a machine gun on the top.
Probably standard, probably reasonable.
He makes things like, yeah, this is great.
And then they all start arguing about, oh, I want this.
this i need a uh scout for my political reasons therefore i'll back you if you change the design and eventually you end up with the bradley which is so big that it doesn't work as a scout it's got so much uh equipment on it that looks like a tank so anyone's going to shoot it as soon as they see it and it can't transport troops properly so just absolute yeah you know the same kind of politics you get in washington does seem to happen in the military right Well, I can completely believe it.
Yeah.
But, right.
Thank you very much, everyone, for joining us.
Oh, there's two there I think we can do quick.
Go on, go on.
Thoughts on The Great Reset.
Hugo's writing an article on that.
It's going to be great.
Be nice when the website's up and you can read it.
Yep.
Thoughts on Cummings leaving.
We did a video on that yesterday.
I think it's the Brexit one in which we talked about it.
Yep, so you can just check out the previous videos on the channel, watch the previous podcast.
Thank you very much for joining us, everyone, and we'll see you at the same time tomorrow, 1pm UK time.
▲
Export Selection