All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2020 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:27:12
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #10
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*Music* Okay, well, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
Highly professional beginning, that was, for Monday the 23rd of November 2020.
Today I'm joined by Callum and Hugo, and we're going to be talking about the Kraken that Sidney Powell has released.
The descent of both the UK and French governments into tyranny, just in different aspects.
How are you guys doing?
Did you have a good weekend?
Yeah, it was good.
Yeah?
Yep.
Don't get out too much, to be honest.
Well, what can we do?
We're in lockdown.
Can't even get out to my house or anything.
Exactly.
But I guess we'll begin with Sidney Powell released her Kraken.
And the world hasn't taken it brilliantly.
And to be honest with you, there have been so many different weird allegations and counter-allegations and ridicule on, well, mainly one side towards the Trump campaign, that it took me a long time to try and pass through it.
And I don't really feel like I've come to any satisfactory conclusions.
But for the people, let's begin with Trump tweeting out on November 15th that Sidney Powell was a member of his team.
Because I've seen a lot of people saying that Sidney Powell was actually never a member of the team.
Well, I can see why people would think that she was because Trump claimed it.
But at the press conference with Rudy Giuliani on Thursday that we covered last week, I didn't cover anything that Sidney Powell had said because it was much bigger than what Giuliani was saying.
And I've got to say, before we go forward, I think Giuliani's claims are a lot stronger than Powell's.
There seems to be, like, direct evidence for the actual kind of vote tampering that Giuliani's claiming.
There seems to be lots of video evidence of it.
There are obviously probably thousands of sworn statements to the effect now.
It appears that Giuliani's case is very strong.
Powell's case is a lot broader, shall we say, charitably.
She said that there's a communist plot that has been engineered by Cuba, China, Hugo Chavez, George Soros, and the Clinton Foundation to rig the elections.
Dominion Voting Systems can set and run an algorithm that probably ran over the entire country, take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to Biden, so the claim is millions of votes switched.
She says that she has one very strong witness who was with Chavez, who explained how the technology works in a stunning and detailed affidavit.
That was the express purpose for creating the software.
He has seen it operate.
And as soon as he saw the multiple states shut down the voting on the night of the election, he knew the same thing was happening here, which apparently happened in Venezuela, to make sure that Chavez wouldn't lose another election.
So was that something like the BBC had said, that that's one of the telltales of elections?
Yes, a long delay in the counter.
Yeah, like pausing things and...
Yeah, yeah.
She also claimed that ties with the leadership of the Dominion Voting Company to the Clinton Foundation, other known politicians, as well as left-wing billionaire George Soros, as well as them stealing the primary from Bernie Sanders.
This was something that she added later.
So this is a slate of very broad and strong allegations that need quite a significant amount of evidence to back them up.
And come yesterday, the Trump campaign released a statement saying, Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own.
She is not a member of the Trump legal team.
She is also not a lawyer for the president in his personal capacity.
This came from Giuliani and Jen Ellis, the attorney and senior legal advisor of Trump.
Now, Dominion themselves had said that they were happy to commit to a fact-finding hearing.
Pennsylvania lawmakers had scheduled the hearing with the voting machine manufacturer to, quote, help identify and correct any irregularities in the election process, according to the House Republican Caucus.
They had initially agreed to the hearing before it was abruptly cancelled, and then they lawyered up because, in their words, the conversation was overshadowed yesterday by threats of litigation coming towards our company during a national press conference.
And so they await the opportunity to debunk the baseless conspiracy theories being offered about Dominion, etc, etc.
So basically it's because of the press conference that they have pulled out of this.
Now, this leads us into the sort of quagmire that is dealing with companies that own voting machines and how they use the United States.
Because I'm genuinely not sure.
There's a 2006 segment from CNN with Lou Dobbs before he went to Fox News talking about the potential vulnerabilities that have been introduced because a company called Smartmatic purchased a company called Sequoia Voting Systems and the contention is these are a bunch of essentially shell companies that are making tracking the connections difficult and I think that's true.
So Sequoia was founded in California in 1983.
It came out of other companies that did something similar, but then produced voting machines.
This was purchased in 2006 by Smartmatic, which is a Venezuelan company founded by three Venezuelan men, which apparently seemed to have ties to the Chavez government at the time.
Just to clarify, I think that the exact, so that we don't get fact-checked, right?
I think it was founded in Florida, but it was founded with a purpose to kind of oversee or deal with Venezuelan elections.
And the guys are Venezuelan too.
That's correct.
Yeah, sorry.
Good specification there.
But apparently in 2007 they claimed to have divested from Sequoia, but in 2008 it was revealed that they still had a financial stake that ran into millions of dollars, and Sequoia still used Smartmatic's intellectual property.
So the question is, how does this tie into Dominion?
The only connection I could find between Dominion and Smartmatic was that Dominion contracted Smartmatic voting software in 2009.
Dominion are not owned by Smartmatic.
They're actually a Canadian company that were found in Toronto in 2002, and they purchased Sequoia in 2010.
So the direct claim between Smartmatic and Dominion is the licensing of software in 2009.
I don't know the extent of this though.
And the fact that Smartmatic had owned Sequoia and Dominion purchased Sequoia in 2010.
And important to note that 40% of US voters are served by Dominion.
So that is a huge swathe of the voting population that are using Dominion voting machines.
But Dominion themselves on DominionVoting.com, they just deny everything.
None of this is true.
We've got nothing to do with anything.
And as Newsmax reported, Sidney Powell said that within two weeks she will prove her case.
So we'll be looking out for further updates on that.
But this is as clear as I can get it at the moment.
And so, like, the claims that...
This is a communist plot that's been engineered by Chavez, Soros and the Clinton Foundation.
Oh, there was another thing as well.
I can't remember which one it was.
Oh, there we go.
Lord Malik Brown, British Lord.
He's the chairman of Smartmatic and the SGO Group, and does serve on the Open Society Foundation's Global Board, which is George Soros' foundations.
So, the claims that...
Powell has made that it's a communist plot engineered by Venezuela, Cuba, China, Hugo Chavez, George Soros and Clinton Foundation to bring the election is very, very strong and far beyond what the evidence actually suggests at this moment.
I mean, it's not wrong necessarily to call it communist, that these are radical left-wingers, don't look at each other like that.
These are radical left-wingers who you could broadly describe as communists in the most broad sort of sense.
The company Smartmatic is Venezuelan, founded by Venezuelans, and has ties to the Venezuelan government.
There is overlap, but none of the things that she's asserted have been proven, so I hope that she's got some really strong evidence to bring to the table within the next two weeks, like she says, because otherwise it's going to look quite bad.
Maybe the fact that Trump had disassociated from her means that he doesn't believe that she has a good case and she has some evidence to prove what she's alleging.
I can only assume that's the case.
I mean...
What is she actually alleging here?
That when the people go into the voting machines, it's flipping their vote, or the software's just making up votes?
All sorts.
Like, a sort of spectrum of different things, but yes.
Well, that just makes it worse for her, because she's trying to allege so much stuff in such a broad sense.
And it becomes very difficult to nail down and actually sort of pin anything to a board, you know?
And so it looks...
Rather conspiratorial.
I mean, just to be clear, none of the things that she's alleging are impossible.
And so none of them...
It's not going to be difficult to create a software that did something like that.
And if you were going to be looking towards bad actors who might want to influence US elections and promote left-wing candidates, you could look somewhere like Venezuela.
Or George Soros.
Or George Soros.
Those are the three you pick.
Yeah, exactly.
So it's not...
Beyond the realms of possibility.
It's not ridiculous for her to be saying these things.
And she does claim to have signed witness testimony from someone very close to the Chavez government when this was being done.
So, again, I look forward to seeing the evidence.
I wouldn't discount it because, I mean, ultimately, there have been much stranger stories in history than this.
I was going to say it does sound very Alex Jones, but the problem with the saying that these days is that everything he says seems to come true.
So I don't want to label it with that truth teller.
Yeah, you're not going to start denying the Great Reset, are you?
Like the New York Times.
I think he's probably right to disown her in legality, because if you've got this person making these massive claims but with a severe lack of hard evidence, well then it's probably better to stick to the ones you do have a lot...
Yeah, I mean, she claims to have evidence of all of this.
I just want to see it.
You know, I want to see the core testimony and stuff.
But the thing is, I don't even know that it's...
I mean, it's not something that I think we should just say is ridiculous and we should deny.
There may well be something to it.
We should be able to see what's going on.
I suspect that the Trump disavowal of it is because of the media storm that it created.
It is quite an intimidating thing.
But also, Trump has a history of associating himself with people and then disavowing them.
He does.
As the political wind moves, Trump moves with it.
So this is not something unprecedented.
And I wouldn't say it means a lot.
I would say that if she were to come out with something that looks very solid, he's going to be like, yeah, she's been with us all along.
She's my golden girl.
Yeah, I'd never disavow it.
Yeah, exactly.
That's exactly.
And about what you said earlier, that it seems to skew the elections to the left, that this is the agenda.
I don't know if we can actually characterize it as that, because Powell also alleges that they had stolen the primaries from Bernie, right?
And I don't actually know the details of this allegation, whether she's alleging that they had stolen it through, like, using the Dominion's Okay, so using the actual system and not party influence and money and politics.
Yeah, because I would have said that Bernie had the primary in 2016 stolen by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Herman Cain, and a few other Hillary Clinton cronies, sort of switching positions in the party with backdoor agreements.
That was what it very much looked like to me.
I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that Bernie got screwed by the Democratic establishment.
But yeah, I agree with you there.
I... I don't think that Dominion had anything to do with stealing the primary from Bernie.
Well, I don't see any reason to inject that into it.
And when you say, like, manipulating votes to the left, relatively speaking, but I think it's important to know that if, or when, conspiracies occur, they occur between a select group of people, and there's every chance that Bernie isn't part of a conspiracy.
Like, he doesn't strike me as the sort.
But...
Even if he was a more left-wing person, it's not going to be ideological.
It's going to be about practical protection of the conspiracy itself.
Not that I'm saying that there is a conspiracy, but if there were to be one, that's how I would expect it to operate.
But yeah, so I don't know at the moment, and it doesn't seem that anyone knows.
I really hope that we get some solid information on this.
I hope she whacks down a big binder full of affidavits and various other evidence and says, look, I can prove all of this.
I mean, there's been lots of data analysis on the election results as they came in.
I know nothing about data analysis, but these credentialed scientists, data scientists, say that you can see the votes coming in and then they change and they're plotting a graph that I know nothing about, which is why I didn't bring it up.
But these are the ways that they're saying they can track voter manipulation using the electronic systems.
Again, whether it's true or not, I can't say.
I've also seen a clip of this Swiss guy, I think, who was on OANN, which might not be really credible, but he said that he was checking the votes against the database.
Database of the eligible voters, the registered voters, and then a database of deceased people, right?
And so he was checking them against each other and then coming up with a side-by-side comparison of the people where it matched, right?
So something like that is happening all the time.
People are coming up with digging into this stuff.
So you can never know whether something like that is credible or not.
You could have generated it in Excel, obviously, but it's something that keeps happening.
Well, a lot of this data is public.
You can go and find this data, and so you can check it for yourself.
This is how we checked that in, what was it?
Was it Pennsylvania?
They had loads of dead voters voting, and we just went and looked them up.
In Michigan.
In Michigan it was, yeah.
By the way, it's Tim Cain, not Herman Cain.
Tim Cain, sorry, yeah.
Yeah, it was the same with Ken Livingston.
That was the guy I met the other day.
I apologize.
These are names from the past that I haven't had to use in quite some time.
But yeah, so I mean, I wouldn't count anything out.
I don't think it's beyond possibility, but it's not proven as of yet.
Yeah, I mean, to me this just seems like it's another claim.
You know, happy to hear the claim, but go and find the evidence please now.
That's great.
Yeah, yeah.
And also it's kind of sketchy, I would say, to allege mountains of stuff, like many different things, because you're bound to be defeated on many of those points, and if you If you end up at that position, you'll lose your credibility pretty fast.
So it only takes one or two things for you to be wrong about to lose your credibility, and it doesn't work in reverse, right?
Yeah, this is one of the things you do with criminal cases.
If you have a guy, particularly with the grooming we saw, you can allege him of five different crimes, but if you know you can get him on one, just get him on the one, because it gives him seven years in jail.
It's easy.
Well, this is why Giuliani's case is so much stronger, because he's pointing to direct times, places, and, you know, with video evidence, sworn statements.
These are real things, and I think there's more than enough evidence to suggest that Giuliani actually has a case when it comes to sort of malfeasance with voting booths and things like this.
It seems there's actually something there.
It's also one of the problems here.
As the known conspiracy theorist John Oliver pointed out, the problem she's got is if someone was to manipulate the voting software, it's almost impossible to find out that they've done it.
So gathering the evidence on that, good luck.
I mean, this is why I keep saying the ultimate thing to learn from all this is just don't use electronic voting machines.
They're bad.
Don't use them.
I've got nothing else to say.
Democracy primitivists return to pottery shards.
You know, you're selling on me.
Yeah.
I'm right.
That's why.
I'm right.
You need a physical balance.
You need to be able to hold them in the hand.
The merch is coming.
Yeah.
The merch is coming, yeah.
All right.
Shall we move on to the wonderful terrorist state that is the United Kingdom?
Right.
So, yeah, I wanted to draw attention to this because it's a UK bill that's right now in the Houses of Parliament.
It passed the House of Commons about a month ago, I think, and it's now in the House of Lords.
And I think tomorrow it's scheduled for a committee hearing or something like that.
And then in a few weeks, it's supposed to pass the House of Lords and get amendments and royal assent as well.
So the bill is about spying, essentially, and spying agencies, and about giving them the powers to basically do crimes.
It sounds really crude, but that's literally what it is.
On the government page, you can find the summary of the bill, and also in the heading of the bill itself.
It says that it is a bill to make provision for the authorization of criminal conduct in the course of the conduct of covert human intelligence sources.
So they literally tell you that.
So, I mean, participation in criminal activities needed to gain trust.
It enables agents to work their way into the hearts of groups that would cause us harm.
Exactly.
That's the defense that's kind of...
Hang on, just so we're clear.
The authorization of criminal conduct in the course or otherwise in connection with the conduct of covert human rights intelligence.
So criminal actions to get intelligence.
Just so we're clear.
Yes.
So basically, the people who defend this bill and who proposed it, they say that secret agents need to be able to basically do some crimes to get some information.
And in some contexts, that could be true, right?
So for example, you want to enforce anti-drug laws.
So you need to get into like the The networks and then you need to sell and buy stuff and take drugs or whatever.
Or 007 and is licensed to kill.
Yeah, exactly.
But that's exactly the point.
So the major problem with this bill is that it doesn't have any specifications of which crimes are to be permitted and which are not.
And so, for example, the US has long had a similar bill in place, but that bill includes the provisions against a license to kill or to rape or to torture, things like that.
But the UK bill doesn't have that at all, so it's basically a blanket permission to kill.
So, the UK government is actually, through the House of Commons, proposing that we allow secret agents to be able to rape, torture and murder if it serves their interests.
Yes.
You can see on the government webpage who's actually sponsoring the bill.
It's Priti Patel and then some other person that I didn't know.
Jesus Christ!
So, those are the people who came forward with this and Yeah, and so they say that it's not a big deal because they still need to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.
And so they say any authorization for criminal conduct must be necessary and proportionate and compatible with obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
But the thing is, these authorizations will be granted in secret and this will be all happening in secret because it concerns secret agents.
Exactly.
So no one will ever be able to know whether something like that was actually legit or not or whether it was basically a political process shading something in the background, right?
Not to mention the European Court of Human Rights believes that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to offend people.
Sure, but this is the European Convention on Human Rights.
But it's okay if our secret agents join rape gangs.
That's what this is saying.
Hugo's like...
Imagine if you could see exactly the argument.
Well, we're working to uncover the largest rape gang that's operating all across the UK. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The get-in fee to the gang is...
You have to prove you're a part of the gang.
Therefore, you have to rape some children.
You're actually right.
I know.
It's terrifying.
They could do that under this bill, yeah.
Jesus Christ.
All right, yeah.
So the bill basically says a lot of agencies can give an authorization to kill.
And so I want to go over the reasons for which they can give the authorization and then who can give the authorization.
So first, who can grant these authorizations?
Sorry, why can these authorizations be granted?
So the first reason is in the interest of national security.
That's something that's expected.
National security is a phrase that's often brought up in many different contexts to basically shield the government from criticism.
Yes, it's an excellent excuse.
Exactly.
And it's not just in this bill that's often everywhere.
I mean, by now people are undoubtedly familiar with it.
And so that's the first reason.
Second reason is for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime.
That's what they say.
It's the purpose of the bill that's expected as well.
Nothing strange as that.
Then, for preventing disorder, that's weird because you can say basically that anything is disorder.
Well, then the Peterloo massacre was justified.
And you can say that people protesting in front of the parliament or Trafalgar Square are like disorder, right?
Oh yeah, send in the cavalry, just get the sabres out, cut them up.
Well, you know, it was for the purpose of preventing disorder.
Someone's not wearing a mask disorder, right?
And so you can use that everywhere.
The thing that immediately comes to mind is that guy who quoted Churchill's speech about Islam, and then they arrested the guy under the orders of preventing disorder.
I think you could literally cut out his tongue now if you wanted.
Exactly.
So you can look how the disorder phrase is being used in other contexts, something like that, and kind of...
I presume how it's going to be used in relation to this bill as well.
So, not good.
But that's not the worst because the last reason it can be authorized for is in the interest of the economic well-being of the UK. And then that's completely off the charts.
It can be literally anything, right?
You can say...
I tried to think of the scenario where I should be allowed to rape and torture someone.
In the interest of the economic well-being of the UK? Yes.
How is this happening, man?
So basically, this last thing, this fourth thing, is something that anything can be placed under, right?
You can say anything is in the interest of the economic well-being of the UK. And if it's not in the interest of the economic well-being, it certainly was for preventing disorder.
So we've got everything covered.
Yes.
Yep.
So basically for any reason, right?
Cover that.
But it gets better or worse.
Worse, I think, is the phrase we're going to use.
Who can authorize these crimes?
Who can offer these licenses to kill?
So I'm going to quote, I'm going to list all of them.
They are listed in the bill so you can read it for yourself.
But it's any police force, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office.
Hang on, hang on.
Fraud.
For fraud.
We can have a license to rape, torture and kill over a case of fraud.
It gets worse.
Okay, go on.
Any of the intelligence services.
Right.
Any of the armed forces.
Right.
Revenue and customs.
Right.
HMRC! I mean, I'm glad I pay my taxes.
I'm very good at paying my taxes.
I'm very, very diligent about it.
Revenue customs.
As you clench your butthole.
It gets worse.
Right, okay.
Department of Health and Social Care.
Why?
Oh, no, that's making me upset now because aren't they partly responsible for the grooming situation?
I think so.
We really need to get our agents in there to stop those gangs.
This might sound a bit Alex Jones-esque, but I remember hearing stories about the secret intelligence agency sometimes would want to get into criminal rings.
So they would literally use orphan girls or girls that don't have any homes to hand over to get intelligence so you would know who was doing it.
Jesus.
So that's making me I mean, people were complaining that they were paying off some of the ex-groomers, you know, to give them information.
And I was thinking, well, you know, you're paying money to get information from somebody who's involved.
You know, it's not pretty, but it is part of the thing.
But, like, you know, actually making it legal for them to go and join in the gang, I... The thing is, it gets worse.
The Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Competition and Markets Authority.
What is the competition?
I just love the idea that the Home Office, it's Priti Patel getting back on that bullying thing.
It's like, now I can do whatever I want with any of you.
Putnam, whatever his name was.
You know, Philip Putnam.
You thought that was bullying.
He thought you were being bullied before you...
No wonder he resigned.
But the Competition and Markets Authority, what's that?
It's the alphabet soup agencies that you never know exist until something like this comes up, but by the name...
It's something that concerns monopolies and stuff.
I guess so.
I don't know.
But, like, it's bizarre that something like that should be connected to this bill.
Jack Dorsey.
Well, yeah, Google starts sweating bullets when they get called in now, don't they?
Oh, Jesus.
In the economic interests of the country, Mr Zuckerberg.
Mr Pichai, we've got a briefing for you.
The UK government is legally authorized to torture and kill you now.
So, it gets worse.
The Environment Agency...
Like, in the name of the environment.
Caroline Lucas!
Yeah.
An avenging angel for the environment.
Sorry, go on.
The Financial Conduct Authority.
The Food Standards Agency.
What?
Literally, the Bureau enforcing hygienic standards.
Under what scenario?
Let's get rid of chlorinated chicken, clearly.
I'm a sanitary restaurant.
Let's get a license to kill...
Gordon Ramsay's sweating again.
Everyone's on suicide watch.
Okay.
I think it doesn't get worse, but there's one more, the Gambling Commission.
Right.
Okay.
No, actually, when you combine that with the economic interests of the country, gamblers are a net deficit.
But still, governments are running lotteries.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I'm not happy with any police force being able to authorize this because a lot of local police forces...
You don't want to be murdered and raped by your own police force.
You know what?
Weirdly, no.
But, okay, that's a good point, though, because until now, they say that they need to do this because the secret services need to have the legal backing to be able to do this and to be able to kind of say up front that these things are, okay, you can do this, you know, and you won't be prosecuted.
For doing your job, basically, right?
But until now, they've been doing this anyway, but they always went to court, or they usually went to court and said, okay, we needed to do this because of these good reasons, and the court said, okay, good reasons, bad reasons, whatever, right?
They decided based on the ad hoc situation.
Yeah.
I think that's not unreasonable, right?
That's something that's a process.
And of course, if you're a COVID agent, you need to do illegal things sometimes.
Fair enough.
But you can deal that with court if someone has a problem with it, right?
If you do something bad and someone complains.
But dealing with it preemptively, just by saying you can get a license to do anything, is not a good idea.
And we can't even find out who these people are.
I mean, why does the Food Standard Agency need secret agents that can kill and torch people?
It's not bad food out there.
I just want to be clear, like, whatever problems they feel that they're dealing with are clearly not sufficiently bad as to be impacting, like, wider society as a whole, you know?
And so, like, we've got the problem down to, like, you know, say 10% out of 100%, something like that.
And they're like, yeah, but we really need to get that 10% down to, like, 5%.
So we need the power to do all of this stuff with the license.
And it's like, but no.
Because, obviously, arbitrary and accountable power...
To kill and torture is bad.
It's like I'm thinking of someone saying about, you know, it's like V for Vendetta.
I'm thinking of the Fingerman, except they're from the environmental department.
Your recycling's mixed up.
Sometimes I do.
Occasionally I'll forget to put a can in the recycling, I'll put it in the bin.
Oh my god.
I'm in trouble.
Spend a rod.
Right, so the Guardian has written about this and they said that the MI5 has long had a policy allowing its officers and informants to participate in criminal activity if the offences involved were proportionate to the evidence gained.
But a court only narrowly ruled it was legal at the end of last year.
So basically, a precedent was created saying, okay, you can do this in some situations.
But it still went through the courts, right?
So it's just...
At least there's some legal accountability.
Exactly.
Well, that's the thing with the courts as well.
Like, you have legal parameters you're allowed to operate under that warrant or whatever the hell is, right?
But with this, I mean, there's no legal parameters whatsoever, so...
Just a blank check, isn't it?
And so some of the problems that people have with this bill have been voiced in Parliament as well.
So let's watch a video of a Labour MP kind of addressing this and saying what the main problems for her are.
Thank you.
Right.
So that's an important point that she just mentioned, that under this bill, you won't be able to, because you get a license for that, you won't be able to complain against it when something bad happens, right?
So that's kind of implied.
And she's absolutely right in that.
So what we're saying is in like 50 years' time, After this new terrible regime comes in, we could have some sort of glasnost policy on the Food Standards Agency and find an absolute charnel house in their records where they're just torturing and murdering people with bad food hygiene or whatever it is with no accountability and no one knew.
You know what?
If this does happen, that's what it'll be.
It won't be MI5 using it disproportionately.
It'll be like the environmental department.
It's one of them that goes rogue.
But it's not like that.
It's that these kind of weird environmental bureaus and all these people can issue authorizations for the MI5 to kill someone.
I'm not sure that makes it better.
No, I know, but it's just that the process is a bit different.
It's not that they can go kill someone and give themselves a license.
This bureau can give a license to the MI5 to kill someone.
Okay, right.
But yeah, it doesn't make it better.
The Financial Conduct Authority is like, well, MI5. And so here on the screen, you can see now who actually voted for it and against it.
If you scroll down a little bit, please.
So basically, it is a conservative bill.
It was opposed by the SNP and parts of Labour.
Keir Starmer ordered Labour to not vote for anything, to abstain, but some of them rebelled against it, and I think 30-something voted against it, actually, or maybe 40.
Right, right.
So that's basically the divide.
So this is who's responsible for this.
The thing is that Priti Patel and whoever's promoting this bill, they selected a good strategy for this.
Because now, as you can see in the parliamentary speech and elsewhere, people are concerned about the lack of safeguards within the bill.
So they are concerned that the US equivalent, for example, has the protections against killing, torturing and things like that, but the UK equivalent doesn't.
So they're concerned about this and they want to add this in in the amendment stage.
But in making it so radical, the authors of this bill actually made it so that no one actually opposes its passing anymore, right?
So some people vote against it, but the criticism that you hear is not that this bill should be thrown out altogether, it's that you should have these little safeguards, right?
And it's not...
It's not even clear whether the safeguards work at all.
Because the US has them, but you will never be able to tell.
We still have all of the scandals.
Yeah, you will never be able to tell whether something like that happened or was authorized or not, right?
Because it happens in secret.
Again, like the same thing.
Well, until you get the photos of...
What was the woman's name?
Next to the stack of Iraqis, naked, piled up one on top of each other, taking the photos, all this sort of stuff.
I don't know what you mean.
Yeah, you know the woman and various others.
Was she doing this?
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
And it all comes out, like, you know, decades later, which is what I mean.
It's like, I think, you know, in decades to come, you're going to find...
Bureaucrats who have vastly exceeded their authority.
Or not even, actually.
Not even.
Moral authority, should we say.
And terrible things will have happened.
Just thinking of Brit Patel doing that with a body of civil servants.
As I said, it's a good strategy by the Home Office because they can propose something that is completely unthinkable and then they will get criticized but not on the basis that it should be thrown out altogether, but they're going to compromise on the radical.
You'll get something radical just because you had proposed something unthinkable.
That's how it's done and that's a good strategy to do anything, to be honest.
Yeah, and so that's probably all I wanted to say about this, but also if you want to support a petition against it, because that would be a good thing, you can find that in the description, I think, and on the screen right now.
Only 10,000 signatures?
Yes.
Good God.
So we need to...
There's been very little media coverage of this, though, hasn't there?
I mean, I hadn't seen anything about this.
Just the Guardian, I think.
Yeah.
And the one saving grace of The Guardian is when it comes to things like this, like civil liberties, The Guardian's actually been quite consistently good.
Which is why I used to read The Guardian, in fact, before it became identity politics central.
Well, yes, so that's it.
Please support this petition.
It's important for us in the UK. Even if you're not from the UK, it matters.
It matters.
I mean, right up until we get disappeared on the Food Standards Agency.
What was it?
The customs as well.
So if you're a foreigner and you go through customs and you've done something wrong, right.
Well, the Department of Health and Social Care.
I mean, I have disrespected the NHS on occasion for all those TikTok videos.
And now I'm thinking, well, maybe I have to retract that.
Maybe the nurses did nothing wrong and we're not giving them enough money.
Not only will you not get the vaccine, you will be killed.
Yeah, we'll get tortured.
Oh, boy.
Okay.
Oh, Jesus.
There's nothing else to say about this.
It's just nuts.
This is the uplifting content.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, from that bad news, Callum, I believe you have some bad news to tell us as well.
Well, it could be bad or good, depending on how you're looking at it, because I'm posing this as a question.
Nothing spicy.
I'm not saying anything spicy.
I'm saying, has France gone too far?
The answer is always yes.
By default.
I don't need to know anything more.
Has France gone too far?
In everything that they've ever done, yes.
Okay, so the story here is about, obviously, Macron's response to the numerous terrorist attacks they've had recently.
How many have they had?
So just for this year, for context, Britain has had two successful ones, and the successful ones are just a couple of stabbing.
So one in a prison, and one in London.
That was the narwhal tusk one, wasn't it?
No, that was the year before.
This is 2020.
Okay.
And there was one admission of a girl who wanted to blow up St.
Paul's Cathedral, and this year they managed to get the conviction or the admission.
Wasn't she a convert?
I'm not sure.
I didn't look too much into her.
I recall seeing her.
I think she was a convert.
Sorry, Karen.
So that's a total of maybe three, though doubtless ones we don't know about.
But in France, there have been seven successful ones this year.
So seven stabbings, one vehicle being rammed into people, and one shooting.
We're not sure about the shooting yet because it's very recent, so no one's sure what the motive is.
But the rest of those, the motive is Islamic extremism.
For every single case, either the guy is showing Allahu Akbar, or he's pledged himself to ISIS, or something like this.
So, the one that really started to kick this off, because you had those minor ones, and then it kicked off again with a Charlie Hebdo case, in which this chap had decided that because the office of Charlie Hebdo was there, and he was in the neighbourhood, that he should do his Islamic duty and try and kill the people who had shown the images of the Prophet.
Now, this guy's really interesting, because he's kind of crazy, but not from a Pakistani perspective.
So, the young man stabbed two people on Friday outside the former offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
Former because he didn't know they'd moved.
They're actually not there anymore.
So the people he was stabbing were just some production crew for a documentary.
They'd gone out for a smoke break.
He thought they were Charlie Hebdo, so he stabbed them.
The interior minister said the assailant had arrived in France three years ago as an unaccompanied minor from Pakistan.
So he would have been about 15, is what they're trying to get at.
he's now 18 the interior minister conceded that security was lacking on the street where Charlie Hebdo once was and saying that 775 police protect its new location 775 police officers to protect a newspaper so that's literally two every day all year that's That's what you've got to do in France to be able to make cartoons these days, I guess.
But yeah.
He's just 775 just standing around the building in a ring of steel.
Anyway, just a little bit more about this guy so we can get the context.
So I believe this is the AP. They went to this village in Pakistan where he's from and they started asking people about him.
and they got a quote from a childhood friend who said, Young people from our area really want to move to Europe.
All of our friends said that if they were in his place, they would have done the same thing if they had seen anything blasphemous against the Prophet.
So these guys want to come to Europe, and they would have all done the same thing.
Great.
My response is, you're not coming to Europe then.
This is not the kind of people we want.
They tried to speak to Hassan's father, who refused to talk to the reporters after they knocked on his gate.
Pakistani police and intelligence warned him against speaking publicly after he championed his son's actions.
So he was very vocal about how proud he was of his son stabbing two random people in Paris, and the response from the Pakistani state was, shut him up because he's making us look bad.
The district where, this village is located, I can't say the name because it's...
Kotili Kwasi?
Kotili Kwasi?
Kotili Kwasi.
It's a hardline political area in which Talik-Labik-Pakistan, I don't know how to pronounce, it's the political party there, holds powerful political influence.
So this party, we won't get too much into the details about how they were formed, but you've got to look them up, they're great.
In the sense that they're nuts.
Their only thing is about blasphemy in Pakistan.
They want to keep the blasphemy laws or extend them.
So this guy comes from an era that's a big supporter of his, and the AP reports that he was watching their videos before he went out and did this.
He spoke about it.
So Hassan just turned 18, meaning he was no longer required, sorry, meaning he was no longer a minor and would have lost his claim to residency in France unless he could make an asylum claim.
So he just turned 18, which means he's no longer resident.
He had to make an asylum claim and instead he went out and stabbed two people.
So obviously this caused a lot of stir because it's an attack on French values of being able to...
Libby, secularism, democracy.
Just blasphemy in this case, to be honest.
I don't think you even...
Yeah, so Macron was quite annoyed about this, so he decided to make a statement in which he said, Islam is a religion which is going through crisis today everywhere in the world.
I mean, he is right.
How's he wrong?
Well, no, no, like, religious, Muslim religious teachers will tell you this, you know, and it's been going on for hundreds of years.
It's a product of the Enlightenment, and France is partially responsible for it.
Napoleon going over to Egypt and conquering Egypt, he brings all of the sort of Enlightenment institutions, where they start setting up these vast institutions.
And the Muslim clerics have noticed this.
They noticed that Enlightenment values are eroding Islamic values.
I mean, this is what the Diobandi School of Islam was founded to fight against with Britain.
There would be various other ones across North Africa that have been That are organized to kind of resist French influence, things like this.
Most likely, yeah.
He is right that it's in crisis, but it's kind of like, we did this.
Yeah, I've got a lot to get through.
But I mean, the time frame is basically the same as with Christianity, right?
So during the Renaissance and Reformation, similar things were happening inside Christianity and the schisms and stuff.
And so you have the same thing happening in Islam, but with a 7th century delay because it came 7 centuries later.
I'm not sure I'd say it was completely analogous because all of the schisms within Christianity are internal ones, but the problem that Islam's having is from an external source.
So I wouldn't...
What do you mean?
It's coming from us.
Oh, right.
We've affected Islam from the outside, whereas the problems that were happening in the High Middle Ages, Early Renaissance, kind of internal ones that were inevitable with Christianity.
But we won't get into it, so carry on.
So this probably would have been another blip on France's history of terrorist attacks against secular institutions.
But almost immediately after, there was another attack in which a man had beheaded a teacher for showing these cartoons.
This is Samuel Pate, isn't it?
Yes.
So he is a teacher who was giving a...
I think it was either a lecture or some sort...
Of freedom of expression.
And his example of how freedom of expression is used in France was the Charlie Hebdo cartoons to say, look, we allow this.
This is part of French culture, all the rest of it.
And for the crime of doing this, the teachers were very upset.
The local mosque was very upset.
Everyone got quite angry at him.
So a Chechen refugee just turned up and beheaded him.
Yeah, I looked into it as well.
Apparently he'd investigated how to find the teacher and had gone around asking people, who is this teacher, while he was armed with a knife.
So seven people have been arrested when I was reading the article.
One of the parents, a couple of the students, a local mosque imam was arrested.
They all seem to have information about how to get to him.
So the response to this from the French government had started ramping up.
It was no longer just rhetoric.
They closed the local mosque for six months and said no.
And the reason for this is because they had released a video before the beheading calling for a mobilization against the professor.
So, vague language.
You could argue maybe they're just saying, oh, we need to petition.
But he ended up dead.
I think that if this was any other political organization, it would be considered incitement.
At least they'd be asked to denounce and things like that.
To be fair, they have subsequently denounced.
I don't know if you can get image one that I sent you up, just to show the video.
It's not the video itself, it's just an image of it to show it.
Right.
Don't worry about that.
Well, that's good at least.
Anyway, yeah, so that was the first thing.
It's an important way.
Yeah.
So the second thing they did was the Defense Council ordered the expulsion of 231 people who were listed as S for radicalization.
So it's the highest here.
Right.
So immediately we're just going to get rid of 200 people.
Most of them locked up in prison.
The other 50-odd, I think, were under surveillance.
So some action, yeah.
Mm-hmm.
And then it gets a bit weird, because the interior minister decided that he'd go after some non-governmental organizations, and his wording here is, I'm going to propose the dissolution of CCIF, Collective Against Islamophobia in France, and Bakara City, organizations that are enemies of the republic.
So, the allegation here is they have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore they're promoting Islamism.
To be honest, I can believe it.
I can believe that that's going on.
But it does sound funny, him calling collective against Islamophobia in France an enemy of the Republic.
Like, the British equivalent would be, I don't know, like, Priti Patel coming out and saying, hope not hate is an enemy of the Republic, and we've crushed it.
Enemy of the monarchy.
Yeah.
Enemy of the majesty.
Well, they are.
I mean, they're communist revolutionaries.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The head researcher actually used to be a member of the British Communist Party.
I know.
They are actually enemies of the monarchy.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, you know, pretty, you might want to put that bill to use now you've got it.
So, Macron's response to this second attack was to call Simon a hero, silent hero, and that we will not give up our cartoons, which irritated a lot of...
This is the story that started...
This is the hill we'll die on.
Our ability to draw cartoons.
Yeah.
I don't know if you can get that Reddit link up in the document.
But they also decided to put up the cartoons on government buildings.
So this is a government organisation projecting them onto government buildings.
To make a very firm statement to the Islamic world, no.
No, we're not stopping doing this.
Yeah, I saw Macron was projecting France's republican values.
Yeah, we'll get into that in a minute.
But the response to this then started to get worse as two ladies were stabbed while being shouted at that they were dirty Arabs.
Now, the wording from this Al Jazeera article, Al Jazeera being a government propaganda for Qatar, so I should take that into account.
Their wording was that the Muslim family had complained about the non-Muslim woman's dog, saying that they felt threatened by it.
In the ensuing argument, one of the women with the dog pulled a knife and stabbed the two veiled women.
Both victims claimed that their attackers called them dirty Arabs and told them, this is not your home.
Jesus.
So, this reminds me a lot of the feeling you will remember with the Finsbury Park mosque attack in the UK. After three terrorist attacks, then some guy goes out and does an anti-Muslim attack where he runs down some guys.
You can imagine how high tensions must be running there.
Yeah.
And this is something that just comes out of the general population as well.
So it's people who clearly feel like they have been attacked as a group by Islamic radicals.
I think it's more the feeling that they don't have any recourse against it if it happens.
It's not like bad things happen all the time, but if you feel like you can do something against it in a peaceful way, presumably you do that first, and then you do terrible things if you feel like you can't do that at all.
Yeah.
I mean, the way that they describe the people who attack them makes the people who attack them sound like there's a lot of pent-up frustration there.
I don't want to sympathize with these people, but I can see French society just breaking down from looking at this stuff.
It looks terrible, doesn't it?
This didn't end there.
The next story that came out was an attack in, I think this is Nice, in which a Tunisian man shouting Allahu Akbar beheaded one woman and killed two other people in a church.
Now, I've seen the photos.
It's really gruesome.
But the more messed up thing is, you know, the first guy had, what was it, he came in as a minor and then tried to get refugee status and just decided to attack people.
Second one, refugee.
This third guy, even worse, because he's from Tunisia, safe country, there's no war going on.
He decided he would get a better life in Europe.
And he went through Lampedusa, which anyone who's read Douglas Murray's Strange Death of Europe will recognise is the drop-off point for a lot of migrants to get into Europe.
After being there for a little while, they told him he had no right to be in Europe and must return home, but it's voluntary.
They don't come and force you, so he just...
No, no, I'm not going to.
So then he went up to France, and my understanding is he was in France for a very small amount of time, went to pray, and then went out and just beheaded three people, which...
And the important thing as well, I think, to know is that he targeted a church, didn't he?
Yeah, he went to a church to head these people.
He was also carrying a Koran on him at the time.
Shouting him at Huwagba.
So, I mean...
Nothing to do with Islam.
I think this might be the one where you made a video where Sky News was saying his motives were not yet known.
I don't know how more clear you want it, but...
This is actually quite interesting because in many Muslim countries, if you do polls or if you take information, like official information, they're often more profiled against atheism and atheists because they see Christianity as something wrong, something misleading or something like that.
A heresy.
Exactly.
But they say it's like a wrong branch of the religion, which is still more or less okay or less bad.
They call them people of the book.
They're not pagans or atheists.
Exactly.
And so this is interesting that he picked a church because it's...
Less wrong, I guess, than atheism.
I think that we have a particular kind of secular view of things that doesn't really accurately characterize the view that's being projected by people like this.
Because what you've described is like an abstract and broadly true statement.
That is true about Islam generally, but it doesn't mean that Christians aren't demonized.
They are all across the Muslim world.
You can see this with the Coptics, you can see this with the Armenians, you can see this with almost any Christian group in the Islamic world.
They're demonized and they're subject to regular attacks by people who then get supported by their family back in the village and things like this.
I should mention, that political party they were talking about, they got 2 million votes in the last general election in Pakistan.
Of course they did.
Out of?
So that would be 4%.
That's a significant amount for an unironic ISIS-esque terrorist political party.
Yeah.
But the point that this is not the first attack on churches and religious people in France, and the fact that the guy goes into a church and beheads three people makes it seem like a targeted attack on Christianity.
Because I think that secular Westerners don't understand that Islam views things through the lens of religion.
All things through the lens of religion.
Anyway, didn't get much better.
The next link was...
I don't know if we're going to show it off the screen or not, but it was a guy who was wearing a Generation Identity jacket who was waving around a knife and then the police had to shoot him dead, which was the day after.
I don't know how a link to this story is, but given what I understand from Generation Identity, it wouldn't surprise me if some nutjob went out.
Just to be clear, Generation Identity have denied that he's a member.
He only owned a jacket, but you purchased a jacket from the online store.
I'm going to presume you're a supporter at least.
Anyway, so that's all up to date with the current terrorism, except from the shooting, which hasn't been resolved yet.
So the rhetoric got much stronger and has now come full on into law.
So Macron has proposed two things.
First is a separatism law.
So, a couple of things from this.
Anyone seeking medical attention as a person who refuses to be treated by a woman could face five years in prison and a fine of 75,000 euros.
That is a weird and specific thing to get someone.
Sorry, you refused treatment from a woman?
Five years in prison.
Wasn't something like that going on in Britain as well a while ago?
Possibly.
Something like, if you're being bigoted towards the NHS, they'll refuse you treatment?
I think you covered it.
I remember that.
If you're a racist towards NHS staff, they can refuse you treatment, yes.
It's a similar thing, where you're imposing integration into your values via the law by saying you won't get medical attention if you do not abide by our rules.
I don't know how I feel about this.
I can understand the arguments for trying to integrate a populace, but one of the points people did point out here is that Well, let's say you're asking for a gynecologist.
It wasn't just a woman.
I think the specific law he ended up promoting was if you want a different gender.
So if you've got a male gynecologist and you say, sorry, I'm actually more comfortable with a female.
Five years in jail, certainly.
I don't think it's going to be like that because these things are often like...
I know, but that's what you're going up against.
These proposals are always re-blanket, but they then grow into hundreds of pages of legalese, so you have all kinds of exemptions and stuff.
I know, I'm just reiterating the criticism of the bill as it was proposing at the time.
I'm just saying there's no way that's going to happen.
I know, but that's why he needs to not do it.
Because otherwise, what happens in a gynecology situation?
Yeah, I agree with you.
And this is based on Muslim immigrants who refuse to shake the hands of women.
Yeah, this has been a long-standing debate within German countries.
He then gave an interview in which he was talking about the execution of that teacher, in which he said he was shocked to see halal and kosher aisles in supermarkets, which he said contributed to separatism in France, which subsequently offended a lot of people, and a lot of people were upset about that, that if you have separate foods, you are increasing separatism.
So that's why he's proposing the Separatism Bill.
Some people have interpreted the Separatism Bill to also mean, I don't know if it's a problem with the translation, but you want a separation between church and state, so the idea is you try and enshrine that.
But going after food, not sure what that's got to do with the state, but okay.
He then gave an interview in which he said that foreign parents who complain about their children being shown in sensitive cartoons will get deported.
Jesus!
Okay.
So this is the Jupiterian presidency rising, then?
Yeah, so this is the interior minister.
So it's not necessarily Macron himself, but I'm assuming he's getting permission to give these interviews.
I'm not sure how I feel about that one, because all the parents doing there in paper is complaining.
But obviously this is in response to people complaining about Samuel showing the images to the kids in part of the school and then getting beheaded.
So I can see where it's coming from, but if you're going to criminalize people complaining about the teaching...
Not a good idea.
It seems dramatically different in France, though, to hear.
It's in French, we're not going to play it, because it's not in frog language.
Mad.
Okay.
Yeah, so then, you know, that's the interior minister.
Macron had a turn at this next, in which he's come up with the Republican Values Charter, in which he proposed to the Muslims of, well, the Imams of France, because, like everything in France, everything's centralised.
So they have a special council of every imam in which he says, you guys need to sign up to this.
So, two principles will be inscribed in black and white in the charter.
The recognition, sorry, the rejection of political Islam and any foreign interference.
Sounds fine, but then you get down to the points.
Point number one.
Restrictions on homeschooling and harsher punishments for those who intimidate public officials on religious grounds.
So, restrictions on homeschooling.
Not sure how I feel.
I understand why.
Because you have homeschooling with religious extremists and then you'll teach the kids religious extremists ideas.
But the idea that you should not have the ability to do this.
Not sure how I feel about that.
Were the Muslim mums in Jess Phillips constituency in Birmingham intimidating her when they were protesting?
Undoubtedly, that's how you can make the case.
Yeah, absolutely.
So, point number two, probably the most radical one, giving children an identification number under the law that would be used to ensure that they are attending school.
Parents who break the law could face up to six months in jail, as well as large fines.
Jesus.
Giving kids a number.
I mean, why don't you just put it on their arm?
Yeah, don't tattoo it on the Macron, just don't.
Yeah, very weird.
We don't need to make this comparison, many people will, which is good.
Yeah, not going to age well.
Point number three, a ban on sharing the personal information of a person in a way that allows them to be located by people who want to harm them.
So, doxing.
Yeah.
Which that one sounds alright to me, because I mean...
But that's already law, right?
Like, laws against doxing are...
I don't know.
This is a charter being proposed to the imam.
Because the point is, the imam who was arrested in that mosque that was shut down is being accused of the one who gave that Chechen the information of where to find Samuel, who then went out and beheaded him.
So he's saying to the imams, I don't care what offends you, you cannot give the information about people who offend you, because the people you give this information to will go and kill them.
So that one sounds fine to me.
The other two, less so.
So the question being, as I started, has France gone too far?
Is this way too much to the point that this doesn't look like liberalism, it looks like some kind of authoritarian state?
And a lot of Muslims are obviously upset about this, the idea that their kids are going to have numbers.
I'd be annoyed.
So I've got some sympathy.
I guess it's for the audience to decide what's far and what's not far enough.
But the point is, you've got him doing things that are weird and not warranted, right?
But at the same time, that's not the only option, right?
It's not going too far.
It's going in the wrong way.
It's not the only thing that he could have done.
He could have come up with something that is not tyrannical, but also deals with the problem.
That's one of the interesting things about France, because they've been dealing with this problem for a long time, and they've come up with a lot of different measures.
And I think they're at the end of their rope.
They've also been tyrannical for a long time.
Yeah, absolutely.
John, can you use the Google link drive I just sent you instead of that tweet?
There's a video in there I want to show.
I mean, I don't know.
I assume you think this is too far, at least.
I mean, yeah, obviously.
I don't want the government giving children numbers and then requiring them to be somewhere at a specific time or else you get fined and go to jail or whatever.
I mean, this doesn't surprise me.
This is what France is like, because it has a kind of dogmatic interpretation of liberalism that is entirely collectivist and top-down.
And so...
It's justified from the position of the French Republic to do what they're doing now, and it looks like tyranny to me, but then so did the French Revolution.
Pretty much everything the French ever do looks like tyranny.
Pretty much, yeah.
I mean, it's an interesting point, because what do you do about integration if not measures like this?
Because this is obviously quite hard.
But, you know, I'm reminded of David Cameron's speech about muscular liberalism.
Give me some specifics, though.
Well, this goes beyond muscular liberalism.
This goes well into authoritarian liberalism.
But, I mean, at the end of the day, how many people have to die?
Like, the terrorist attacks just keep happening.
I don't know the answer, but there's undoubtedly many smart people, many informed people who have thought about this topic a lot.
I don't like to frame it that way, that you have the dichotomy between terrorist attacks and authoritarianism, because I don't think that's true.
So you just need to expand your idea of solutions, right?
And so how can you approach these kind of issues?
But the point is, though, I don't have any solutions of my own.
So it's easy to say, well, that's a bad thing, you shouldn't do that.
But if I can't suggest anything, then...
So, it just is some quick pocket maths, because you were saying how many people have died.
276 people have died in terrorist attacks since 2015.
So I'm using 2015 because it's a benchmark for largely Islamist attacks.
And injured is well over 700.
And that's just from terrorism, that's not from any...
And people should take the time to go and look up the details of some of these massacres.
They're not just people just getting shot, you know?
I mean, that's bad enough.
But some of them have been truly barbaric.
Some of the things I heard out of Blatt, that's not going to go into it, actually.
Yeah, it's not worth going into, but some of it's really horrible.
You can do it in your own time.
The reason I wanted to show this video is because I've been looking at this from the, you know, a lot of papers coming up from this is Islamophobic and all the rest of it, and a lot of the claims seem like nonsense, because they're claiming Macron's saying we should have cartoons is Islamophobia.
Yeah.
And to be honest, after thinking about it a lot more, I'm not sure they're entirely wrong because what's being asked of the Muslim community is strange in a certain way.
So, as mentioned, the European Court of Human Rights decrees that if you blaspheme against the prophet and call him a pedophile, that is not allowed under freedom of speech.
That's too offensive.
It causes religious unrest.
Right.
Which I don't agree as a liberal, but whatever.
Yeah.
And...
This is the general problem with hate speech legislation, which we have throughout Europe and France has, which is that you say you cannot be racist, you cannot offend people, blah, blah, blah.
But then what happens in the case of these cartoons?
Because if you are an Islamist, well, these cartoons do look Islamophobic, they are racist against Muslims and all the rest of it.
So they're not entirely wrong.
And this is exactly the point this TRT piece makes, so if we can watch it.
Oh, I don't hear anything.
Yeah, I can't hear anything.
Okay.
So the reason I wanted to play that is because it's so, uh, so exposes this argument of, oh, we can have freedom of speech and hate speech laws or anything of the sort.
No, what you are arguing for is blasphemy laws by the back door.
And when an Islamist like this argues, while you allow it for anti-Semitic content, but you don't allow it for Islamophobic content, he's not wrong.
When he argues from this French perspective of, oh, well, we must have hate speech legislation to contain religious unrest...
How does that not apply to Charlie Hebdo?
I think the difference being, I mean, we're not being prevented from criticising Moses or the Jewish religion.
The Holocaust denial laws are about preventing the Nazis rising to power again, right?
So it's to make sure that people don't undermine or minimize the idea that there was an industrialized killing in Europe, and therefore, you know, we can do whatever the Nazis did again, right?
Yeah, I know we're getting into the anti-Holocaust thing, so I just want to talk about hate speech in general.
But the problem is, though, I mean, but that's not hate speech against Judaism, you know, that's not...
No, yeah.
And so we are free to criticize Moses or, you know, whatever it is about Judaism we want to criticize.
But him saying, oh, well, you can't defame or blaspheme against the prophet Muhammad...
Well, I'm not a Muslim.
I surely should be free to do this.
But you can see his conclusion there, which was the European Court of Human Rights agrees.
If you follow hate speech legislation to its conclusion, you can't blaspheme against the prophet because it hurts religious feelings and it will cause unrest.
And he's not wrong, but that's just the perfect argument for why hate speech should not be on the books.
It's not a good law.
What I also find interesting is in the beginning of the clip where he used a very particular wording of how he presented it.
He said, speech that incites justification of terrorism.
That means if I say something that someone else doesn't like and so he commits terrorism.
You're the one responsible.
Exactly.
What does that mean?
Taking the burden of responsibility off the person who actually does the killing.
Exactly.
I should mention TRT is a propaganda outlet for the Turkish government, so they're funded by the Turkish state in the same way the BBC are, but they're obviously not much more biased.
But the reason I chose them is because they so brilliantly made this argument, which is that essentially, if you Westerners are going to have hate speech legislation against making bad speech against this and that, well, we want it for our group too.
Well...
That's a good point, and so we shouldn't have them.
Yeah, the solution to that is we should not have HPH laws.
That's a terrible idea.
We should never have done in the first place.
Yep.
And this is why when we did that episode about the Law Commission, the Law Commission is making the same argument as the Human Rights Commission in Europe, saying, well, this causes religious unrest, therefore we should not do it.
Well, my solution to that is I don't care.
I don't care if it causes religious unrest.
That's part of life.
Yeah, that's where France is going at the moment, and it doesn't look good.
No white pills on this show.
This is all bad news, I'm afraid.
God, what are we going to do?
I don't know.
Things are looking bad.
Maybe Boris will let us have Christmas, at least.
Oh, yeah.
We are getting Christmas, by the looks of it.
Oh, wow.
Save your Boris.
Thank you, Boris.
You're the loudest peasants to have Christmas.
All praise King Boris.
Should we get into the Super Chats?
Yeah, let's get into the Super Chats.
Because otherwise we're going to be very good.
That's depressing stuff though.
That's life.
What were we last time?
I think it was 20th last time?
Yeah, yeah.
Yes.
Yeah, Andrew, you want to read this?
Okay.
Andrew Knapp.
Boomer has never been so endearing.
It's nice.
Yuki Taiyo.
Inclusivity and diversity are just a way to sell humanity to better buy it.
And this is why it's advertised in this new monopoly of humanity.
That's a very interesting point.
That's a very fine way to phrase it as well.
Inclusivity and diversity is a better way to sell humanity to better buy it.
Yeah, I like that.
Neo Unrealist.
My guess is after the fiasco with Fox News' Douglas Carlson, Trump lawyers aren't comfortable pressing Powell's claims in court without hard evidence.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that.
Thanks for bringing that up, Neo, by the way.
Tucker Carlson was quite happy to give Sidney Powell a platform, a very big platform, in order to publicize whatever her claims were.
And when they contacted her, they reported that she had been defensive and evasive and refused, and so they had nothing to go on.
And it didn't look good, generally.
You'd have thought there'd been some sort of concordance, at least in motivations and attitudes between the two teams, but apparently not.
And yeah, it could well be that it's a consequence of the way that she handled Tucker Carlson.
It's entirely possible.
I've heard two points on that.
I mean, number one, I can understand Tucker being annoyed that someone's not giving him the proof that they're alleging, but at the same time, she's not inclined to give it.
I know it's Tucker and all the rest of it, but on paper, he's still just another journalist and she's got to work in the courts.
So Willem says, when you get the website up, you should sell homemade replica voting pottery shots.
Stay tuned.
Not a band account.
We must cancel Christmas to stop the COVID spread.
No, no, you have to allow Christmas and then lockdown after Christmas so that you get the popularity.
But we could go full Piers Morgan and complain that why was Eid lockdown then?
You know, how dare we?
This is Christian privilege.
Unironically, he was doing that on Good Morning Britain, just simping for anti-Christians.
Tell me why.
Tell me why.
Shut up, Piers.
I mean, look, I'm an atheist, I'm a secularist, but your appeals to secularism are completely pointless, Piers.
This is a Christian state run by the Church.
By Her Majesty the Queen, who is the...
Literally the head of the Church.
Yeah, who interacts with God himself, so...
I might be an atheist, but this is a theocracy.
Yeah.
Get used to it, Piers.
Mike Metcalfe.
November subscription fee.
Yeah, well, you'll get that refunded at this rate.
Yeah, sorry about that.
Yeah, I'm really sorry about that, man.
I'm just going to have to refund everyone.
Bull Moose, Tim Cain, not Herman Cain.
Herman was GOP. That's what I meant.
I apologize.
Scroll up, please.
Rooster and the Hen.
What are your thoughts on Canada offering debt forgiveness if one signs over their property to the government?
It said the USA will begin doing the same thing soon.
Socialism by any other means is socialism by any other means.
The government wants to own your property.
Too bad.
Just scroll down please.
I think you're back to the top or not.
Got to go a little bit more.
Yeah, a lot more.
Keep going, keep going.
Stop.
Back up.
Alright.
Yeah, a little bit.
A little bit up.
Up, up, up, up, up.
Yep, that's it.
Hey, V. Oh, nice.
Did you notice there is no mention of patriarchy, misogyny, or rape culture in the news?
Funny how that went away.
Well, they became the truth regime that we're operating under.
The presupposition on everything that is done is that the intersectional worldview is correct.
Notice how now it's not whether we're debating patriarchy exists or rape culture or whatever.
Now it's about how we can have hate speech laws against women, such as in Nottingham, or how the BBC owes the women who work for it lots of money because of the wage gap, or how various other things, blah, blah, blah.
It's all just assumed.
Everyone agrees.
We're moving on.
We're past the phase of normalisation, I'm afraid, now, V. But nice to see you, man.
Another one from V. Remember when Britain was one of the first nations in the world that wouldn't have a king's soldier to get into the house of a citizen without permission?
Yeah, that was in the 14th century.
And now they have the right to kill and murder you because me license.
It's literally the dominoes.
I mean, literal regression would be better than progression at this point.
We would have more civil liberties.
Lewis Griffith said, rape, murder, and torture are surely against ECHR, so would not be permitted.
No, that's the argument exactly.
But the argument against it is that how are you going to check, right?
You...
How are you going to check that they actually comply with the European legislation?
Because these things are done in secret and it concerns secret agents.
So if you have the law on the books, it doesn't matter that it says they're going to be compliant with something else if they're doing it in secret.
So, Jordi Bochner, in the name of the environment, off with your head.
I disavow, but they don't.
City of figs, if only groomers owe tax instead of girls' innocence.
Well, look, tax evasion is a capital crime now, I'm afraid.
But that is what got, what's his name, the famous guy in the US. The mob boss, yeah.
Landry Chamberlain, you should bring Stefan Molyneux on as your first guest.
Anyway, I love your stuff, and you definitely changed my life by becoming a regular part of it.
Well, thank you very much.
Yeah, we'll bring on guests once we can.
Yeah, once the lockdown's over.
President-elect Svaternick.
My question to the German guy.
Oh, that's me.
Apparently.
Where are you from?
No, don't say it.
Don't say it.
Keep it a secret.
I'm a citizen of the world.
That means I can't be arrested.
What a globalist thing to say.
What do you think of the Merkel's policy of flooding Europe with massive amounts of foreigners?
I can't comment on German stuff if I'm not German, or am I? Well, it doesn't seem to work, does it?
But what do you make of the policy?
Well, I mean, they...
Like, what Mocha's policy basically was, was saying, okay, you're invited in and, like, we have room and we want a lot of people to come in and we will sponsor you with this and that, right?
So, like, in general, that's a debate for another time, but I think 95% of immigration issues and concerns are issues, one, with the welfare state, and two, with the monopolization of the police.
But, as I'm saying, that's a discussion for another time.
CDFX, EU food standards took away my Cheetos.
Well, that's sad.
Yeah, because you've got to import them from the United States now, don't you?
Really?
Yeah.
Or at least whenever I see them, they're always imported.
You can never get it.
Right, okay.
That's true, actually.
Michael Waters.
The Revenue Office is going to start running CCP-style slave tax dodgers for the good of UK economic well-being.
It's just full of communists instead.
It's like you guys were going to harm the economy by layabouts.
It's just the next five-year plan.
Yes.
Brian Nielsen.
It's a great leap forward.
Gets raped for the Queen.
Yep.
Literally.
Literally, that's the law.
I don't think the Queen is mentioned in the agencies who can authorize the licenses to kill.
She's going to give assent to it, so...
Well, I can't imagine...
That's a good point.
James Bond becomes a far less romantic figure now, doesn't he?
There's less mythos.
Now he's more of a villain.
He always gets the girls.
I'm not sure how.
PM Roche.
Why would a bunch of socialist communist countries conspire to deprive Bernie Sanders, a communist, of the presidential nomination?
He's not part of the establishment.
yes um mercury did you go perhaps software issues are distraction or decoy from from main method ballot harvesting in specific countries keep up counties sorry uh keep up the great word gents yeah this is why giuliani's case is just a lot stronger in my opinion Yeah.
And also, I mean, ballot harvesting is quite documented.
It happens.
It's not even disputed that much.
I'm sure there's going to be some deniers, but it's pretty much proven.
Oh, no, no.
It definitely happens.
I mean, there have been people convicted of it recently.
We covered them recently.
Obviously, we're not sure how widespread it is.
It could be very narrow or comparatively narrow, but it is happening.
But as you said last time as well, fraud happens in elections.
It's important just to say that as well, right?
The Finchems.
A great show despite website hiccups.
Keep it up, guys.
One of the only sources I can feel I trust.
That's very nice of you.
Thank you.
We're doing our best.
Jordi Butchner.
Out of all people, the baguettes are making the best stand.
Yes, actually, that's true.
That's only because they've got the most problems.
That is also true.
And they are at a point where they have to do something.
Yeah.
I mean, they're making the strongest stand.
Whether it's good or not, that's another question.
I think go down a little bit.
With Jordi Butchner, you have to go down a little bit.
Yeah, there we go.
Okay, that's it.
Fenfen.
Send them all to Zimbabwe and bring the Rhodesians back to Europe.
I don't think the Islamists are from Zimbabwe.
Sorry to break it to you.
Yara Tops, what do you think about arranged marriage in Infi?
India?
Maybe Indonesia?
I'm afraid I... How do you feel about arranged marriage?
I'm not a huge fan.
What do you think if it's the sort of thing where, you know, my family and your family, I don't know, we both have good-looking kids and we think they'll be a good match and we get them together and they're like in their 20s and we get them together together.
It's okay, as long as they're adults.
I mean, as long as they consent, I guess.
Alrighty.
But I wouldn't want my parents choosing me a wife.
You know, I met a girl from Saudi Arabia once who actually was very, very pro-arranged marriage.
She didn't want to go out and look for a man.
She was just like, I just like the idea of my parents taking care of it.
I know some Indian guys who said the same thing.
It's very stressful to look for a partner, so I prefer what my parents do.
It kind of reeks of laziness, though.
Yeah, I'd rather get given one.
I wouldn't choose it, but...
Shake us over.
Did you see the UK government video on Aguina's hate speech?
Yes, I know what he's referencing.
So they had a guy, I think it's like elephantism or whatever, where their face is very messed up, and a few other people with facial deformities.
They're like, well, would you call me a freak?
Would you call me this?
Of course you wouldn't.
Don't put that on the internet.
They're going to call you all those things.
Okay, yeah, so that's obviously what the comments were from.
The internet says yes.
But then the message from the government was, you know, you can't call them this anyway because it's a crime.
It was like, well, hang about.
Like, what do you mean?
I can't call someone ugly ugly.
That's the message from the government.
When did it become a crime?
I mean, it's bound to have been, I guess.
Section 127, I guess, because if you do it on the internet and it's grossly offensive, it's a crime, so...
So, Dusty Thyme, what are your thoughts on Enoch Powell?
Well, he understated the case and the era that he lived in.
I watched an interview with him on the Dick Cavell show, I think it is, and he was saying, well, you know, we could have that a third of Birmingham are non-English, non-white.
A third of London could be non-English and non-white.
I mean, that's...
A ship that sailed, frankly, at this point.
Was that 1990, maybe?
Yeah.
Well, no, he was speaking in the 70s.
No, I mean by 1990, that ship sailed.
Oh, yeah, 97, 98, something like that.
But, yeah, things have just changed in a way that even he understated.
I wonder.
And he was considered to be a doom monger in his own time, so.
So with him, you know how you listen to Churchill talk about the British race and the German race and the African race and this kind of thing?
It also kind of sounds weird.
Did you have the same thing in the 70s and whatnot with the term white?
Did it just mean British?
I don't know.
I was born in 79.
Well, you know, you're older than me.
You've got the grey eye.
I was watching TV in the 70s.
But, you know, you understand how Churchill talks, right?
I think that wouldn't be the case, actually.
That would be too late for that, because the discourse in anthropology and sociology would have already changed.
Yeah, it didn't feel dramatically different, actually.
Jonathan Miller was the chap who was kind of henpecking him about these things, and it was essentially the same arguments that have been made now.
Against even raising the subject and even talking about what happens when you have uncontrolled immigration for decades.
I mean, yeah, we were looking at a map of London earlier, and you can see Tower Hamlet's religious differences to the rest of London.
Yeah, so when we were covering, I think it was just that you were covering the report into the grooming gangs.
So one of the areas they focused on was Tower Hamlets, and it was actually a legit area.
Yeah, but they wouldn't focus on Rotherham.
Yeah, I know.
But it wasn't something like where nothing's happening or nothing has the potential to happen.
It was something that...
Well, that's the thing.
I'm unaware of any grooming gang cases in Tower Hamlets.
I might very well be wrong.
But that's why I'm wondering whether or not it's an attempt to try to sort the data.
Because you're like, oh, we looked in this, you know, whatever it is, 50% Islamic or whatever.
And there were no cases, therefore there's no correlation.
It's like, yeah, but you ignored all the places that do have the correlations.
Yeah.
And it doesn't even require that degree of population before it starts happening.
Telford was like 2%.
Yeah.
And Oxford.
They're a very small number, but the grooming gang there.
So, I don't know.
Captain Metaphor, Callum and Hugo, we'd love to get you guys on Ruckus, where you won't have to worry about getting censored like on Big Tech.
The Lotus seat is on Ruckus.
Yeah, we are on Ruckus.
We're not individually on Ruckus, as at least I'm not yet.
But, I mean, we're not.
I don't post to social media that much, but we'll see about that.
Yeah, go look up the Lotus seats on Ruckus, I guess.
The new IKB4472... If the followers of a certain religion did get offended and riot, would it be right to set the troops on them?
If they don't surrender, it's their fault if they get shot, right?
Well...
Like, if you're trying to riot in the country and overthrow it...
Well, yeah, I mean, it depends what we're describing as a riot here, but...
I mean...
Yeah.
Like...
You deploy riot police, you control it.
If they're actually trying to commit violence or overthrow something, you shoot them, because that's a rebellion.
Shooting people should be an option of last resort.
Yeah, like I say, it's a rebellion.
Yeah, exactly.
Asking whether they were...
That's right.
It depends on whether you have a better option where they don't get killed.
Yeah.
Like I said, you start with the riot police.
If you can't control the situation...
But I mean, yeah, if you've got this just uncontrollable riot that's, I don't know, spreading through the cities and burning parts down...
Poland.
It has to be stopped, you know.
DLV, I asked Pastor Lewis, and I posed this to you too.
I moved to Oxford two years ago and met a girl of Asian descent who mentioned that a family member is a sleeper cell.
Luckily, Chinese would do.
Jesus Christ!
I would speak to the authorities, to be honest.
I don't know what a Chinese sleeper cell in Oxford is meant to insinuate.
Beyond the conspiratorial sort of...
Aspects that come along with what we've said there.
Are Sleeper Souls real or not?
What are they?
Well, presumably it's a kind of an agent of a foreign country that lives and works in the country that they're infiltrating.
So you train the person...
With the intent of, in like 20 years' time, doing something to overthrow the government.
But it's not that meme of like, oh, I say pineapple and they're activated.
It's...
Well, it is.
It's like a Manchurian...
Yeah, you're basically...
You're there, you get...
You're like infiltrated, you lead a normal life, and then you get like called to something, and then you kind of do whatever that you were charged to.
Yeah, I would...
I mean, if...
I would probably speak to the authorities.
German is butchering my German last name.
The thing is, it's Buchner, unless you put the E in the name, so you don't have the umlaut, so how should I read it?
So fingers are being pointed.
All right, so we appear to have reached the end.
So thank you very much for joining us, ladies and gentlemen, and we will be back tomorrow with presumably more bad news about how the world is falling apart and how there seems to be very little that any of us can do about it.
You're really selling it.
Yeah, I'm really selling it, so definitely tune in tomorrow.
We can bring some balloons in the studio to make it lighter.
Yeah, we can try and cheer things up, but the news isn't good.
It reminds me of that meme, what was it, like a deer or something, and the guy's riding along on a motorbike.
It's just a deer with a balloon attached to it.
But anyway, we'll see you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection