All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2020 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:00:28
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #15
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 30th of November 2020.
I'm joined by Hugo and I'm Callum.
Carl can't be here today because he's attending a funeral, so we're co-hosting for him while he's away.
But we've got some good stuff, so I hope you enjoy.
So Hugo, you've got some updates on the US election, I understand.
Yeah, I'm actually going to be talking about two states mainly, which is Pennsylvania and Georgia.
So Pennsylvania first, Georgia second.
And there have been some interesting developments over the weekend.
So firstly, in Pennsylvania, a judge on Friday, I think, said that Trump will likely win the lawsuit that had been launched.
So, the lawsuit was about irregularities in the election process.
It wasn't about fraud.
It was about the process not being constitutional according to the Pennsylvania Constitution.
And so, this judge produced an opinion saying, this will likely go through, this is legit, this is quality stuff.
But then something else happened, which I'll get to in a second, because all this has been happening over the weekend, so it's all in one bundle right now.
But the press had been saying that the certification had been completed in Pennsylvania since the 24th, I think.
For example, CBS was saying...
Pennsylvania certified the election results and it's going for Biden.
However, this is not really accurate, let's say, because there are some formal steps that they need to take.
So the process of certification actually takes quite a long time.
And so I know what the aim of the press is, but it's just not true.
So, I'm quoting from the Epoch Times.
Pennsylvania said that it had certified the results of the election for president and vice president on November 24th, while the court was reviewing briefings from both parties.
In response, the plaintiffs filed a request for an emergency injunction, arguing that that state need not have acted so fast.
Quote, it appears that respondents' actions may have been accelerated in response to the application for emergency relief in an effort to preclude any remedial action by this court faster than this court was able to evaluate the application for emergency relief and the answers to it.
the plaintiffs wrote.
The emergency request underlined that while Pennsylvania completed vote counting and submitted the signed certification to the U.S. archivist, a number of steps still remain for the formal certification process to be completed.
So, the plaintiffs basically allege that Pennsylvania courts...
that Pennsylvania...
Election officials have accelerated this, have been moving too quickly to not allow the court to actually reach a decision before they certify the results.
But still the results are not certified yet because it's a longer process.
But this is a bit of old news as well because in Pennsylvania this lawsuit has since been dismissed.
Will Chamberlain wrote about it on Twitter.
So this is Trump's team's Giuliani's lawsuit in Pennsylvania being dismissed by the state.
Exactly.
So it was the district court in Pennsylvania.
It was not the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, not anything federal.
It was local court, but it was, I think, a third or fourth instance of them.
So this is now going to go to the Supreme Court of the state?
I don't think this is going anywhere, and that's what Will Chamberlain says as well.
So the main problem that the court had with this lawsuit was basically that no fraud had been alleged and what actually had been alleged was that the poll watchers weren't able to come in and see the counts and also that the officials were incurring ballot defects in violation of the state rules.
But these things are procedural.
This is not alleging fraud or any malfeasance on their part, right?
And so the court says on page 3 that the campaign's claims have no merit.
The number of ballots, its specifically challenges, is far smaller than the roughly 81,000 vote margin of victory.
And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters.
So they're alleging procedural issues of a few thousand votes in the specific lawsuit, and therefore that's not enough, and the court's saying, well, that's not enough, therefore, get out.
Yeah, exactly.
It's important to distinguish these two points.
If they were alleging fraud, if they found that some votes were fraudulent, it would cast doubt on a lot more votes, even those you didn't look at, right?
But if you don't allege fraud, if you're not alleging fraud and you're just saying, our poll watchers were supposed to be there, but they weren't for these 5,000 votes, you only cast in doubt these 5,000 votes and not the others.
So if you have an 81,000-vote margin and you invalidate 5,000 votes, it's nothing.
And so that important distinction is being presented here by the court and saying, unless you let fraud, this is not going anywhere.
And so on page 13, it says, Count 7 alleges that Philadelphia's Board of Elections violated due process by obstructing poll watchers and representatives, but nothing in the due process clause requires having poll watchers or representatives, let alone watchers from outside a county or less than 18 feet away from the nearest table.
Pennsylvania law actually has some rules on poll watches, on books, and federal law as well, but it doesn't specify how far they're supposed to be, whether they're in the same room or in...
So the Trump campaign is saying, we were this far away, we weren't able to watch for this amount of time, blah, blah, blah.
And the law just says there needs to be poll watches, so it's not specific enough for the Republicans to go after.
And that's what the judge is rebuting.
Yeah.
Okay.
And so many people were commenting on it.
Okay, it's not legal, but it doesn't make sense if you're 18 feet away.
Are you able to see what they're actually doing or not?
Like, is this also a common sense issue or not, just a legal issue?
Good point.
And so then the court says, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has long, quote, liberally construed its election code to protect voters' right to vote, unquote, even when a ballot violates a technical requirement.
And so, in Pennsylvania specifically, they have had a history of saying, okay, we can overlook some technicality of being in the wrong envelope or something like that, or having signature written in the wrong place, because they want to enfranchise as many people as they want, and these technicalities are not important according to them.
And so because it has had this history, you can't just turn around now in this election and say, we're just going to change that or we're going to be really strict about it.
So that's why the court decided the way it had been.
Right, and so the main takeaway is that fraud would need to be alleged for this to be able to go anywhere, and this is basically a dead end.
And so Julian is...
The specific one in Pennsylvania from the Trump campaign.
Exactly.
And so there are others in Pennsylvania.
Is Sidney Powell in Pennsylvania too?
She's definitely in Michigan, Georgia, that much I know.
I'm not sure about Pennsylvania.
There are other people alleging fraud in Pennsylvania, so it's up to those lawsuits now?
Because all they have to do is say, well, we have evidence, or at least...
You know, substantial evidence that, let's say, a thousand votes are fraudulent.
Well, because a thousand isn't yet enough, you might think, well, that's not enough to flip the election.
But because a thousand are fraudulent, it doesn't tell you how much fraud there has been, so therefore it brings the result into doubt.
Whereas they're just saying procedurally, you said 2,000, 5,000.
That's not 80,000, so that's not enough.
Yep, exactly.
And so a state senator, Mastriano, we have seen him in the public hearings last week, he said that he's going to withdraw power from the executive, from the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania, and he's going to, to be specific, the power to appoint electors.
And so he wants to take that power back to the legislature to be able to decide on Make the electors Republican.
Yeah.
If you're cynical about it, essentially, yes.
So he was on War Room Pandemic, he was calling in, saying that this is what he's going to do.
And then Trump also amplified that by putting the same thing on his YouTube channel.
Basically, Lena...
Is it Lena Ellis?
Yeah, she's saying the same thing, that they are going to do that.
And also, they are going to apparently attempt to do the same thing in Arizona, so look out for that, but that's not relevant yet.
They haven't started the process yet.
And so also in the Pennsylvania legislature, a resolution was introduced that would call the election in dispute, which is just a funny phrase, because that's what Twitter has been using and Facebook have been using it.
This result is disputed.
This claim is disputed.
That's famous by now.
And so they are actually using the same language and talking about the election and how that's really not clear.
It's not that Trump's tweets are not clear.
The election is not clear.
To be precise, it can be both.
But it's funny that they actually frame it this way.
Right, and so this resolution is not expected to be a significant move anywhere because it's not expected to get a vote until the end of the term of the legislatures.
They're supposed to go back home for like a month or so, so this is not going to go through as soon as possible or anything like that.
It's going to just fall away.
And so, then 26 GOP House members in the Pennsylvania legislature, out of roughly 200, also called for the certification withdrawal.
Well, not necessarily withdrawal, but the end of that process, right?
Because it hasn't finished yet.
So that happened as well.
And then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed another attempt at certification halt.
So another kind of challenge to this whole process was in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
So not the district court that we were talking about before, but the Supreme Court.
So I'm quoting, This is the framing that is by the corporate press.
So you can read between the lines what actually happened.
In an anonymous decision, the justices declared that Mike Kelly waited too long to bring his lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2019 law that created no excuse mail voting in the state for the first time, and they declared the remedy he sought too extreme.
So they're saying because he delayed that for so long, since the beginning of the year, it's not valid for him to complain about it now, complain about the procedure of the mail-in votings and that not all of them should be counted because of these tiny changes of the rules.
And so, yes, this delay argument may be legit because you should have complained about You should have complained about it when it actually was being brought forward.
But at the same time, no one actually pays attention to a lot of these things before they become relevant.
So if only now there is some kind of problem with it, you might notice that this had been placed in the beginning of the year, but no one noticed.
So all of these different calls essentially aren't amounting to anything because they're...
Yeah.
so that's what 10% yep and then you've got this supreme court decision where they're throwing it out and then you've got the district court one yep so it's a bunch of what would you call it a lot of heat but not a lot of light something like that I would also conclude that article with a quote from the Trump campaign.
So while the Trump campaign was not party to the case, the president's legal advisor Jenna Ellis dismissed the court's ruling in a statement calling it part of a, quote, ridiculous political game and vowed the Trump team would continue to press its case at the US Supreme Court.
So they are going to try and get it to the Supreme Court?
This thing, yes, because this ruling was by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
So I guess the next step for them is to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But that's not the same process as the ruling from the district court that we talked about before.
They would have to go to the state supreme and then the supreme.
Presumably, yeah.
But I don't think they would want to do that because the reasoning in the case in the previous lawsuit was very strong, at least according to that pro-Trump lawyer.
And so he was saying this is solid.
There is no point for them going to the Supreme Court with this.
And so this is actually the case that might go somewhere.
Right, so that's basically the updates from Pennsylvania.
A lot of things happened over the weekend.
A lot of the lawsuits have been thrown out.
And now we're just waiting for something to go higher or for the US Supreme Court to actually pick up some of these things.
And let's see how that goes.
And so now we get to Georgia.
An interesting thing happened in Georgia, which was about software updates to the voting machines, the Dominion voting machines.
And so, towards the end of last week, there was a software update, code software update, being performed on Fulton County voting machines.
And this was interpreted as getting rid of evidence of voter fraud, which...
It's not unreasonable, but also they have other reasons for doing so.
It wasn't like they just came in and started panicking and deleting everything.
It was that because the Trump campaign and the courts had ordered a recount, They were like, yes, how the machines work is that you have to delete the previous records to be able to run the machines again.
Okay, so they're saying do a recount and the process for that is deleting the records or updating the machines and then running the ballots through the machines again to do the recount.
Why didn't they do it by hand?
Why did they have to use the machines?
No one knows?
Okay.
You can see why people think it's a little bit fishy.
Yes, exactly.
And in the Kraken, the so-called Kraken, they also said that they demanded that the courts order the hand recount and not machine recount because they're saying machine recount is pointless because it's just going to produce the same results as the last one, which is true, presumably.
I don't see why it wouldn't be true.
In response to this, in Fulton County, an emergency order was issued by a Georgia judge, which said that these officials, these defendants,
which are the governor and the state election board, They need to stop tampering with everything and stop just doing everything and destroying evidence and doing all these things with the software updates.
And so this was issued at some point on the 27th, I think.
There's been a lot, but over the weekend.
And so a few hours later, the same judge took back, he reversed this order, and he said that he wasn't aware that the machines had been transferred to local council authorities, and so they hadn't been in the position of the governor or the state election board.
And so, because the defendants were them and not the county officials, they couldn't ask the defendants to stop doing these things because someone else already had the machines.
It's just a weird thing to say, just the point...
It might be legal stuff that I'm not familiar with, so this might be the legit process, but it was weird that he ordered someone something and then he took it back a few hours later.
So he ordered them to do it, and then when he found out they were scrubbing the machines or updating them, he's like, no, stop.
No, no, no.
The reports came in of them updating the software and then he told the plaintiffs that, yes, the defendants have to stop this.
And then after a few hours he was like, no, I wasn't able to order them to stop because someone else already had the machines and so the defendants couldn't stop it because they didn't have the machines.
Okay, but...
Weird.
Very weird.
But then, a couple of hours later, he reinstated the order.
But he reinstated the order and he actually didn't address why he could do it.
Because in the second order, in the reversal, he said he can't do it because the defendants are someone else who has the machines.
But then he said, yes, they are barred from doing this.
But he didn't address that he was...
Okay, so the judge seems lost himself.
He doesn't really know what's going on.
Maybe I'm the one who's lost, but...
It sounds like the judge is lost.
I don't think so.
These rules are pretty short and I can't read anything out of them.
Okay.
It literally has like four pages, each of those rules, so I don't think I missed anything.
But, so, let me just quote from the last one, which is, in effect, now.
There hasn't been a fourth one.
It's just the three.
So, the defendants are hereby enjoined and restrained from altering, destroying, or erasing, or allowing the alteration, destruction, or erasure of any software or data on any Dominion voting machines.
In Cobb, Gwinnett and Cherokee counties.
And so notice, these three counties are not Fulton County.
So what's going on there, right?
Because the first reports of these software updates came in from Fulton County.
And so why is he not stopping the Fulton County officials from doing so but these three different counties?
And there is evidence presented by someone else in an affidavit saying that it might be too late for Fulton County machines to be prevented from erasure because they'd already done it before the court order.
And so, according to an affidavit from a GOP poll worker that was filed as part of the lawsuit, an election official has said on November 25th that some ballot counting machines were to be reset on Monday so they could be used in the full recount requested by the Trump campaign.
And then when the poll worker asked if the reset will wipe the forensic info from the machines, the manager said that Atlanta already did it.
So, basically, these three counties might have been preparing to do the same thing, but they weren't able to do so before the court order came in, but Atlanta had already done it.
That's the impression I get.
But some other news might come in still, and this is all just very fresh news, so we'll see how that turns out.
So they were already updating the machines, and then this guy had to make a decision, and he's flip-flopped, or at least gone back in his initial order.
Yeah.
Which means that he's now only able to implement it in those three counties rather than Atlanta as well, because that's already been done.
Yeah, but the three counties have been specified only in the last order and not in the previous ones.
That's what I mean.
So the previous ones, in those, it actually wasn't clear who he's addressing to.
He was addressing it to the defendants, but no counties were mentioned by name.
And so I just want to end this segment by mentioning a story from March 2020 in Venezuela where a fire burned thousands of voting machines and some records were destroyed.
And so...
So those will be Dominion or whatever the name was.
Probably.
Because it's, what is that, March 9th?
So that'll be this year.
Probably.
Just 50,000 voting machines just gone.
Yeah, and so it wasn't straight after an election or anything.
An election had gone through...
But any data they'll have on them will be in the ashes.
An election happened a couple of years prior to that, and so this was this year's news.
I just wanted to end with this.
Oh, I remind you of that.
Or just, oh, this happened.
So they haven't ruled anything out yet.
As cause of this fire, but it's a bit sus.
Yeah, it's a bit sus.
Okay.
Which is why I imagine a lot of people are finding what's happening in Georgia a bit sus.
Yeah.
Is that all the updates?
Yeah, so this is what's been going on.
So far.
And obviously a lot of things will be progressing in some way.
The court orders, the emergency orders, things will be going on with them, with the software updates and also with the lawsuits in Pennsylvania.
We'll see whether that goes to the Supreme Court or not.
And we'll also cover other states, such as Arizona, where hearings are...
Yeah, we get updates from the Olympics.
Yeah, a hearing is about to happen in Arizona today, later today, that will present some news around potential election fraud.
So that's the updates.
Thanks for that.
We're going to go on to Black Lives Matter now because a poll came out about Britain's response to the Black Lives Matter movement in the UK and it's not looking good for Black Lives Matter or at least the people who run the organisation.
So the Guardian reports Black Lives Matter has increased racial tensions 55% says UK poll.
So that's more than half of the British public think Black Lives Matter or at least the Black Lives Matter movement has been bad for racial tensions in the UK. Now when you break down into this, it gets even more damning for the movement, in which 44% of ethnic minorities also felt that Black Lives Matter had increased racial tensions.
And this was only with 17 people disagreeing with the statement, so the rest of that percent I assume is either don't know or preferred not to answer, something like that.
So, quite damning for the Black Lives Matter movement that a sizable minority of the BAME community, I guess we'll call it, disagree with them and think they're doing a bad job.
And the majority of the British people think they're doing a bad job.
Or at least increasing racial tensions in a way that is bad.
But when you break this down into voting, it gets even more interesting.
So when you look at Conservative voters, it's about 75% of Conservatives think that Black Lives Matter has increased racial tensions.
And with Labour voters, 40%.
So even in Labour, you've got 40% of people saying this has increased racial tensions.
Now, you could interpret this favourably in a way that, while they may have increased racial tensions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their cause is wrong.
So you could say the civil rights movement increased racial tensions, for example.
But that doesn't mean their cause was wrong because they were arguing for the right to vote, the right to sit wherever they want on the bus or the rest of it.
But the thing with Black Lives Matter in the UK is they definitely don't have a case.
Because you can argue with the US, with the history.
I don't buy it, but I know there's a lot more things to debate there.
But with the UK, I mean, Carl went through the data in one of his Cat Daily videos.
What was it?
One black person every 10 years or something like that was killed in police custody?
And when you run the numbers, that actually means they're underrepresented.
Like, the white population was overrepresented in the deaths in custody statistics.
So the rainbows are paying off.
The rainbows?
Yeah, the Metropolitan Police and all the UK police have been...
They've been really rainbow-y in their branding and in their presentation.
Yeah, the woke police that are the Met and Manchester Police.
But...
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's just a weird signaling.
Yeah, but it means that the Black Lives Matter movement in the UK literally had nothing to stand on, or at least the data says that they have nothing to stand on.
Because the argument about Black Lives Matter at the moment is about police brutality.
And I've seen their organization trying to make, oh, but what about COVID and all the rest of it, a million different things.
Well, you know, campaign on that.
But you weren't campaigning on that.
You were campaigning on police brutality.
So the net effect of Black Lives Matter in the UK has been to campaign on something that was a nothing burger, or at least the data says is a nothing burger.
And the net result is just increased racial tensions for more positive.
So do you know what they have actually been saying?
Have they been saying that the issue is as prescient in the UK as in the US? Or are they saying that what's happening in the US affects the whole world or something like that?
Well, from what I've seen from their videos and them on the streets, they're arguing that, okay, the UK isn't as bad as the US, and they'll cite things like, oh, we don't have firearms or things like this, but we still have the same problems.
And, okay, you can make that claim, but the data does not suggest that that's true.
Because when you get into it, like Carl's research showed...
Just not the case.
Just absolute false lies.
And this is why they've had to go into things like the statue of Edward Colston and try to make arguments that the real issue is culturally we're racist because of so on and so forth.
But this is the argument we get every single year to no avail.
So, not buying that either.
But what I found interesting is you could argue, okay, increased racial tensions might be positive if you wanted to spin this, because you could argue that therefore we have more dialogue about race and racism in the UK, and therefore we're...
I guess that's what the supporters would be saying, right?
I don't know how else they're going to spin this, so I'm guessing that's what they're sort of.
Yeah, I mean, racial tensions.
If you're just answering whether there are racial tensions or not, you could mean that as in heightened conversation on race or something like that.
Yeah, so we'll get into that in a minute.
I found a Guardian article because I just looked up Guardian racial tensions just to see what came up.
And the only other time they talked about it in this way was when the EDL was marching back in 2012, saying that the marches of the EDL were increasing racial tensions within towns in the north.
And painting it as an unholy bad thing.
And I agree.
Increased racial tensions is not good.
But what were they marching against?
They were marching against grooming gangs.
Well, in which case they actually had more of a base to stand on than the Black Lives Matter movement in the UK, and they've had the same result.
So if you're going to argue that EDL was wrong to do what they did because they increased a lot of racial tensions needlessly or something like this, which I hear a lot of leftists do.
I remember at the time people making that argument about them and these marches.
You then have to denounce Black Lives Matter UK because what have they done?
They've done exactly the same thing.
And they're even framing it in the same way, right?
Or using the same language.
You can't say that this racial tension is different from that racial tension.
It's a bit of a stretch.
I don't know.
I mean, you'd have to get into the head of a leftist to figure out what they think about it.
But there were some good responses.
All the verified checkmarks were very upset about this, so there's an endless list.
We won't go through them all, I don't think.
But if you want to just flick through a bunch, I'm not going to read all of them.
But the response was essentially that The Guardian, by publishing this, was helping promote racism, or that racism was promoting racial tensions.
Oof.
Which, I mean, if you want to claim Black Lives Matter are racist...
I'd agree.
My interactions with them, they seem incredibly racist.
If you can get the first image up, John.
This is just a meme John made that I thought was particularly good.
Technical problems.
But yeah, no races.
So, Black Lives Matter has increased racial tensions 55% in the UK poll.
No, racism has increased racial tensions.
They're the same picture.
Yup.
Yup.
No lies detected.
So, is there more racial tensions or more racism?
That means the same thing, right?
I think race warriors always try to increase racial tensions.
Yeah.
Because they want to race more.
And you can get this from the far right or you can get it from what I guess we'll call the far left.
Because...
The black nationalists and whatnot tend to be socialists.
And you don't even have to go there.
The leaders of BLM are Marxists.
Trained Marxists is what they call themselves.
So it's like, well, okay, if you want to say you're far left, you're far left.
So it's fair to go on that.
We're not smearing them or anything.
No, no.
I mean, that's what they describe themselves as.
But I thought I'd just bring this up, because it's just hilarious that the British public at large has massively rejected Black Lives Matter, and I think rightfully.
And you can see the government's starting to make moves on this, because we spoke about Kemi...
Kemi...
Badenok?
Badenok.
We'll get her name right one day.
The fact that she said that this was an organisation that was divisive and not useful for the UK. And I'm glad they're dying out.
But...
Yeah, just some good news that, yes, we're not alone.
It's not just the dissidents that agree with this.
The general British public also agree that these guys are not useful for society.
Yeah, that's just the Black Lives Matter stuff.
I thought we'd go into a story now that's coming out of Eton.
Badenock.
Badenock?
Badenock.
Kemi Badenock.
I guess we'll get that right in the future.
But yeah, let me reintroduce, because otherwise it's going to be awkward to clip later.
So there's a story coming out of Eton, which is kind of funny.
It very much reminds me of Jordan Peterson, so I'm dubbing the guy the British Jordan Peterson until I'm proved wrong.
So, Eton College started getting into woke stuff in the same way that Oxbridge had been getting into woke stuff for a long time.
And this teacher, he teaches English, not psychology.
But he decided on gender, these guys were absolutely wrong, like most feminists are now exiting the feminist movement because they're absolutely wrong on gender.
And so he decided he'd make his own YouTube channel to vent his frustrations or his views on the matter, and it seemed to be quite popular with his students, and then he eventually was invited to give a lecture about the whole thing.
And the Free Speech Union have sent everyone an email about what's going on, so that's where I'm getting this from.
So they've spoken to the guy, they're representing him to defend him, because he's now lost his job because of it.
And he wanted to give a lecture about the differences between sexes.
So the fact that men are not the same as women, and here's the reasons, and here's what separates them on a gender level.
And he had his video called, what was it, The Patriarchy Paradox, in which he was explaining all this.
And then he was going to give the lecture in Eton.
And the headteacher came to him and said, no, please don't give that lecture.
It's divisive.
It's So what did he actually say?
Have you watched the lecture?
I have watched the video.
We'll get into it.
Because his response was, well, okay, fine, whatever.
I'm an English teacher.
I don't have to talk about gender.
I won't give the lecture.
And the headteacher said that wasn't good enough.
He needs to take the video down off his private YouTube channel that he does in his spare time.
And he was a bit like...
Not sure about that.
Sounds a bit like a stifling free speech.
But he was like, okay, I'll be reasonable.
If you can give me a good reason to get rid of my YouTube video, then I will take it down.
And the headteacher apparently produced no good reason.
So he just went, no, I'm not taking it down then.
They went back and forth six times.
And he was just like, no, if you haven't given me a good reason, I'm not taking it down.
Give me one.
So their response was just to fire him.
Which...
Okay, just brute force.
Like, you can't argue your way about why he's wrong, so just get rid of him.
So the response has been pretty good, actually.
So Eaton students have started a petition, his students I presume, saying that this teacher should not be expelled for simply talking about gender in the same way Jordan Peterson does.
And it's got a thousand signatures, which...
Just from Eaton?
Just from Eaton, which for Eaton, not bad.
And for foreigners who might not know what Eaton is, Eaton is the prestigious of the prestigious schools in the UK. So it's not a university, what would be the equivalent?
High school?
High school, yeah.
So it's a boarding school, you stay there, almost every Prime Minister is there at this point.
It's like 65-70% of people in Westminster are from there.
I think it's like £42,000 a year tuition or something like that.
Something crazy.
Something ridiculous.
So all the rich and powerful send their kids here to get a proper education and make the connections that you're going to need to become high up in society.
So the wokeness is starting to hit the very top of the top and they're not enjoying it because this is nonsense.
But I find it funny how the...
Woke culture is fine to teach to the public schools and the plebs, but as soon as it hits the elites, then it's not okay.
Then we need to do something about it.
So, the students are writing these petitions, the parents are upset, obviously, because it's like, what are you doing?
You can't be teaching this nonsense to my kids.
I pay 40 grand a year.
Give them a proper education.
But the school isn't backing down.
They've given a statement on this.
So, Eaton insists master dismissal was not an issue of free speech.
And he tries to defend this.
So what was it an issue of?
Yeah, apparently it's not an issue of free speech coordinators, guys.
So he says, Eton will never try to cancel debate.
Everyone accepts, including the teacher concerned, that freedom of speech cannot be absolute.
So this guy who's giving the speech from Eton was a former Tory cabinet minister under Thatcher and John Major.
So just to get an example of how elite this place is.
It's like your former defence secretary or something coming out and giving a speech about Harvard.
So it's not a freedom of speech issue because he has no free speech.
Yes, essentially.
That's the argument.
He has no rights, therefore we're allowed to do what we want.
It's not just that.
He's then arguing that we've had Eton's lawyers and a couple of barristers look over his video, and we've determined that it's broken the equality law, therefore we're saying to him you need to take this down because we can't have you as a representative of Eton saying these things.
Okay.
But I mean, all that tells you is there's something wrong deeply with British equality law.
The fact that you can't talk about gender as being, you know, something separate to sex and having male and female genders being a good thing and all the rest of it.
Yeah, so I still don't really know what he actually says.
Like, they're saying he's hateful and stuff.
Yeah, so this must be some kind of horrible video.
It's called The Gender Paradox.
You should have the link if you can put it up, John, so people can find his YouTube channel and give him a subscribe and a like because he's a good guy.
That's his crowdfund.
He's got 30 grand just for legal defenses.
So he should be fine, as far as I'm aware.
But yeah, there's the video.
So it's a 30-minute video, and I thought, oh, this is going to be boring.
But he's actually a very good lecturer, and it is an enjoyable lecture to listen to.
So his arguments are essentially that no, men and women are not interchangeable.
You can't just become one or the other.
And also the gender roles about what makes a man a man and a woman a woman are distinct and useful.
So what angle is he approaching it from?
Because Jordan Peterson is talking about this stuff from a psychological point of view or a biological point of view, right?
And so what is his take on that?
So he's approaching it from a, I guess I would call it a societal point of view.
Okay.
So he gives an example of what makes up men.
And he cited, like, it must be at least 20 or 30 different sources for every argument he made.
So he's done this thoroughly.
So his argument of what makes up being a man is that you procreate, provide, and protect.
So you get a female pregnant, so you can have more offspring.
You provide for the female and the family, and you protect them.
And he...
To be honest, that rings true from what I've experienced of being a man.
So he gives an example in Nature, in which he has lions as his example, that the male lion will go after threats and fight them just to save a couple of lionesses because the men are not necessarily as useful as females.
And there's a lot of studies he references to talk about the fact that you can lose a lot of men in a society.
And it doesn't really affect the society that much.
Whereas if you lose a lot of females, you've lost a lot of growth.
Like a lot of the children will end up dying.
So he's very trying to emphasize that protecting is probably the most core aspect of being a man, that you protect things.
And he gives a great example of a movie where some woman's been sexually assaulted and her boyfriend just goes out and just beats this guy with a gun.
Until he's on the ground.
And he's pointing out that this guy is putting down boundaries.
He's saying, no, my wife is off the limits.
You can't touch her.
Therefore, I'm going to use violence to create those boundaries.
And that's what being a man is.
It's protecting things.
That's what makes masculinity masculinity.
And he also goes into the fact that, you know, a lot of feminist arguments about the patriarchy are nonsense because the patriarchy seemingly favors women, like in the courts, in the fact that throughout history, even when you look at the vote and whatnot, women are not, in a historical perspective, that discriminated against compared to men in regards to the vote.
So if you could put slide one on, he just gives an example of when the British public had the vote, the Eaton folder.
And he lists men versus women, and you can see there, like, yes, women did not have the same rights from 1600 to 1914 or whatever it is.
I think actually, yeah, it's 1918 because they get it after the war.
But men didn't exactly have universal suffrage either.
Like, you've got suffrage on the basis of property and all the rest of it.
So yes, there is discrimination, but it's not some giant male conspiracy because why are the men conspiring against themselves?
Like, it doesn't really make sense.
And he gives a whole bunch of other arguments about this, but I'm not going to get into it because the lecture is worthwhile.
Go have a watch.
But one of the funniest parts is the last part in which he's talking about feminist literature and why it's so nonsensical.
And it gives an example of a very esteemed feminist, if you can get the next slide up.
I've got it.
Very professional today.
Yeah, there we go.
Can you believe this is a feminist?
Anyway, she wrote a book on what it means to destroy patriarchy, and this is the conclusion from him, because he's laying out that the role of being a man is to protect all the rest of it, and this is what makes the patriarchy, because men and women are biologically different, therefore the patriarchy is a...
What would you call it?
It's the implementation of the differences in biology.
So you're not just going to legislate your way out of this.
This is hard-coded.
And she agrees from a feminist perspective.
And her solution to how do we get over our biological...
Inequalities is that the problem is that men are the protectors and they are the providers and that problem leads itself to creating the nuclear family and the problem with the nuclear family is that it enforces patriarchy because the women are kept as slaves essentially within the marriage you know looking after the kids and whatnot while the man goes out and has a job and so her solution is is just wild and he lists it if you can get the first slide up So it's a little bit blurry, but she's talking about incest.
And she's saying the incest taboo does the worst work of a culture.
It teaches us the mechanisms of repressing and internalizing erotic feeling.
It forces us to develop those mechanisms in the first place.
It forces us to particularize sexual feeling so that it congeals into a need for particular sexual object.
It demands that we place the nuclear family above the human family.
The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free flowing of natural androgynous eroticism.
A lot of just garbage, because it's feminist literature, so of course there's a lot of waffle in there.
But she's essentially saying that the nuclear family is the problem, and the way to undermine the nuclear family is to get over the incest taboo, meaning the taboo against engaging in incest.
So she's saying that the current culture places the nuclear...
Go back, please.
That the current culture places the nuclear family above the human family, and the human family should be a cooperative human community.
Yeah, which God knows what the hell that means.
Yeah, but I mean, okay, so cooperative human community, you could interpret that as like genetic socialism of some kind, but then she continues saying that it's based on the free flow of natural androgynous eroticism, which is like...
So we need to have free eroticism between anyone in the community, because then we'll get over the nuclear family, and that will stop oppressing the women, and the women will finally be free.
I'm guessing that's her argument from reading the book.
The way I read it is that the people are naturally androgynous, so they don't have male or female characteristics, like strong ones, so they look alike, they behave alike, right?
And so that's the natural state of affairs, and then you get some kind of oppression on top of that, which is constructed artificially.
Yeah, the nuclear family is the socially constructed part of it.
If you can get the next like.
So this isn't just a one-off, like she mentions it again.
The incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as a primary institution of the culture.
I know there's a bunch more waffle, but that's clear enough.
Essentially, to stop being oppressed women, we must engage in incest.
Didn't she previously say the opposite?
She was saying that the incest taboo creates the nuclear family, right?
Or that it reinforces it?
No, the nuclear family is what's oppressing us.
So if we can get over these limitations of being erotic, therefore we can destroy the nuclear family.
And then she's arguing later on that this is how you...
Right, exactly.
But now she's saying, you destroyed nuclear family in order to destroy the incest taboo.
Yes.
So she's like, she's doing the opposite of before.
Yeah, it's a little bit Mott and Bailey, but anyway, if we can get to the next one, you'll see where this goes.
So she then tries to argue that child abuse is also a way of liberating women, which I'm not going to say the real word because YouTube will pick it up, but as for children, they too are erotic beings closer to androgyny than the adults who oppress them.
Children are fully capable of participating in community.
And have every right to live out their own erotic impulses.
Nuts.
Absolute nuts individual.
I mean, why on earth would you want this person in here?
So she's saying because her goal is an androgynous community where, like, socially based androgynous community.
Children are the best way to get to it because they are more androgynous than adults that have developed into more or less two genders.
I think so.
But this is what this lecturer from Eaton is using as an example to say, look, you can argue the nuclear family and having male characteristics of what is to be masculine and what it is to be feminine are bad.
But look at the opposition here and what they're proposing, and then see who looks more eminently reasonable.
So it's just the end of his video, but I wanted to point out, because he makes the claim that she said this, and then he doesn't give a link, so I wanted to look it up.
And I looked it up, and yes, yes, she ironically is arguing that.
If we can get back to the image of her, just so we can remind people.
I'm not surprised.
So this is the person who supports molesting children because they made an argument for child abuse.
Because according to her, they represent more closely to the ideal androgynous society that she wants to live in.
Yes, because the only reason she's arguing for that is to destroy the patriarchy.
But there's the thing.
He makes this video and he's like, look, here's my reasoning.
This is someone who actually agrees with me from a feminist perspective that this is what makes a man.
And the feminist response to this is to fight against reality and try and destroy the idea that we should even have criminalization of incest and child abuse.
He's just like, look at them.
Look at them.
These people are nuts.
These people should not be running anything in our institutions.
They should not be determining what we can and can't say at Eton, of all places.
And the response from the university is to side with her, in effect, in saying that his video is breaking the law and therefore he must be fired.
Interesting.
That's just what's going on at Eton.
But we do have some good news because the free speech union is working with him and he's got that donation.
If you want to make a donation, I'm sure we can put a link in the clips.
But he's already got 30 grand.
I'm sure he'll be fine.
But I just love how this is finally reaching the elites, and all of a sudden woke culture is something...
Actually, this is quite serious.
It's almost like 2015 or something.
They're finally admitting these guys on college campuses aren't just going to stay on the college campus.
It's a separate, secluded culture, so it takes time for the mainstream culture to get to those places.
Yeah.
I mean, just to remind people as well, this is not a university.
This is not adults who you could argue, okay, they can figure this out for themselves.
This is the equivalent of high school.
Yeah, these are children.
So they're trying to indoctrinate children and...
It's not on.
It's not on.
So, I wonder if this guy's given any interviews.
I'm going to look for them afterwards.
I don't think he has.
I think that it's...
It's not just high school.
It's middle school and high school.
It's like that span.
Yeah, because it's a boarding school.
It's a very weird place.
Like, look up...
There's a great video, Eaton Style.
Some Eaton kids made.
It's a parody of Gangnam Style.
You know, they go to chapel.
Their uniform is like this tuxedo-looking thing that probably costs like 200 quid a piece.
It's 580 years old, so...
Yeah, very old institution.
So that's how you know it's an elitist place in which the elites are finally feeling SJW culture.
I don't know if we have any Super Chats, but I guess we'll leave it there.
Sorry about Carl not being here today, but he is away.
So, you know, the guy's got to have a day off every once in a while, hasn't he?
Sad that there's a day off as a funeral.
Yeah, so there's not much of a day off, but...
Don't know what we left off.
Yeah, I can see that.
Okay, Saga says, Mark Kelly could not sue earlier because he would not have standing, as he would not have suffered any damage.
I am not an expert in legal stuff like that, so you have to double-check that for yourself.
Amanda Griffin, just joined the stream.
Wondering if you have heard about the interview with General Flynn last night.
It's crazy.
Well, thanks for the tip.
No, I haven't.
I'm going to check that out.
Neither have I. Rob says, Callum and Hugo are doing great, guys, but when is the website coming?
So, my understanding is they're still doing testing at the moment.
I'm very hopeful that very soon, at least that's the noises we're getting out of the dev team, but I'm not the dev side of things.
I do other stuff, so...
JJ says, love the podcast, but your understanding of American law is quite ignorant.
Watch yesterday's Viva and Barnes on the Law YouTube show.
Good job.
Yeah, everyone watch that.
It's probably a good tip.
So, Viva Law?
I love that guy.
He did reviews of Carl's and Akilah's lawsuit.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
I mean, we're not American lawyers or Americans.
Exactly.
Please forgive any ignorance about the law there.
Yeah.
All I'm doing is trying to summarize stuff.
I might get some things wrong, so double-check me if you think anything's wrong.
President Lex Watt Nixon's money, thank you very much.
Gustavo says, fairly new fans are gone.
Hmm.
See?
Getting your new...
Your new personality shines through.
Love the old channel.
Loving the new.
We'll be subscribing to the site when it's up and running.
Keep off the great work.
Well, thank you.
I know there's a meme in the chat about me being Sargon's mini-me or his clone.
This is probably not doing great for that image.
So, last one and then we'll head off.
Thank you, Matthias, for the money.
I don't know what that currency is.
Brazilian...
I want to say rupees, but I was probably wrong.
Real?
I think it's real, isn't it?
Anyway, I suppose we could take some questions from the chat if we've got more time.
I don't know how long we've been going.
Yeah, we could do some questions.
So yeah, if you have any questions, just put them in the chat and we'll answer them, because not much else to do.
He loves Primark, I hear you.
Yeah, Primark's great.
I just think about it, like 1 in 20 per shirt.
It's like the golden goose of capitalism.
Really completely zero.
Yes, that's true.
Especially me.
Sorry about that.
Put the website in the cloud.
I mean, we did have a...
I mean, Carl said this, we're having discussions with mines as well.
So if the guys can't fix the website, there will be an alternative, which we are exploring and will also work.
So there will be something soon, don't worry.
So Ferenc says, is Hugo Austrian?
No, the chat christened me as French last time.
How's the office?
The office is quite nice.
Carl actually did a good job with setting up the office.
It is very nice.
Where do babies come from?
Ask your mother.
How many grey t-shirts do you own?
I think about five or six, something like that.
I've got some that are long sleeves and a short sleeve.
Is Ireland British?
Yes.
We can get those shirts and we can make merch items, right?
What?
About Ireland?
Oh, the chairs.
Where do you get the chairs?
We're going to resell them.
We can order like 50 chairs and then sell them.
Get called to sign all of them or something, you know?
Any specials for Xmas?
What are we doing for Xmas?
I don't even know.
We need to have a discussion with Carl about this.
Gotta ask the boss.
Gonna have a union negotiation about the whole thing.
Silver Stacks sends $1.11 Canadian.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate people there.
You're actually keeping us afloat, literally.
I assumed Hugo was Belgian.
That's basically French, right?
Trigger frogs.
Will Carl run for president?
He's not American, so he couldn't if he wanted to.
No, for British president.
For British president.
Well, when the revolution comes.
He'll probably instill himself rather than run for it.
Pineapple and pizza.
Savage or what?
One color t-shirts.
Opening for Zuckerberg appreciation.
Look, it's useful.
So this is another point I'm just going to spout off my shirt manifesto.
So if you have to buy a bunch of shirts, it's super easy to just go and grab them all and then you're done, right?
But it's also when you're washing, you don't have to worry about colours.
There's no white shirts or any of this nonsense.
All in.
It's all going to be the same colour when it comes out.
Don't worry about it.
Is Hugo Luxembourgish?
That's not really a country, guys.
It's like Finland.
Any more plans for the studio?
Yeah, we did want to set up a little area to do pieces to camera.
There was a little bit more so we could stand up, green screens, all the rest of it, but I don't know.
Oh yeah, we need a gym.
An office store.
If that happens, there's going to be premium content.
I don't know.
We could get anti-fight infiltrators.
Although...
No, let's not mention that.
Xmas is a woke term.
Is it?
I've always thought it was just a marketing thing rather than woke nonsense.
Where does Hugo get these jumpers?
For my mum for Christmas.
Things are being moved.
Sorry.
Sorry about that.
I suppose I'm going to do my little chat here.
Who do you want to interview?
Me personally or Carl?
I'd like to get Carl to interview Peter Thatchell, actually.
I don't know if many people know who he is.
He's a bit strange, but he's a LGBT activist, but he's also very, very solid on free speech.
Like any free speech issue, he's on the correct side.
So I wonder what...
We actually had tried to get him to come to Birmingham to speak to the Muslim parents there and have a debate, because I was really interested in what he'd make of it, because he's very, very pro-free speech, but also very, very upset at the idea that they're being bigoted towards homosexuals and all the rest of it.
Yeah, the...
The one thing that I've been kind of hoping to, people that I've been hoping to get on is someone from the Adam Smith Institute.
They recently put out, I think, a bill or something.
Free speech act.
Yeah, free speech.
Yeah, we spoke about that on the last one.
So if we can get someone from there, we can do some promo for them.
Do you want to read Gus?
Yeah, sorry.
Gus, did you finally make the company a worker corp by force?
The revolution is still underway.
No, Karl's been union-busting very hard, so...
Great word, lads.
We'd like to know what the Sassenach perspective on the Sinn Féin.
Is the only Eurosceptic party in the Republic of a bit lefty?
Sassanact?
I'm assuming it means, like, that's a term for the Akkadian Empire or something?
I don't know.
Opinion on Sinn Féin.
Well, they're kind of marred with the terrorism brush in the rest of the UK. I don't know what it's like.
I'm assuming you're Northern Ireland.
And that's all people think of when they think of Sinn Féin.
So if you're a supporter, sorry, but that's how it is here.
I don't know much about them.
That's basically what I got as well.
Just like these photos with them looking like terrorists.
Yeah, I mean, it was like when the DUP got in with Coalition with Theresa May, and the most searched thing the day after was, who are the DUP? Because Northern Irish politics is just not taken into account by an average person in the rest of the UK. It's a small percentage of the population living in Northern Ireland compared to the whole UK. But also their politics is very different.
Thank you, Joseph.
And he also asks, you need to get Peter Hitchens on.
Dude, we invited him.
I literally, I booked the hall for Carl to go and interview him.
I think John was driving in with the cameras as well.
And then, like, Carl's on the train, and I just get an email from Peter saying, sorry, I'm going to have to cancel.
So Rafal says, greetings from Poland.
I should also mention he wasn't just canceling then.
He doesn't want to see us again, which...
Come on, come on, Peter.
Be fun.
Be fun.
Greetings to Poland as well.
I hope things are going well.
Dzień dobry.
All I know.
What was that?
GN says, interview these nuts.
I'm assuming he means the candidate.
Which, I actually, you know, what was it?
The 15-year-old who ran for the Republican primary.
What?
And he got like 7% in the initial polling for these nuts over all the other Republicans.
Oh.
I wonder what he's doing these days.
Sounds good.
Yeah.
I'd vote for him.
Bulmus says, any plans for Logis in his uniforms by Hugo Boss?
No.
No, we're not taking any German funding.
JT Brown says, in the US hearing, some 40-year-old balding migrant posing as a 15-year-old student in commentary suddenly disappearing.
What?
Did it happen?
I'm assuming he means the Pennsylvania hearing?
I don't really know.
We don't know, but Google it, I guess.
Something will come up.
Pompous Hitchens.
Eaton's been woke for years.
Cameron legalised gay marriage.
Liberal Boris is of this scale.
Thatchard has had security plus answers selected to use only.
I don't know what you're reading, man.
It was on the left, but no, it's the second.
Viva Fry, not Viva Law, sorry.
You're being dumb.
He's a law YouTuber, and he's an American lawyer, so he's far more in tune with the legal side of it than we would be.
So the seventh candidate says, Sassenach is Irish for Saxon English.
Here in the Republic they are seen as freedom fighters like the American founding fathers.
Well, I mean, they were like the independence revolutionaries, like fair enough, but also on the other side it might look different.
But I don't know, I'm not British, so...
Johnny Foreigner giving opinions on Britain.
No thanks.
Anyway, well, pretty good Polish.
We've been talking about the US for the entirety of the podcast.
Well, they're also Anglo, so, you know, same language, same culture, basically.
Is Igor in the UK legally?
The only illegal thing about me is the accent.
Yeah, like, see in the comment there, Sinn Féin equals Antifa.
It's essentially the opinion of them.
I know they've got policies and all the rest of it, but that's not going to get through.
Sassanakt is traitor-speak, Ireland is British, God save the Queen.
My bias is coming through.
Happen to agree with you.
It's a joke.
The Brits won.
The Brits won.
The Irish won.
Spelling.
Spelling joke.
He's Canadian, not a Yank.
I always thought he was Canadian.
Sorry, I always thought he was a Yank.
Oh well.
Yep.
Carl should interview David Icke.
I can't think of a faster way to get deplatformed than interviewing David Icke at this point.
I'm sure he'd love to meet him in person.
I'm sure that'd be great.
That'd be hilarious.
Go to drinks with him.
Here we go, one more.
Donato says Green from California.
Oh, you're up.
Well, good for you.
It's like 5am, right, in California?
Jesus Christ, yeah.
Thanks for the info in the early morning.
Yep, we're glad to be of help.
Fight me, Kaliak Iringobla.
What does that mean?
Gaelic, I can't really make it out, because it's Gaelic.
Irish Empire 2025.
Well, the new Irish.
Let's all remember, it's going to be the new Irish, not you guys.
Interviewing Alex Jones.
That's a big fish as well.
Yes, yes, he's on the list.
We have a contact there.
I don't know if we can put it up on YouTube, though, because you saw, what was it, Tim Pool's stream got taken down, and then there was an argument about it.
He'd broken the rules, therefore it was taken down.
It wasn't clear.
Everyone thought that, but then they actually slowed it down and figured out what he had said, and he actually seems to not have said what they thought.
It's not just that, it's just YouTube's really weird policy where they're like, look, we're going to get rid of someone, they can't have a channel.
But if you want to interview them, go ahead.
What's okay, just get one of their staff to set up a channel.
It's like, it doesn't make any sense.
It's a weird policy.
Royal Ulster Constabulary, fight me, shinners, British forever, GB. I'm loving him.
He's a great little shit poster.
Should we wrap it up?
We've got other stuff to do.
Thanks for tuning in, guys.
Sorry about Carl not being here, but he's got other things to do.
He will be back tomorrow and we'll be streaming from 1pm tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection