All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2020 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:14:18
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #12
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for, what was it, Wednesday the 25th of November 2020.
I'm joined by Callum and Hugo, and we're going to be discussing Joe Biden's miraculous victory, the tremendous hypocrisy of the Scottish National Party, contain your surprise, and the fact that the UK has secret courts now, which I didn't know about, but we're going to find out all about, which I'm sure will be another tremendous black pill.
Thanks, Hugo.
LAUGHTER So I wanted this to be sort of like a more positive thing for us to do, but it's just bad news all around, so I don't know what to say.
I'm going to follow the suggestions of one of the viewers and get a It Gets Worse t-shirt.
It does seem to, doesn't it?
But anyway.
I guess let's get started with this article by The Federalist, which summarises some key concerns regarding Joe Biden's apparent victory in the 2020 election.
So there are essentially two narratives surrounding the 2020 elections.
The public discussion is bifurcated into Joe Biden, the glorious hero of the Democrats, who stormed through the election and trounced Trump as The apparent results show, and the counter-narrative, which is popular with Trump supporters, that the election has been stolen, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that's the case.
Evidence continues to mount, but we're not going to cover it today.
We'll cover it tomorrow, I think, because Sidney Powell will be filing her lawsuit today, so I'd like to see what's in it.
But anyway, on to Joe Biden's miraculous victory.
Why this is important.
So this is important because, as I did a video for our Lotus Eaters channel, second channel, which we'll link in the description, essentially we're being forced to believe, or told we should believe, a bunch of really quite staggering claims.
And the Federalist is right in pointing these out.
So they've got five points here that are just monumental.
The first one being, Joe Biden surpassed 80 million votes yesterday.
80 million.
That's...
Trump got, what, 6 million more than Trump, who got nearly 74 million, and 11 million more than Obama at his height in 2008?
And that's really staggering, and that has to be accounted for.
And, of course, it's difficult to account for when you just look at Joe Biden's campaign, when you look at what he was doing, the fact that he wasn't campaigning, the fact that...
We'll go through a bunch of stuff, but basically this has to be accounted for, and it's the most glaring omission.
This amounts to 66% voter turnout, which is a record-breaking voter turnout.
So I guess there are just loads of people really enthusiastic about defeating Trump.
The second point is the bellwether counties.
The bellwether counties are a method by which elections can be predicted with some degree of reliability because they are representative of the body politic of the country.
And the way that these tend to vote is an indication of the rest of the country, apparently.
And so, in most of these, there's a larger list of 58 of these that the Federalist is citing, that have correctly picked the President since the year 2000.
So, for the last 20 years, these have all been correct.
Trump won 51 of the 58 by an average of 15 points, whereas the other seven went to Biden by around an average of 4 points.
So what this would indicate to your average pollster, I suppose, would be that Trump was going to win everything by a massive margin.
But these are a complete anomaly.
I guess the bellwether thesis has been repudiated.
And then you have Biden only being really successful in a couple of cities.
So, Patrick Basham, a pollster with an accurate track record and director of the Democracy Institute in D.C., said that Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country except for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia.
Now, as someone who subscribes to the, I think there's been a lot of cheating going on, there would be four places that I would look first.
I mean, that stands out like a sore thumb, doesn't it?
If Biden is not popular anywhere else in the country, apart from in these places, well, what is it about these places that made them swing so hard for Biden?
And also, in some of the big cities and swing states run by Democrats, the vote even exceeded the number of registered voters.
I've heard a lot of claims about this, so I'm going to have to double-check this for a future podcast.
I know that there have been some claims on election night and on the day after of this, and those have proven to be false, but I also know that there have been others in the last few days, so those are different ones, just to be clear.
Yeah, good distinction, because that is the case.
And so, point four is that Biden won everywhere.
Biden won despite Democratic losses everywhere else.
And, like, if you take the presidency out of the equation here, it looks like the Democrats got absolutely trounced.
As the Federalists say, the Cook Political Report in the New York Times rated 27 House seats as toss-ups going into Election Day.
Right now, the Republicans appear to have won all 27 of those toss-up seats.
The Democrats failed to flip a single state House chamber, while the Republicans flipped both the House and Senate in New Hampshire and expanded their dominance of state legislatures across the country.
So...
I guess people were like, yeah, I love my local Republicans, but I hate Trump, I guess?
I mean, I don't know what the narrative to explain this is supposed to be.
And it seems that, again, neither of the press.
No one seems to be able to adequately explain this.
Christina Polizzi, a spokesperson for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, went as far as to state, it's clear that Trump isn't an anchor for the Republican legislative candidates.
He's a boy.
So he's lifted them all up rather than weighed them all down.
And the final one is that Biden barely scraped through in the primaries, really.
He had very low voter turnout in the primary vote.
And the primary vote totals have been remarkably accurate in predicting general election winners.
Trump himself had a historic turnout in the primary.
He had 18 million people vote for him in the Republican primary, where he got, I don't know, something like 94% of the primary vote.
The previous record was held by Bill Clinton at about 9 million people.
So this was really like an indication that there is a huge wave coming up under Trump and Biden's miracle wave just appears out of nowhere.
the ballot fairy turns up at 4am to deliver loads of votes for Biden.
And it just really makes the noggin jog, doesn't it?
But basically they say no incumbent who has received 75% of the primary vote has lost reelection and Trump received 94%, which is the fourth highest of all time.
Trump is one of only five incumbents since 1912 to receive more than 90% of the primary vote.
So essentially what they're saying is we can't really explain why Biden won through conventional means.
And they also published another article saying, well, look, we probably shouldn't just leave it to conspiracy theorists to question election fraud and whether this is legitimate or not.
And I think they're making really great points.
It has to be explained.
What do you guys think?
I've got one counter-argument.
So, they said it was up only in the big cities.
So, Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia.
Only in those four big cities.
In other big cities, it was down.
Oh, okay.
Yes.
That's weird.
Lots of red flags there, right?
If generally across metropolitan areas where you expect the Democrats to do well, Biden underperforms Hillary, and in these four particular heavily, you know, and they were known to have been, they were going to be sort of, you know, contested anyway.
In these four particular places, Biden just happens to outperform.
See, I was going to argue that maybe, you know, those would be the places that are most hit by COVID restrictions and the Black Lives Matter movement.
Therefore, they might be more radicalized and more politicized coming into this election.
But if it's only those four, yeah, that is weird.
I don't really know what to make of that.
Yeah.
Exactly.
What's the narrative that explains this?
Well, I suppose it could be a Republican failure.
Because, you know, they've not radicalized the dead vote hard enough.
They've really lost that demographic.
Right.
I guess so.
You know, the Republicans need a leash lord of their own, I suppose.
But if in every other sort of democratic stronghold, he underperforms compared to Hillary Clinton, and if in the primary he underperforms, because Joe Biden was nobody's first choice, let's be real, how do you explain 80 million votes?
I mean, I'm just really enjoying this whole show because it's basically, like, if you look at it from afar, it's basically the same thing that was happening in 2016 after Trump had won.
Like TYT and others and then the mainstream media were kind of saying the election was stolen and everything was like Russia's fault and that turned out to be false, obviously, but at the same time it looked exactly like this, so it's kind of fun being on the other side.
Yeah, it's not being the conspiracy theorist.
But the point about it is that this could actually be true.
There seems to be something behind this.
There seems to be more to the story this time.
And so it doesn't seem like a nothing burger this time around.
The leftist argument, particularly from the Democrats, was the Sidney Powell argument that the voting machines were hacked by foreign power or disinformation had happened, which is not what the Republicans are alleging.
They're alleging that on the ground, traditional voter fraud is taking place.
Yeah, they're alleging the Democrats are cheated.
It's just on a larger scale.
And there seems to be lots of evidence to suggest it.
Yeah, but I mean, if this turns out to be true, then it's going to be a wholly different situation to the one that we've had over the years.
It is, but the problem, though, is the unreality of the narrative that has to be created to explain away these anomalies.
Like, how do you explain Joe Biden's apparent lack of enthusiasm with 80 million votes?
How do you explain the fact that no one turns up to his rallies and he was Like, an unpopular winner of the primaries.
Maybe it's the fact that they had lots of mail-in voting, so there's no point going to the rallies or something.
But those four cities and no other cities, that weirds me out.
I've got to say, I'd like to see an explanation for that.
Four cities that Rudy Giuliani would doubtless say have a strong democratic machine and have been deep blue for a while.
It's really weird, isn't it?
Which one is Ilhan Omar in again?
She's Minnesota.
But I can't remember the city name.
Minneapolis.
Minneapolis.
Yeah, that's not...
There's blue anyway.
But that's not one of the ones that sticks out.
That's a perfect example that Project Veritas gave us of this is how the voter fraud works.
And the thing is, Milwaukee I haven't seen anything dramatic on, but Detroit and Philadelphia, there are some serious allegations coming out of that.
I mean, Detroit is the one where they're boarding up the walls and wouldn't let the Republican poll watchers in.
Highly suspicious that then it's suddenly a huge peak for Biden.
And Philadelphia is the one where it's alleged there were mob ties involved in manufacturing ballots.
Who knows?
Stick out like a sore thumb, though, these.
It's really, really suspicious.
I mean, all these things and inconsistencies are really, really interesting to look at.
But at the same time, what you said before about Biden's apparent lack of It's kind of the same thing that the left was saying after Trump had won, right?
They were saying this was the most unpopular candidate in history, along with Hillary, admittedly.
But at the same time, it was basically everyone had agreed, like, this is a bad candidate, this is a crazy person, like, no one's going to vote for him, right?
And so they had exactly the same issue back then, because they were saying this couldn't have happened legitimately, because no one was excited for him, no one was kind of behind him.
And I think the situation is different.
I agree with you that this is...
But the mechanics that are happening in the media are very similar, even though the backstory is different.
But their claim there, that no one supported Trump, that's not true.
You could see the enthusiasm for Trump.
And the fact that Trump managed to increase his vote share by something like 5 million votes or something like that, that's huge.
If there has been voter fraud, a large amount of voter fraud, we could be looking at something like 10 million fraudulent ballots or something that were manufactured, hypothetically, then Trump will have still won a massive victory if that would have been the case.
But again, this is just why so many people, and it is a massive percentage, 75% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats, think that the election was stolen from Trump.
And these questions have to be answered.
You can't have a democracy in which literally half the country thinks that the other half is stealing the votes.
And the number of Democrats is the important one, because if a third of your own party thinks that...
Maybe that's just because they were involved in the process or something.
These numbers are only increasing as well.
It was 50% Republicans a week ago, and now it's 70%.
so i think i'm not sure if it's a smart thing for his campaign but the moral thing would be for biden to actually say all right fine fine yeah we'll investigate them because this is the point which is conceding is a nicety it's a privilege like yes it's not actually part of the process necessarily it's just always happened yeah but trump doing what he's doing is actually not unreasonable it's the legal process which is legal because it's the legal process And this happened with Bush and Gore as well.
I mean, there were press conferences where they were both present and stuff like this.
Could you imagine that with Trump and Biden?
How uncomfortable would that have been?
It's a shame we can't do that now with Trump and Biden.
With the increasing number of people who actually think that something was wrong during the election...
It's also interesting to compare that to how the media and the press in Europe covers this issue, right?
Because it's much worse than in the US in these kinds of things always.
Just to be clear, for anyone in the US who's not aware, in the US you have partisan media from both sides.
In Europe we have partisan media from one side, the left.
Sorry, come on.
Yeah.
And even the press that is supposed to be on the right, quote-unquote, it often gets its sources from the media on the left in the US. And so that's why everything is just so weird.
It's a weird bubble that is created in the European media.
And so the coverage of it is unequivocally Biden won.
Yeah.
There's nothing in dispute.
Trump is doing something crazy on the back end, but that's not relevant.
And we're just preparing for the next era of the US-Europe relations.
And that's getting back to the Federalist article.
That's why these questions are actually so important, in my opinion.
Because if you've got what appears to be a false narrative to half of the United States, then...
You've got to dispel it.
You've got to convince people that this process works.
It's not just that.
It's...
It's worse than that.
Why would the Trump supporters cooperate with a Biden administration if they almost all think that Biden stole the election using a long-time democratic machine of which you can point to a bunch of people who have been arrested and charged for voter fraud?
It's not that there aren't examples of this happening.
There are.
There's lots of evidence to suggest that happened on the night.
There are going to be lawsuits that are being filed today and in the next couple of days for hearings of various evidence that has been collected by the Trump campaign and things like this.
The Democrats themselves have a moral obligation to be able to reassure the American voters that the elections that were happening in their controlled areas were not fraudulent.
It shouldn't just be the Trump campaign.
Banging the drum for this.
It should be on all sides, because if not, you're looking genuinely a kind of end-of-the-republic sort of scenario.
You're looking at the sort of Caesar crossing the Rubicon and going into the Principate.
And that's really concerning for anyone who actually cares about the status of the American Republic, and I'm sure a lot of Americans do.
You asked why Trump supporters would cooperate with them if they overwhelmingly think that the election was stolen or that it was fraud.
They would.
The hot takes are already coming out saying that they should or will support Biden administration anyway because they would rather have Biden in even though it was fraudulent rather than have a civil war, which is a good point.
Well, I mean, I don't know if that's a widely shared opinion, but I think there are probably quite a few Americans who would prefer the Civil War than to have an illegitimate political system.
Also, it's important to point out that those are not the only two options.
Like, you can have peaceful separation any time, right?
I don't want for us to be like, well, you know, I guess that, you know, we'll just have half the country who doesn't believe that Biden won, in fact, more than, well, almost half.
And they'll just split the US up into two different countries then, I guess.
It's preferable to a civil war, that's all I'm saying.
I mean, sure, but what would be really preferable is the hearings that are going to be coming up in the next few days, so we can actually see the evidence laid out ourselves, and hopefully it's pretty damn damning and destroys the legitimacy of the Democratic Party in this regard.
I think it's got to be done.
It's got to be done, because otherwise...
We can't really explain how Biden won and why all of the other metrics that people use to sort of like predict and understand their own electoral system was so wrong.
What I meant to say was that you have these stakes and you will have more of these stakes coming out saying that there are only two options, accept the Biden presidency or have a civil war.
And since most people don't want a civil war, they will accept Biden presidency even though it was illegitimate, right?
Even though they believe it was illegitimate.
And so I'm saying, if you are presented with those two options, that's a false choice, right?
So you shouldn't accept that framing because there are many other choices, among them peaceful separation, which is preferable to civil war.
There are, but I don't think a peaceful separation will happen.
I don't think a civil war will happen either.
I think it will be a sort of civil disobedience that at least people will begin with.
But really, the The legitimacy of the election is deeply in doubt, in my opinion.
And whatever legal processes they can go through to rectify that, they've got a moral obligation to do.
The Democrats have.
And I agree with you that civil disobedience is probably the most likely scenario.
Yeah.
None of this is advocacy.
This is predictions.
But yeah, so looking forward to seeing what happens with Sidney Powell's filings and the various other hearings.
We'll keep you posted.
But in the meantime, should we do some super chats before moving on to the next one?
Do you want to start with Rex?
I think he's the last guy.
You can get him.
Today, some Irish dude complained about having a job.
What's wrong with the potato munchers?
Disavow.
Bull Moose.
Trump is no Caesar.
He failed to install a nephew slash adopted son into the monastery for the inevitable empire.
That's true.
He's talking about Augustus there.
Yeah, no, Trump isn't.
Trump isn't Caesar.
I don't think, weirdly, I think Trump actually genuinely cares about the state of the republic.
And he doesn't seem to have actually, like there were a bunch of horrific predictions made by like New York Times journalists that Trump would do this, Trump would do that, Trump would do that.
He's done none of that.
You know, nothing particularly shocking.
I don't really think they were predictions.
I think they were their wish list.
They wanted to see him go down being chained up or something like that.
Yeah.
It's like, no, that's not the guy.
It did seem to be a massive flight of fancy to go over it, but anyway.
Cody Opperman says, get back on EFAP and check out the Veil Riders.
Is EFAP the Emergency Food Assistance Program?
No, it's not.
No, it's a website.
It's a podcast.
But I will message the guys and see if they'll have me back.
Shake Silver.
Biden won a record low of 16% of counties, yet carrying 70% of the GDP.
They also have the worst unemployment rates.
Likely they are the elite.
Democratic strongholds probably didn't feel the Trump growth.
That is amazing though, isn't it?
That 16% of the counties of the US can produce 70% of the GDP. Well, no, that's just population density.
Yeah, I know.
But that's just staggering.
I mean, I'm not saying it's not real, obviously.
I'm saying it's just...
It's the 80-20 law.
That's basically it.
Yeah, it is.
It's basically exactly it.
It is.
But it speaks to the problem of centralization in the cities.
Mr.
Tucker, hello to you in old England from New England.
Love the new podcast.
I've listened every morning since you started.
I'm really enjoying it.
Can't wait for the site to be fixed so I can enjoy that too.
Man, me too.
Apparently it's going into testing today, which, you know, fingers crossed.
And so it may well be this week that we have it up, but I don't want to overpromise anything like I did last time, because look how that turned out.
But thanks for hanging on with us, guys.
Easy E. The dead vote Democrat because Hillary Clinton is a level 10 necromancer.
That's how Joe Biden hasn't kicked the bucket.
Well, it's true how we live in assimilation.
Hang on, hang on.
I can easily debunk this as being fake news.
Because you'd have to be at least a level 12 necromancer to do the kind of raised dead that Hillary Clinton has clearly achieved.
So, sorry EZ, you've been debunked as fake news.
Well, she clearly got the life steal on Bill Clinton.
So you can see him just decrepitly turning in...
Vampiric touch, yeah.
So, Janet says, I saw the website looked great, but you need to edit it for spelling and grammar.
Really interesting articles.
I like to see this name.
That's on me, and it'll get better, I promise.
For once, I'm not to blame for spelling errors.
But, in my defense, English is my second language.
That's no defense.
I know.
That's like ignorance of the law.
I know.
I'm just sad.
So, Callum.
Should we move on to the SMP? How are the SMP doing?
This isn't a huge story, but I wanted to do something short and sweet, so I got this one.
Essentially, one of the MPs is being sued for online bullying in regards to COVID. What he's done is, if you can get image one up, there was a guy who went up to Scotland, or at least was in Scotland taking pictures of the Northern Lights or whatever.
And Ian Blackford was annoyed about this.
How dare you come from the south of England and travel up to Scotland?
You know, there's only permitted reasons for that, so I'm sure you have a permitted reason.
And then this was debunked by the guy.
He was like, look, I've been here since October, if you can get the second one.
Ian Blackford, for anyone who's wondering, is an absolutely insufferable SNP MP. So he's in Westminster representing the Scottish National Party.
And he is just an insufferable asshole.
Like fervently anti-English.
Yes, anti-English, anti-Brexit.
And I saw a clip of him saying that Scotland is supporting England.
And if Scotland were to leave the union, obviously he's a fervent independence promoter, if Scotland were to leave, then they would have much more money than they had before, well, instead of England leeching all their money from them.
Yeah, just factually false.
It's just not true.
Like, for years now, it's...
Decades.
I've only seen since 2015, but...
Yeah, but look up the Barnett formula, and you can see the amount of money that gets redistributed around the country.
Scotland gets the most, England gets the least, and Scotland contributes the least.
So...
Per head, I think Northern Ireland's actually...
Oh, is Northern Ireland a head?
Right, sorry, yes.
My apologies.
They're just second worst, not worst.
Yeah, they're the second biggest leeches.
But yeah, Ian Blackford lives in a delusional fantasy world that's paid for by the English.
And he also wears a blue tie with a blue suit.
Does he?
Now I really dislike him.
Look at his Twitter.
There's just a guy's note down that he's been in Scotland since a long time, so that's complete nonsense.
Oh god, he does.
So Ian Blackford got upset about this, issued an apology, and then realised he was in...
So he called up the guy and he tried to give an apology.
And the guy is just not having it.
He's like, no, what you're doing is trying to accuse me of a crime.
And COVID restrictions are pretty serious crimes now.
So this is one of the interesting ways in which COVID legislation is interfaced with everything else.
Because it's reasonable that if you're...
So he's a private photographer.
If someone accuses you of committing a crime, it harms your reputation.
Therefore, you could sue them for...
You know, making stuff up.
And he has made stuff up.
So his argument is that Mr.
Blackford was deliberately stoking fire and then tried to run away as soon as he was called out on it.
And that they had a small chat about it.
And it's the interesting thing about the chat they had.
He said that the chat was about the fact that he had distant English ancestry and the guy he was accusing also has mixed Scottish, English and Irish family.
I'm just like...
Why does any of that matter at all?
Sounds like a weird alt-right conversation, right?
Yeah, it does.
You can't just have a conversation about the things you were saying.
You have to bring in race to it.
Or ethnicity, I guess.
Ancestry of some form, as if that makes any difference.
But I mean, the Scottish National Party are turning Scotland into a bit of a racist ethnostate, aren't they?
My understanding, yeah.
We have a Scot in the office who was getting complained at because it's become a meme there, where if you don't vote SMP, you ain't Scottish, in the same way that if you don't vote Democrat, you ain't black.
Well, there we go.
And when COVID first started, there were...
Just random Scots who would go to the border with England and try and tell people to go home.
Scotland for the Scottish, I guess.
Really creepy.
Anyway, the next thing that's in the article about this is he's accusing Mr.
Blackford of likely to cause serious harm to Mr.
Taylor's operations by falsely accusing him of committing a criminal offence.
And his lawyer gave a statement saying, You sought to bully my client in public, and you did so in a fashion that can be fairly described as in menacing and sinister.
Which...
Okay.
That is how I would describe Ian Blackford.
Menacing and sinister.
But that's the thing.
This usually would be, oh, you've accused him of an actual crime, right?
Not travelling somewhere.
But because this has become a crime, it means that you can use these laws to then anyone who dobs on you.
Because we have these helplines where you're meant to call up to the police to dob someone in for buying milk or whatever.
Well, if they're making a false allegation, you can actually sue them.
And this guy is, and I guess he will win.
So it's also a great way to get back at these COVID Nazis.
So that's nice.
Godspeed, let's hope he wins.
Yeah, but you can see the sort of strange reason he went after this is the fact that the English are coming here, right?
Yes.
So if you can get Image 3 up, this actually happened before, where someone had gone down to the border, or they photoshopped this, I'm not sure...
So they put, we're shut, F off, on the border.
And then image 4, he retweeted this.
It was like, perhaps not the language I would use, but some folk need to get...
Some people need it to be blunt before they get it.
But I bet he complains about the little Englanders who say the same about Brexit, doesn't he?
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
What an absolute...
God, I hate Ian Blackwood.
This is different.
This is for the greater good.
Yeah, this is for his team, not our team.
So if you can get Image 5 up, this is just what I imagine Ian Blackwood's like.
I mean, that is unironically his sentiment.
The only thing that's missing is a fried Mars bar.
Yeah, I should have edited it.
You should, yeah, but ironically...
But the weird thing about this, and the reason I said it was hypocrisy...
I love this issue with the necklace.
The Celtic thing.
But this is what I find so strange about them, because...
When they want to be anti-immigration or anti-open borders or anything like that, they're fine to do it with the English.
They don't give a sod.
They will F off with full Australian go-home English.
But whenever it comes to refugees or immigrants or the EU to have continued mass migration, completely open for it.
I don't understand it.
Oh, I understand it exactly.
You know why, don't you?
I'm guessing it's because of this, like in that conversation where they mentioned their ethnic makeup.
It's an ethnic thing?
Nope.
What do you think it is?
It's a geography thing.
Why?
Because the immigrants go to England.
Oh, you mean, yeah.
Scotland is 96% Scottish.
Yeah, as soon as the immigrants arrive, they then go south.
They don't arrive in Scotland, they arrive in England.
And so, sure, why wouldn't he be fine with immigration?
Especially as they're going to rebuild Hadrian's Wall from the other side and keep the English out of Scotland.
You're not coming north of the border now, apparently.
So he'd be all in favour because he's just a huge racist, man.
He's just a massive racist.
I think you're a little bit wrong on that.
Ian Blythe for being a racist!
Not that part.
But I'll find a source.
I swear this is true, but they have sent refugees who arrive.
You relocate them around the country, so Sweden.
It's a very small number.
But it's the same thing in Sweden, where they send them to northern Swedish towns, and the migrants are like, it's minus 20, what am I doing here?
And then they don't want to be there, so they leave.
And the same with Scotland.
I swear they sent some up to Edinburgh and they immediately just left because of the weather.
It's like, well, you're not really an asylum seeker then, are you?
Sounds like you're on holiday, actually, doesn't it?
Death is preferable to this.
Death is preferable to Scottish weather.
Yeah.
Which is true, actually.
But anyway, yeah, just a short and sweet story.
So if you are being accused of COVID nonsense and it's not true, well, just a reminder, that is serious action now because you're accusing the individual of committing a serious crime.
But it just shows the kind of politicians we've got and the desire for power that they have.
Now, oh, we've got a new way of...
Being racist towards the English?
Great.
You know, here's a new crime.
I'm going to accuse you of this.
You should be in trouble for this.
I mean, like, I think there's a way of framing this, that Ian Blackford's essentially trying to stir up racial hatred by saying, look at this English guy who travelled all the way from the south of England to come and infect us with COVID, even though we're very, very, you know, COVID-free in this sort of area, you know, very low cases of COVID. Yeah, the south of England actually, I believe, is per capita the lowest COVID infections in the entire country of the UK. Which just goes to show how the Scots are being even more oppressed by the English somehow.
Yeah, I think Scotland might actually be second or third most per capita.
Right, okay.
Because COVID's racist against the Scots.
Goddamn.
Well, they don't get any vitamin D, do they?
There's no sun.
So what you're saying is by the end of it, we're going to rebuild Hadrian's Wall, but both sides will be armed to prevent the other from crossing.
I mean, we just want to keep the SNP out.
Not against all Scots, just certain Scots.
I really want to know why the Scots vote at all.
Why do they even vote for the SNP, though?
This is the question everyone asks, and no one has an answer.
I wish you'd go up there and do, you know...
Well, I'd love to, but Ian Blackford would be all over us.
I don't want to run the risk.
To be honest, I can understand it, right?
So a lot of people want independence, like, almost half of the country, and...
And the SNP is kind of a personification of that sentiment, right?
So it makes sense that they would do it.
And a lot of people aren't really informed on a lot of the weird and evil things that the SNP does.
The social justice things that they're doing.
Not even that, just weird things that most of the public doesn't agree with, right?
And so if you just know that this is the party that supports independence and that this is basically your cause and it's important for you, for your identity, that's what you're going to vote for no matter what, if you're not interested in politics in general.
Low information Scottish voters.
I wouldn't say low information.
I don't want to be rude about it, because if you ask a random Scottish guy if he's a nationalist, and he just happens to be, he says, yeah, he's going to vote Scottish nationalist, and you'd be like, oh, well, what about social justice stuff?
I agree, comrade.
We should abolish transphobia.
Yeah, and he would be wrong if he was like, oh, well, that's nonsense, but...
He's still voting for it.
Yeah, you're voting for it.
But the thing is, you know, he's busy.
He's got stuff to do.
He doesn't have time to focus on the nonsense that comes out of it.
Okay, right.
I agree.
That is why people are not paying attention to the politicization of every aspect of their life, but it's not going to leave them alone.
They have to start paying attention.
Like, this is not going to go away.
The Scottish National Party was propagandizing the public just from their own bus stops.
They're saying, dear racists, get out of Scotland, basically.
And what they mean is dear English.
Here's an update on the hate speech law that they're trying to push through.
If you say that trans women aren't women, that's now going to be a crime under the redraft.
Unreal.
What I would like to propose, maybe someone from Scotland is watching us right now.
So they can set up a second party that's going to support independence as well, but it's going to be against the SNP. It can be the National Scottish Party.
No, it can be called the Braveheart Party.
No, no.
It's something very similar, but it's going to be different.
So you have the Scottish National Party, so this can be the National Scottish Party.
Why not?
It's the Judean People's Front all over again.
And you can have that party being a challenger to the SNP while still being for independence.
And if the word spreads over Scotland, then people will actually think, okay, I support independence, so now I have two options to vote for.
Can we start a Scottish independence party in England?
Why not?
English for Scottish independence, just to get rid of them, you know?
Yeah, hashtag Yeet Scotland.
Your idea of a nationalist Scottish party, it makes me think of an old joke from Ireland, where it's like, you pull someone over, are you Catholic or Protestant?
Oh, I'm Jewish Presbyterian.
Catholic, Jewish Presbyterian, I'm Jewish.
It's like the same thing, are you an SMP or NSP? But that's the point though, isn't it?
It's all just about teams.
Are you with us or are you with them?
And that's the problem with the nationalists.
Or at least, just interact with their fans on social media.
Just factional conflict in this regard.
Ideological conflict is always going to be the same.
Let's go with Super Chats.
That was just a nice, short, sweet one.
Where did we leave off?
There we go.
You can read that, Carl.
Oh, yes.
Can I? Thanks.
Okay.
Love you, woke gentleman.
Also, I don't care if it's called The Lotus Eater or Tortoise Beaters.
Damn, that would have been a much better name.
You should have gone for that.
Subscribe to the podcast and Tortoise Beaters.
The seventh candidate says, fight me Sassanac, and then something in a weird foreign language that has presumably been imported from overseas.
Iren Gubbera looks, yeah, Viking nonsense.
Oof, oof.
Ian Blackford's going to be here questioning her ancestry in a minute.
SNL Draco says, Hey lads, what do you think about Freedom Pass that your government wants to implement?
You need two negative cover sets to get it.
Yeah, we'll do a segment on this tomorrow.
The inevitable freedom pass.
Do you know if this is for international travel or for domestic?
We'll look into it and give you guys a better summary of what's going on tomorrow.
It's all sort of up in the air at the moment and it's hard to be sure about what's confirmed.
So MuteStream says nice things about me and...
LAUGHTER Sorry, no, no, let's read it verbatim.
Hugo is the most adorable of bratwursts.
But I have to disappoint.
I prefer the log and pretzels.
Is that not sort of kind of like a hate crime there?
Because you're not German and the Germans used to conquer your people, so...
Am I not German?
You can be German if you want.
What, are you a racist?
Against Germans.
Who wasn't conquered by the Germans?
The English.
Yes.
Get stuffed.
Oof, it just got bombed.
Dunked.
The Monta Black.
What's the SNP going to do about the black Scottish Cyclops that's been put out of work due to government restrictions?
What?
Gibbs?
That's the answer?
Gibbs.
The Scottish National Socialist Party, as our favorite historian pointed out.
So Robby just sends money.
Thank you very much.
President-elect Svartanik says, The biggest problem the Trump team are facing is the limited time...
It's not that short, I mean, until...
Yeah, they've got a couple of months.
Yeah, until late January.
Yeah, about a month and a half, yeah.
And they're doing it apparently today and later on this week.
Obviously, as I am a hardcore MAGA chud, I'm very much looking forward to it, and man, I hope something big comes out of it.
So, Lars says, with the devolved parliaments, shouldn't the Scots and Welsh only be allowed to vote in one parliament?
Finally someone said it, right?
Why do we have SNP people, MPs, in Westminster if they've got their own devolved parliament, right?
And the thing is, there's a big, like, you know, you get, like, people from England saying...
Well, if the Celts all get their own devolved parliaments, why don't the English get a parliament?
And I find that annoying.
This is a long-standing problem since devolution, which is discussed in law, which is the fact that a Scottish citizen can vote for a representative who votes on Scottish matters, but also an MP... And on English matters.
The MP one doesn't just vote on things that affect Scotland, they affect all of the UK, but the reverse is not true.
Yeah.
So...
It's also a problem with local government, because I did a video once on how local government works, and I was surprised to realize how little representation an English citizen has, because you effectively vote for, if you're lucky, parish or district councillors, who can represent all tiny things, and then the county or unitary council councillors, which can do more local stuff.
And then you've got the MP and that's it.
You don't have representative councillors and senators and all this stuff that the Americans have.
So you're saying I shouldn't be paying my taxes?
I'm saying you're very underrepresented compared to other democratic countries.
Maybe my taxes should reflect that.
You should put it on the license plate of your car, as the people from Washington do.
They literally have on their license plates no taxation without representation.
Do they?
Yeah, because...
No, no, they have taxation without representation because they actually pay taxes without having the senators.
Oh, yeah, yeah, of course, yeah, because it's not a state.
So they're very salty about it, and they're campaigning for DC to become a state, and so they have it on their license plate officially.
But the question of should we have a devolved English parliament, well, the English parliament is Westminster, so, I mean, it seems to be occupied at the moment.
Where else would you put it?
I mean, I suppose you're going to go Winchester or something.
It's not really the argument, fundamentally.
Fundamentally the argument is, should we have an elected upper and lower house?
Because that's what they're getting at.
Because then you'd have the English Parliament and the Commons, right?
Or at least people are thinking of changing the Lords for the English Parliament.
Honestly, the more time goes on, the more I'm thinking Republic.
I'm just getting angry these days.
I'm sick of the way that our system is.
And I'm sick of the fact that it can be completely taken over.
And we can just have all of our rights just suppressed on the whim of the government.
And we've got nothing that we can do.
I really hate it.
It is nice and quaint and enjoyable that it's so old and it has its own quirks.
But at a certain level of failings...
It's a historic constitution that's evolved.
And it's like, yeah, okay, but I am still prevented from operating my business or something.
So when you say a republic, what do you mean is a codified constitution?
Yes.
And, you know, elected head of state and things like this.
You know, okay, let's just do it.
Let's go for the full republic.
Screw it.
We could keep the monarchy.
Like, we could have it still as constitutional, but the new written constitution...
Yeah, we could.
We could, but republic sounds exciting.
Yeah.
But Republic is just...
I want to run for president, right?
Republic is just...
Respublica is just a public thing.
It's just a commonwealth.
So you can have a monarchy commonwealth as well as the democratic one.
That's true.
But I want to be the president.
Jamie says, in terms of the US election, it looks like a rat.
Moves like a rat.
Sounds like a rat.
It's a swan.
Yes, that's a fantastic summary, in fact, Jamie.
That is exactly the problem.
It just looks like there's a lot of cheating going on, and we're supposed to believe that actually, no, it was the perfect election.
It doesn't identify as cheating.
The intelligence community, quote-unquote, someone higher up from there said that it was the most secure election.
Yeah, and then he got fired.
Yeah, Trump fired him for lying.
Yeah.
I mean, I think the most charitable interpretation of his argument was there wasn't foreign election interference, which I agree, there wasn't.
That seems to have been domestic.
Same as last time.
Yeah.
Incidentally, if we go on the Democrats' allegations against Dominion voting machines.
But anyway, so, Hugo, what will you be talking to us about?
Oh, it's going to be a bit less cheery.
We shouldn't have ended with this.
Yeah, sad.
So we're going to be talking about the secret codes in the UK. It's actually, when we're saying secret codes, it's not exactly what you would imagine, like someone taking you away and then trying you in the cellar somewhere.
That's not what it means.
Oh, hang on.
Thank God.
Thank God.
It's not quite Nazi Germany.
It's not.
Good minimum standard.
Let's move on.
But it's the Justice and Security Act of 2013 that should be on the screen right now.
Maybe, maybe not.
But it basically expanded the use of closed material proceedings.
That's a kind of thing that's been on the books since 1997, I think.
And it basically says that you can, under certain circumstances, you can use evidence in secret so that it doesn't get...
so it's not revealed to the public.
And the Act in 2013, the Justice and Security Act, basically expanded this.
I'm going to talk about the details in a minute, but it basically expanded this from very specific examples, very specific situations, to basically any civil courts and any civil case.
And so what exactly do closed material proceedings mean?
It means that some of the evidence or all of the evidence is hidden from the accused.
So the accused doesn't know anything that the prosecutors, the state, is saying against them.
And there's only a special advocate, quote-unquote, that's allowed in to hear this evidence.
But the special advocate is someone who has a license to be there at that spot and he has no real connection to the accused.
So the accused is basically just being quote-unquote represented by some guy who he'd never met and who doesn't represent his case and is not his lawyer.
So, I get a summary from Open Democracy where they say what actually means these proceedings.
the civil the civilian and their lawyer cannot be present during those closed material proceedings cannot see the evidence the government is relying upon and which is said to be national security sensitive information cannot see the government's case on this evidence cannot challenge this evidence on the government's case and cannot know the reasons for the judge's decision on that evidence and therefore that case
so this this person who has been accused isn't i mean they're allowed to know the accusations?
Okay, so can they face their accuser?
Do they know what the accusations are?
They know who the accuser is.
It's the state.
But they don't know what they've been accused of.
Not necessarily.
They can, if that's not the sensitive information.
If they're lucky, they can find out what the evidence against them is.
Yes.
But they can't challenge that evidence.
No, because they don't know what it is.
Right.
I mean, it just sounds like the sort of thing I would expect in the Soviet Union.
Yes.
Like, I'm thinking of that meme that comes to mind.
You've been accused of crimes against the Soviet state, blah blah blah blah blah.
You are found guilty and now sentenced to death.
I guess.
And how frequently have these been operated?
Well, that's the thing no one actually knows, because...
Oh, Jesus!
Right, okay!
So, right, so I've got another quote here that's from TruePublica as well.
It says, the article, just to make it clear, the article is from 2015, but they're quoting the consents from 2013 when the law was being passed.
So, quote, this law, when passed, as it will be, can then be applied to all and any offense, even as lowly as a traffic accident.
Accused persons will never be told where they are charged, and of course, it is very unlikely that they would be found not guilty.
And then they continue that by 2015, no one was able to know which cases are actually being tried in this way.
And so basically, the government doesn't tell you in any statistics how prevalent these actually are when these are being used.
Of course, when a single case gets publicized, then it is public, but you can't see that from any statistical reports or anything like that.
So if there were 50 this year, but only one made it into the press or something...
You only know about the one, yep.
I'm just speechless that this is what we allow to happen in this country.
Yep.
I mean, this genuinely sounds like something that the communists would do, or the fascists would do, in the 20th century.
There's the thing, you're just hoping that the guys in charge of it aren't going to use it for traffic accidents and instead are only going to use it for very serious terrorism.
Okay, let's assume that the Conservatives are just benign and useless, right?
I bet.
Yeah.
Right, so yeah.
So they just have no particular intention of using this.
They just want to protect state secrets, apparently, as if anyone gives a damn about Britain's state secrets anymore.
But let's assume that they...
They do because part of Five Eyes.
Oh yeah, good point.
I like it, yeah.
But anyway.
I'm going to get to that in a second as well.
But just the fact that this is all an accountable power that is just there for the taking when a Labour government is probably going to be the next government we get.
And do I think that Labour are beyond doing things like this?
No, I do not.
This is a worrying thing to hand down for posterity.
I mean, aren't they worried that there might be some sort of giant far-right backlash in like 10, 15 years where, you know, the new version of Hitler gets elected and then he's just got this wonderful array of tools with which to persecute his opposition?
There is no far right in the UK, so I'm going to get into government.
Only far left.
You say that now, but you don't know what 10 or 15 years things will look like.
I found that a lot of these people are not thinking in this systemic way.
What's important is basically how you maintain power.
You don't think about the scenario where you don't have power because what you're concerned with is how to preserve it.
You don't hedge your bets by doing something that is not Great for you, but not awful for you in the future.
I understand the thing that they're doing, but I guess the point I'm trying to drive home is they have a moral responsibility to think about what they're going to be passing on to the next administration and the one after that and the one after that.
I agree that it's way more responsible to think that way.
I don't agree with them on that at all.
Sorry, go on.
How these closed proceedings are justified is on the basis of national security.
The phrase national security is an all-powerful thing that can be used for anything.
We covered a few days ago, so go check that.
A bill that is being passed now that allows criminal conduct for secret agents, and part of it is also national security reasons.
So this is a phrase that's being involved in everything.
And so, according to Justice Gap, quote, legal cases from World War I through to World War II And so that's in the context of the UK,
obviously, that this has been basically the way in which these things have been dealt with even before 1997, when they actually were written as law.
And so this has been a long-standing kind of trend that these national security concerns, things that are portrayed as sensitive, are then given an upper hand in these.
And the standard that is used for other cases has not been used in that context.
But this sounds like the sort of excuse that was given during the Iraq War to hide what were war crimes.
Yeah.
It's terrifying.
It's bad.
Exactly.
It's the yes meme.
It's like, you're trying to hide war crimes.
Yes.
If you actually read the concerns and read the scenarios that people have proposed that can happen under this law, it's exactly what it can do and what it probably does even though we don't know about it, right?
And so in that vein, I wanted to read out one of these stories.
The first part is an actual case that happened.
It's adapted a little, but it's basically what happened.
And then the other part, I'll let you know when, is fictional.
And this is a scenario, this is an article that was written before the law was passed as part of a campaign against it.
And so the second part will be an imagined scenario that could happen under the law where it passed.
It was passed and it probably happens now.
So it's about a man called Hassan.
He's from Libya and this is his story.
So Hassan had been a prominent spokesperson against Gaddafi in Libya.
He had been forced to flee Libya in the 90s and had originally lived in the UK. We're good to go.
Hassan was kept for days by the CIA. He was mistreated and beaten.
He was transported to Libya and handed over to the Gaddafi regime's security services.
He was held for nearly two years at the prison.
While he was there, he was tortured.
There was a trial in Libya, but Hassan was not allowed to have much to do with it.
At the end of the trial, Hassan was sentenced to death.
That's how most trials worked at the time in Gaddafi's Libya.
While Hassan was back in prison, Gaddafi was overthrown.
Hassan then became an important figure within the new government.
In September 2011, during the chaos as the Gaddafi regime collapsed, a British journalist found papers in a building which had been occupied by the Libyan Security Services.
These papers included an email from the head of the British Security Intelligence Service, MI6, to Gaddafi's head of the spy service.
The email mentioned Hassan.
It said, quote, Hassan had already started his case against the British government, the head of MI6, and the foreign secretary when this email was found.
And so this is the facts of the case, what actually happened.
And this guy then went on to basically have this case against them and was allowed to have this case against them because it happened before 2013.
And so now what I'm going to read out is a fictional continuation of this story if it happened after the bill had been passed.
after the passing of the act Hassan's case was made the subject of the closed material procedure CMP Hassan's lawyers explained that the legal test for whether a CMP was allowed was not very strict Hassan's lawyers said that the government were allowed to use material which was irrelevant to the issues in the case as the basis for its application for a secret hearing
so the government could have been telling the judge about the intelligence information they had from the source in Kuala Lumpur that gave details of how Hassan was suspected of being, quote, dodgy.
Hassan was told by his lawyers that the judge had ordered the British government to give Hassan a summary of the material it wanted to rely on in secret.
The British government had decided not to give Hassan or his lawyers the summary of the material.
There was nothing Hassan could do about this.
A security cleared lawyer was appointed to speak to the judge about Hassan, but she had no responsibility to Hassan's interest.
Once the special advocate had seen the evidence which the defendants were lying on, she couldn't speak to Hassan about anything to do with this case.
Hassan's lawyers explained to him that it was not possible for him to know what material was being relied on by the government in its application for the CMP to be used in his case or the evidence introduced under the CMP. Hassan's lawyers had explained to him that this was the situation.
Hassan personally found it difficult to see how a lawyer could possibly do anything for him when he himself didn't know anything about what was being said about his case in secret and couldn't tell the special advocate anything at all.
Hassan lost his case.
So that is what could potentially happen.
That's what people were worried as the law was being passed in 2013 that could be happening.
And now the law is passed this year, last year?
The law was actually passed in 2013, back then.
And so I would urge people to go to this article because this is one of the eight scenarios which they propose could happen under this law.
It's an article by Open Democracy and we'll leave it in the description.
And so this...
So this was something that they thought might happen and it's something that is probably happening now a lot but we don't know about most of these cases because it all happens in secret unless someone really digs into it.
Well, that's good news, isn't it?
Just to understand, so if you want to get someone out of an area, let's say British Intelligence wants some guy out of Libya or something, but then they decide, nah, let's just get rid of him.
They could make up some evidence and be like, oh, he's a shoplifter.
And then present it to the judge and then say, that's got to be secret evidence.
Hassan doesn't even know that he's being accused of it.
And then we throw him into a jail cell.
And no one can review whether the evidence is true or not because it's being secret.
So the only people that can actually review it are the accusers and the judge, and the judge is not going to do anything, right?
Does this apply to citizens as well, or only foreigners?
Everyone.
Everyone.
So this could also apply to a British citizen if...
Yes.
So what you're saying is Ian Blackford could actually persecute me now?
Yeah.
Goddamn.
I'm trying to think what he...
So he'd accuse you of breaking COVID restrictions?
Yeah, I guess he would.
Have you arrested, and then the secret court would be like, nah, we don't need to tell you anything about...
Yeah, national security concerns.
Sorry.
You're in jail for two years, or however long.
It's like that's...
And national security concerns could be something tied to you crossing the border into Scotland because that's the border, so it's national security.
I guess it is.
Plus, we've been seeing your online content and you're an extremist there.
Well, yeah, that's what they would say.
But yeah, so welcome to 21st century Britain.
It's not free.
It's not a free country.
Incidentally, I mean, what was the update on the COVID rules?
Can't we have like a...
Three family get-together this Christmas?
Christmas.
Three households are allowed to collectively create a bubble, so you're allowed to interact with three households at Christmas.
So I could bring my parents and, I don't know, some siblings, right, to my house, and then we could all meet.
But you could do that, as I understand, with any country in the UK. Oh, wow.
So you could bring down a family from Scotland or Northern Ireland.
So I can invite Ian Blackford over for Christmas?
Yes, you can.
Or go visit him.
Yeah, so just continue with...
Oh, sorry.
I didn't know you were done.
No, no, no.
It doesn't get worse this time.
It just continues on.
So the EU Parliament actually made a report in 2014 doing an international comparison of these practices.
And so they looked at eight countries, I think.
Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, I think Netherlands and UK and some other countries.
And they said that basically the UK had the strictest rule since 2013 about this.
Some of the countries have the same rules or similar rules, but they are not as widely used.
They can't be used in all civil cases as it is in the UK since 2013.
And so the report says...
The study demonstrates that secret evidence is not always legal evidence.
In countries such as Germany, Italy or Spain, the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial cannot be balanced against national security or state interests, as this would directly contravene their respective constitutional frameworks.
So, in some of those countries, the constitution actually prohibits this being used as evidence.
It can be something that you can be accused of and it can be something used in trial, but it's not up to the standard of the evidence.
It must be nice to have a constitution, doesn't it?
Exactly.
That kind of supports your argument from earlier.
It does.
And so, another quote says, So, that's basically what the EU is concerned about.
There's also another angle to this report, which is basically that the report pushes for overarching EU rules.
That's what they do all the time.
They take something, say it's wrong in this country and that country, and say the solution is to centralize it.
Which is not surprising, but the report is still valuable in that it gives the information about what the individual member countries actually do.
And so I want you to also mention some defense of this, right?
Because almost everyone was against it when it was being passed in 2013 or expanded in 2013, but it's actually sometimes defended as well.
And so there was a divisional court in a case, it's not really important, it's Belhash and Boudkhar versus Director of Public Prosecutions.
And so it's a case from 2017.
Where a divisional court says...
The court claims there is a paradox in the use of these proceedings.
It actually says the opposite.
Quote,"...the effect of the extension of the Justice and Security Act of 2013 to proceedings such as these is that the executive, in the form of the prosecuting authorities, can be held to account by the judicial process." What is described as an encroachment on their fundamental right is in fact enfranchised informed and detailed scrutiny by the courts, which would otherwise be impossible.
So they are spinning it so that it's actually a good thing because the courts can do a more proper job.
Which is weird, because why should...
Well, I mean, that's not wrong.
If you give the court excessive power and secrecy so they can't be challenged, then, yeah, I'm sure they can do a more effective job, but that's not the concern here, is it?
Exactly.
I mean...
Informed and detailed scrutiny is not something that I would put on the same level as the secret courts or courts with secret evidence.
It's a weird spin, but it's kind of expected because this court is basically promoting itself.
It's saying, give more powers to the courts, we'll have more powers.
It's going to be nice, right?
So, you would expect that.
Exactly.
So, as well as anyone else and everyone, you could expect them to promote their own interests as well.
And so, I want you to view this from a broader picture.
And this statement in particular, this kind of argument from the divisional court, that courts are a branch of the state, right?
So they are instituted by the state, they are made by laws, basically, and they are often funded by the state as well.
And so it makes sense that they will favor the state in...
Where they're the party of the dispute.
And it's kind of weird as well that in regular, in kind of private affairs, it would be unthinkable to have a party being a judge in its own case, right?
But when the state is one of the parties, it's considered normal.
That's really weird.
So you shouldn't expect courts to back the state in most cases and have a consistent bias towards them because simply you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Well, the EU Parliament actually agrees with the sentiment to a certain extent because it says, quote, judicial authorities across the EU member states under examination have a high degree of trust in claims made by governments and intelligence communities in judicial proceedings that national security is under threat.
And so they say that basically the evidence or quote-unquote evidence that is brought forward by the security agencies and intelligence agencies is being believed.
Believe all evidence?
Well, I look forward to being able to challenge it.
Yeah.
And so this is basically the standard.
So when the divisional court in the UK says that it allows more informed and detailed scrutiny, it actually does the opposite because the evidence shows and the EU Parliament actually says that the courts consistently tend to favour the state and the security agencies and not the defendant.
And so now we should probably bring it back a notch and actually consider and realize that this whole time we're discussing it, we're talking about supposedly developed states, not some North Korea-style tyrannies or anything like that.
So this is all happening.
This is sounding very South American.
This is all happening in modern Western liberal democracies, right?
So this is the context.
It's not some tyrannical regime somewhere in the world.
No, it's a tyrannical regime here.
Yes.
This is just awful.
So we're ending on a grim note, but that's basically it.
Consider yourselves informed, chaps.
I didn't know about all this before we did this, so good God.
Bad news all around.
There's no freedom left.
Also, thank you for the viewer who sent me the tip to that.
I did know about that.
Thank you for sending it out.
Do you know where we left off?
I think it was unholy.
Nice to see Hugo found his confidence and really fits in as a great part of the team.
Loving the show.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Yeah, like, if you're in front of the camera, it takes some time to get used to it, but hopefully it's going to be better.
Well, enough Callum.
Apparently completely used to it.
Yeah, it's a natural.
Yeah, you're a natural.
Owen says, in Wales, abolition of devolution is at the same level as independence, thankfully, at this point.
So you're stuck with us, sayis, which is English.
I mean, half my family's Welsh, to be honest with you.
So I'm glad to see that.
But, I mean, what does Wales stand to gain from independence?
What does Scotland stand to gain from independence?
Reverend Norse says, interview Dan can tell future on why their countrymen vote SNP. Well, I'd love to, but, you know, lockdown.
Ian Blackford's patrolling the border.
Don't dare!
Still no video to explain the Lotus Theater's name.
I was going to do it when the website was up, and I thought the website would be up fairly soon afterwards, but I will explain the name, I promise.
Basically, it's a representation of a paradigm shift, but I'll explain it in more detail at some point.
Angry Tism says, Hello from South Carolina.
Love the podcast and a British view on the US election.
Keep up the great work.
Thank you very much.
And it's not a view that you would normally get from Europeans because, as we discussed earlier, the coverage is horrendous.
How dare you call me European?
Well, Russia's not a European country now.
No.
England equals Deutschland.
That reminds me, actually, of the English wordbook I showed you.
So, Google English wordbook, I think it is, and you'll get a very interesting dictionary in which if you purge English of all of its French and Latinized words, it becomes incredibly interesting.
So, just an example is umbrella.
So, that's obviously a Latin word.
But in English, it becomes rain shade.
It sounds much more meaty, doesn't it?
And it sounds like that's true.
It shades me from the rain.
Yeah.
It's very functional.
What was the one you found?
I think it was communism or socialism?
Oh, yeah.
I can't remember off the top of my head, though.
It was like organized Germanism, essentially.
Yeah, yeah.
It was essentially like Germanism.
A fuzzy creature says, Electoral College votes second week December.
Congress votes on acceptance as second order of business on January 3rd.
Tick, tick, tick.
Yeah, well, that's the thing, isn't it?
But apparently today and tomorrow...
YouTube says, does Carl ever think I have 300,000 plus followers and the British Army only has 100,000 soldiers?
I could field a bigger army than the British Army.
Well, that's the bit for president.
Well, I mean...
For the UK president.
All I'm saying is when we cross the Rubicon, that...
No, that...
The thing is, right, there's a great quote, I think it's from Socrates, a heap of building materials is no more a house than an organized mob is an army.
So basically you'd have to all get together and we'd have to do drill practices and we begin on Monday.
So how are your corgis?
We had to rehome them, I'm afraid, because they're very energetic dogs and we just didn't have the time.
But thankfully, the people we rehomed them with, two different families, you could tell they were the kind of families who were really looking after them.
And one of them goes, like, he's constantly on country walks and we see the Instagram pictures that they put up and the dogs look really, really happy, which isn't really good, you know.
So Javek says, for the sake of issues like tyranny, suffrage and taxation, it would be interesting to see you guys dip into some uncapitality in your book club.
I'll see you to it, no worries.
Yeah, we will.
The engaged few.
So you're not dragged from your home in the dead of the night to stand before Volksgericht?
Well, that was considered how nice for the British.
Yes, we're so free.
President Lex Vatnik.
Give a shout out to Bering, guys.
He's in the chat.
Oh, hey Bering.
How's it going, man?
Message us on Discord.
You're in our Discord chats and you never come in and say hi.
Jake says, Hi guys, loving the podcast.
Can't wait for the website.
What do you think about the state of the UK? I think we'll need a breathing license soon.
I mean, after what we just learned about secret courts, it's not going great.
You kind of do.
You need license to take the mask off to have the exemption, so you kind of need a breathing license.
I mean, we are actually going to get a freedom license.
Like, you've got a license for that freedom.
And it's actually called a freedom license.
Yeah, I don't.
Yeah, exactly.
It's called a freedom license.
Like, it genuinely annoys me.
I'm...
So Reverend North says, going for the government in V4 Vendetta IC. Yes, actually.
It seems to me that's the plan.
Drax says, don't forget to buy Carl 6800 XT from Scan in 8 minutes.
What's a 6800 XT? I think it's a new graphics card that's dropping or something like that.
Oh, is it?
That's my guess.
Oh.
Shame I don't get time to play video games.
You get your VR set.
Yeah, I recently rearranged my office, and my son was really interested in the VR set, so I set it up, and now he's loving it.
But he's too small to play it, so he has to watch me flail at stuff.
But it's quite fun, though, to be honest.
Would it be beneficial to move the Parliament every six months from north to the south, like the Euro Parliament moves from Brussels to Strasbourg?
I doubt it.
That is a massive waste of money and resources, just time and resources.
And it was designed to be a compromise, basically.
I thought the idea of it was because it wasn't yet the EU, so it was the idea you just move these offices, but then it became the parliament.
No, it was different because Strasbourg was supposed to be the seat of what's there right now all along, but Brussels wasn't supposed to be the permanent capital, so it was supposed to be rotating among the EU countries.
But then after the first year, they said, fuck it, and they just kept it in Brussels.
And so they're just moving now between the two cities, but they were supposed to move between two different cities.
But the French won't give it up because, you know, it makes Strasbourg important, I guess.
Yeah.
But the thing is as well, they literally pack up their offices and move them by lorry down to Strasbourg and then back.
What was the rotation?
It's something like two months or something every year or whatever it is.
It's absolutely absurd and can only have been the product of an unaccountable bureaucracy that never has to actually worry about the bill that it's creating.
This is just going to be paid for by the European taxpayer.
It's a ridiculous arrangement.
There's actually a lot of interesting trivia about these sort of things because there's a lot of bureaucracy involved.
I'm going to write an article at some point about this.
For example, when they move between Brussels and Strasbourg, they have these suitcases.
Or briefcases that are meant for paperwork, right?
And they haven't...
It's not a suitcase, actually.
It's a chest.
It's like a small chest, right?
And they have these chests move with each member of parliament and EU official, right?
And...
More often than not, they're just empty because no one uses them because there's internet, right?
But it's a huge industry that depends on it because a lot of people transporting those, right?
And trucking companies and everything.
So they don't want to give it up, right?
So it just happens.
They move these empty chests there and back every two weeks.
It's unreal.
It's such a waste of money.
I moved from Rhode Island to Florida eight years ago.
My parents were mailed a ballot for me even though I changed my address and registered to my vote in Florida.
My mum went to the town hall to ask why one was mailed to them and they claimed I never told them I moved and were rude to her.
I mean, this is a problem I've seen a long time.
Like, you can look back at videos from the Obama election and Republicans complaining that dead people or moved people are getting votes up and down the country.
Well, there's an allegation in Nevada that 15,000 people who voted there also voted elsewhere.
Yeah, like John Stossel did a good piece on this, where he went back to New York, and these people are now living in Florida.
And he'd knock on the doors to find out that they'd voted in New York, and then go down to Florida to confront them.
And every door he knocked on, they were like, I've been here for eight years, mate.
I've been here for eight years.
Don't know what you're talking about.
Yeah, so he was sort of, I don't know if it was his intention, but the idea was, oh, I'd show you up to show that you're voting twice.
And then all of them were just guys who were like, no, someone's taking advantage.
Democrats are conducting voter fraud, mate, don't know what to tell you.
I'm a Republican, leave me alone.
Trump, Trump, Trump, yeah.
Artemis says, Vikings pillaged the English for everything they were worth.
I'll ride that train all the way to Valhalla.
Yeah, well, let's just join the queue for these days.
Ian Blackford's going to be furious at you.
If you get the license, it's fine.
All right.
Thank you so much for joining us, everyone.
And we will be back tomorrow at 1pm UK time.
What are we talking about?
We're going to be talking about the license, the Freedom License.
And we'll have, hopefully, a very sparkling election update where the Trump campaign has BTFO'd the Democrats forever.
But I guess we'll find out tomorrow.
And also, if you have any comments or anything like that, send that to contact.lodiceeaches.com.
But if you have any journalistic tips or something topical that we should cover or that you think we neglected, send that to tips.lodiceeaches.com.
Those are the two separate things, so it helps us do it more efficiently.
Yes, it does.
▲
Export Selection