Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 11, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:29:31

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #66

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon folks.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Thursday, the 11th of February 2021.
	Sorry about the delay.
	We apparently had a few technical issues behind the scenes, but I hope they've been solved by now.
	So I guess we'll just power on with things as best we can.
	Before we start, we'll let you know that we have, of course, lots of premium content on LotusEats.com, which is exclusive to the website.
	The latest one is Z's Lockdowns, which is part of a sort of ongoing analysis series.
	The series that's being done by Hugo.
	We did a premium podcast about this a couple of weekends ago as well, because the architect and author of the policy of lockdowns appears to be verifiably demonstrable as being Xi Jinping himself.
	And so the fact that we're all currently in a lockdown is China's policy, which China is no longer under.
	So it's worth exploring, and Hugo's been doing a great job covering all that.
	But we've obviously got loads of other premium content as well, and you can sign up at lotuses.com.
	And of course, on the website, you can leave comments if you are a member, and we take the comments from the podcast page and we'll cover them at the end of the podcast.
	So if you've got anything you want to say to us, you don't want to give YouTube any money for whatever reason you might have for that.
	You can always post it on let's see.com.
	All right, Callum, this week before, just make sure that doesn't turn off halfway, this week, I'm kind of sick of cancel culture, as one may have gathered by my consistent opposition to it.
	But one thing I really do like is when people get what they effing deserve.
	So here's the latest example of cancel culture gone wild.
	There's a chap called Nathan J. Robinson.
	That's the wrong tweet, I think, actually.
	But if you can scroll up there, John?
	Sorry, go back to the top.
	So he says he's the editor of Current Affairs magazine, which I guess is something he either owns or controls.
	And he was, as he puts in his bio, a former political columnist for The Guardian.
	And he has tweeted out, Oh, have you really?
	You tweeted something, someone took exception to it, and you got fired.
	Welcome to the club.
	This is what happens to everyone.
	Do we have any idea what the tweet was?
	Yes.
	Yes, we do.
	Yes, we do.
	In the article that he links, he says, personally, he explains what led up to the tweet.
	And I just want to be clear, he's done nothing wrong here.
	I even agree with his tweet.
	It wasn't an anti-Semitic tweet or anything like that.
	It was nothing of the sort.
	It was just, we are now in a position where you have to walk on eggshells on every single topic.
	But he says in the article, personally, I was appalled and depressed to see the new funding for Israeli missiles being passed at the same time as a pitifully small COVID relief.
	This was about the 1.9 trillion relief bill that had everything tacked onto it, and he tweeted in frustration about this.
	$10 million for Pakistani gender programs, for example.
	Yeah, and half a billion for Israel, something like that, for missiles and things like this.
	Yeah, I can see why he's annoyed at this.
	I'm annoyed at this, right?
	As he says, Israel is a nuclear armed power.
	It almost has complete dominance under the Palestinians.
	We've already given it so much military aid that it does not need.
	Why, during the pandemic, is Congress funneling money to new systems?
	And he says, I am, to my constant shame, moderately active on Twitter.
	So I relieved my anger with a joke tweet.
	Sarcastically, I wrote the two linked tweets.
	Now, I don't even agree that his tweets are sarcastic.
	I don't think...
	I mean, they are sarcastic.
	But, um, I think he should have called them satirical because satire has a political, you know, a form of commentary embedded within it, right?
	And that's what he had done.
	And it's perfectly fair commentary.
	The first one was, did you know that the US Congress is not actually allowed to authorize any new spending unless a portion of it is directed towards buying weapons for Israel?
	It's the law.
	Obvious joke.
	But making a good satirical point, there's no reason in the middle of the pandemic when you're creating a COVID relief bill to include money for Israeli weapons.
	That doesn't make sense.
	It's a separate bill.
	It's a separate bill.
	And it's obvious that this is special interest hacking all of their stuff on, which everyone knew.
	Everyone can see this.
	And it was not just, you know, the Israeli lobby.
	It was for every other lobby under the sun, you know.
	They all did it.
	And that's what made it, again, one of those mask-off moments.
	Like, look, we can see what you're doing here.
	And the second one was, which is, again, another correct point.
	It is literally just something they do by default.
	And he, of course, goes, this is a joke, this is a joke, this is a joke.
	And so in response to this, he continues with this thread, says, The
	editor-in-chief told me in writing that I wasn't allowed to tell anyone that he was policing my tweets because, officially, I was free to speak, and he had tried confidentially to patrol my public speech.
	I'm not going to keep something like that quiet.
	Which, I'm totally on his side with that, right?
	I'm totally in sympathy, apart from the fact that he's like, oh, I knew this sort of thing happened, and I've long argued against it.
	Has he?
	Nathan, your Twitter history is public.
	If we search Nathan Robinson and cancel culture, do we get you going, cancel culture's bad, cancel culture's bad, cancel culture's bad?
	No, we don't.
	For example, in the first one, where this was in...
	Not that one, sorry, the next one.
	So back in February the 3rd, so not even long ago.
	Not even long ago.
	Really, it would be good if critics of cancel culture defied cancel because it seems to be a catch-all term that frequently means my opinion was criticised by people on the internet.
	Am I cancelled if I say a thing and large numbers of people get mad and think it's racist?
	Do I have to lose my job to be cancelled?
	Do I have to lose money or opportunities?
	How many people have to criticise a thing before it becomes a cancelling mob?
	You tell us, Nathan.
	You tell us.
	You're the one who's been cancelled.
	You're the one who's lost their job.
	Do you consider yourself cancelled?
	I mean, you're saying that you've been a victim of cancelled culture.
	I mean, if that's the case, I'm happy to agree.
	If you lose something you've built that you've earned unjustly because you had an opinion on the internet, can we call that cancelled culture?
	I mean, he's actually raising a good point, though, which is you don't want to overuse the term, so where is it true?
	And I think he's found it.
	It's losing opportunities either through your job or money or contracts or something like this.
	A platform you've built up.
	Yeah, it's not just being criticized.
	It's having something taken away from you unjustly just through the fact that someone doesn't like what you've said.
	Yeah, but in the defense of the people who are criticizing him, like myself, no one ever said that cancel culture was my opinion was being criticized on the internet.
	I've never said that.
	That is a straw man that the left has made up in order to obfuscate from the fact that they have been the one cancelling people.
	And, I mean, it gets worse for him, in fact.
	This is the partisan nature of it.
	We can go to the next one.
	So, can we scroll up a bit?
	Because this is part two of a two-parter.
	So, he had replied to Tommy Lauren last year in June, where she had said, why has cancel culture gotten this bad?
	Because we allowed it to get here.
	We cowered, apologized, and ducked down for things we never should have, and now leftist social media mob as free reign as we hand them power enough.
	Cancel, cancel culture.
	Totally true statement.
	Totally true statement that Nathan essentially is forced to agree with at this point, because it was the Guardian editor.
	That cancelled him.
	And the Twitter left-wing mob that cancelled him.
	It wasn't the right that cancelled him.
	He can't point the finger anywhere else.
	But he's like, you're a millionaire with a show on Fox News, a book from HarperCollins, 1.6 million Twitter followers, and appearances on The View, Daily Show, etc.
	Who is being cancelled?
	When have you been censored or persecuted?
	All of you people are rich, noisy, and decidedly uncancelled.
	There is no cancel culture.
	The fastest way to get a book deal in this country is to whine about cancel culture.
	Every single one of these people ends up on their feet.
	They're fine.
	They have giant platforms.
	They're heard loud and clear.
	Right-wing opinions are everywhere.
	Missing the point.
	Like, the point just over his head.
	The point being, when you thought it was right-wingers being cancelled, there is no cancel culture.
	Quote from you.
	You know, it's good, it's right to persecute right-wingers.
	But now, when the noose of censorship has drawn tighter, and all of the other people, like, again, it didn't end with Nazis, it didn't end with Alex Jones, it didn't end with Donald Trump, it doesn't end with conservatives, now it arrives at the Guardian's editorial board.
	But that is true.
	I just wanted to mention the other part here, which is his intro, where he was saying that if someone's got a platform at all, they are not cancelled.
	And this is a routine criticism of people who complain about it.
	But that's obvious nonsense.
	Let's take the example of the, what was it, the congressman who opposed the election results.
	Yeah, he was publishing a book about censorship.
	And because he spoke about the election results, that book publisher decided not to publish his book.
	And then he went on Fox News and was like, they're just cancelling me.
	What the hell can I do?
	No one's going to publish my book.
	And then people are complaining, well, you're on Fox News.
	You're not cancelled.
	But you're trying to cancel Fox News.
	CNN has been on an active campaign for the last month trying to get Fox News deplatformed.
	But also just his book in a microcosm there.
	But his book isn't published now.
	You idiots.
	But that's the thing.
	None of these things are safe.
	Your Twitter account isn't safe.
	Your book deal isn't safe.
	Fox News isn't safe.
	Whatever media platforms, everything can be cancelled.
	And they're trying to get everything cancelled.
	So to sit there and go, well, you've still got a platform left...
	It's like, yeah, okay, that's right.
	I haven't yet been executed, but you've blown parts of me off.
	If you're in a village hall with ten people from the village, you're not cancelled yet.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's obviously a way of pretending that the problem isn't existing while you're busy being part of the problem, Nathan.
	You, there is no cancel culture.
	Sorry, Nathan.
	Don't know what you're talking about being cancelled.
	There is no cancel culture.
	This pretty much guarantees that you will be cancelled.
	LAUGHTER Yeah, good point, Alice.
	Fate has a sense of irony.
	But yeah, so amusingly, in his own words from the Current Affairs article that he linked in the first one, I love the way he's framed this because this is exactly what everyone who has been cancelled can say.
	I hope, however, that you can see exactly how the suppression of critics of Israel works.
	You say the wrong thing, you lose your position.
	No second chances.
	You'll be tarred as an anti-Semite and your job will disappear overnight.
	Oh, really?
	Oh, really?
	It's only the critics of Israel who get that.
	No other kind of critics get tarred as a racist and lose everything that they have.
	That only happens to the Israel critics.
	This is one key reason why Israel continues to get away with horrific crimes.
	To speak honestly and frankly about the facts risk bringing swift censorship.
	Human rights violations continue with impunity, and when Israeli snipers target Palestinian children, the Guardian is complicit.
	Well, I mean, I concur that cancel culture is bad, censorship is wrong, and it allows the powerful to continue doing what they're doing.
	Anyway, moving on, the next person to be cancelled is the MyPillow guy.
	I don't really know what he's done wrong, apart from support Donald Trump and support crazy conspiracy theories.
	So I saw there was an image of him trying to go into the White House to meet with Donald Trump.
	And apparently his paper was a little bit folded and it mentioned the Insurrection Act.
	And that was enough.
	They were like, no, he's going to advocate for disbanding the government or whatever to try and make sure the election is investigated.
	They don't know that.
	But that's the accusation was my understanding.
	The reason why his selling of pillows had to be discontinued throughout all time.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, I mean, he's been dropped, as he says, on Gab by 18 different stores, both IRL and online ones.
	Why the hell is this happening?
	Should market decisions be made like this?
	I don't think they should.
	I think that his brand...
	No one read the full page.
	We just saw, like, little bits of it.
	Yeah, we don't know.
	And people made assumptions.
	Yeah.
	And now destroy his business.
	And it's like, do you want a bunch of companies to get together and destroy a person's business?
	I don't think that's a good idea.
	I think it's a terrible idea.
	Ethical companies are evil.
	Yes, ethical companies are evil and do evil things.
	What's this guy done wrong?
	I'm not even sure.
	He supports Donald Trump.
	He believes in crazy conspiracy theories.
	Okay.
	That's also every executive of every one of those companies that's made this decision deserves to be fired, because not only have they now robbed their shareholders, they've also robbed their customers of the ability to buy this pillow.
	Yeah, and I mean, I've never heard of this MyPillow company before, but...
	I'm sure the pillow's fine, mate.
	Yeah, I'm sure.
	I mean, it seems to have been doing well.
	I'm sure it's great.
	You know what?
	Go and buy it.
	It's podcast sponsored by MyPillow.
	He can't sponsor us anymore, can he?
	Bloody hell.
	But yeah, so it's like, okay, so just, you know, owners of companies can get completely blacklisted, which I just think is...
	Awful.
	And then it goes even further with the Mandalorian star Gina Carano, who recently was fired because she had tweeted something.
	She's not just been fired from the Mandalorian, but the Star Wars galaxy entirely.
	So no Star Wars things.
	Because she shared a post on social media implying that being a Republican today is like being Jewish during the Holocaust.
	As in, there is an ethical agenda being enacted against you.
	And you are a target of a coordinated attempt of persecution.
	Yeah.
	That's true.
	Like, obviously, it's different from the Holocaust in many respects.
	But if she had used the Cultural Revolution, for example, would that have been suddenly worth cancelling?
	Exactly.
	Because it also wouldn't have been accurate entirely.
	But so what?
	Like, it's about the feeling of the thing.
	But the point is, the mainstream shouldn't be identifying any kind of demographic in society and saying, right, we're going to persecute those.
	That shouldn't happen.
	It should just be a never event.
	There's never a good group of people to try and hurt and try and destroy.
	That's just not good.
	That's wrong in every capacity.
	But yeah, apparently Lucasfilm came out and said, yep, she's not currently employed.
	Nevertheless, social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.
	That's not what she did.
	That's not a denigrating statement.
	In fact, she was asking for tolerance.
	Yeah.
	Sure, she said it in a bit of a roundabout way.
	But what happened to the Jews is bad, which is why what's happening to the Republicans now is also bad, because fundamentally it does occur along the same dynamics.
	The powerful have identified a minority group that they want to hurt.
	I mean, she's not wrong, and she's not disparaging anyone.
	But the hashtag FireGinaCurano was trending on Wednesday following an Instagram post from her about this.
	The post has since been deleted.
	Screenshots were widely shared.
	I couldn't actually find it, to be honest, and they didn't link it in here.
	But this is not the first time she's been in trouble because she is a Republican.
	She's a conservative.
	And she didn't like mask wearing and suggested that voter fraud may have occurred.
	But the way they falsely suggested voter fraud may have occurred.
	Everyone accepts that some degree of voter fraud occurs in elections.
	Well, even YouTube does.
	Yeah.
	They're just saying, well, their rules state that a widespread coordinator doesn't exist.
	Yeah, but everyone agrees that some, but I mean, you know, falsely.
	But an insider, of course, from Luke's film has, on anonymity, speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, said, well, they've been looking to get rid of her for months, and today was the final straw.
	Maybe.
	What's interesting, though, is her co-star, the Mandalorian himself, Pedro Pascal, isn't cancelled.
	This is what he posted in 2018, comparing the concentration camps.
	This is when AOC, of course, said these are concentration camps.
	Comparing the migrant holding centres to concentration camps, he's not fired for this.
	This is acceptable, virtue-sickling, because as you can see in his...
	He's anti-Trump.
	But as you can see in his status, Pedro Pascal, he slash him.
	It's left-wing, virtue-signally.
	And therefore, he's not in trouble.
	Yet.
	Wait until you've got something to say about Israel, Pedro.
	And you'll find that maybe you are, in fact, cancelled, just like Nathan was.
	Anyway, moving on to the...
	Again, just the...
	I just want to be clear.
	This is exactly the sort of thing that happened during the French Revolution.
	It's just that this is just people not being killed, but having their social media virtually killed.
	Virtually guillotined.
	In the French Revolution, obviously, people were just actually guillotined.
	But yeah, so anyway, Trump is permanently banned from Twitter, according to Twitter's chief financial officer, Ned Seagal, who said during an interview on CNBC that Trump will never be restored to his Twitter account.
	Even if he's re-elected as the President of the United States.
	Even if he's re-elected as President.
	I mean, they deplatformed him when he was the President in a mass deplatforming over the course of a few days.
	So, I mean, nothing matters now.
	There are no sort of like, yeah, but this person has something that is in the public interest or something like that, or the fact that...
	You know, Donald Trump's Twitter feed was declared a public forum by the courts.
	That doesn't matter, somehow.
	He wasn't allowed to block people, but Twitter are allowed to block him.
	Don't know how that works.
	Looking forward to seeing that go through the courts at some point.
	But anyway, Ned Segal said, the way our policies work, when you're removed from the platform, you're removed from the platform.
	So literally...
	That's it.
	There's no second chance.
	You just get to go.
	Whether you're a commentator or a CFO, you're a former or current public official, remember, our policies are designed to make sure that people are not inciting violence, and if everyone does that, we have to remove them from the service, and our policies don't allow people to come back.
	So, okay, for a start, A, he didn't, so disagree with you, and your interpretation of this was obviously...
	Well, he's about to be found non-guilty.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Then what?
	Yeah, then what?
	Well, we don't allow people to come back.
	That's what.
	It's utterly unforgiving.
	There is no going back on this.
	So once you lose your Twitter account, that is forever, no matter how important you are in political life.
	Very interesting.
	I also hate, like, this is the stupidest way Facebook and Twitter might not run their bannings.
	Like, if you want to ban someone for inciting hatred, well, what's the criminal penalty?
	Like, let's say it's a maximum six months in jail.
	Okay, so just ban the account for six months.
	Yeah.
	Now what?
	Yeah, I mean, like, that's the thing.
	How is that not proportionate?
	I was banning someone for all time proportionate.
	Yeah, we do not punish people.
	Jack did indeed, as John's just pointed out, Jack did say that he thinks there should be a pathway to redemption, because essentially me and Joe Rogan...
	A way has been set up, as we have seen with YouTube and Facebook, at least, which is that you know someone, and then you get your redemption.
	Yes, exactly.
	Yes, if you've got people on the inside.
	But Jack did confirm that, yeah, there should be some sort of forgiveness.
	But it should be the thing where it's just six months.
	There you go.
	Yeah.
	But that's the thing.
	The law would never work this way.
	The first time you break the law, you get shot.
	That would be unreal.
	Well, that was unreasonable, wasn't it?
	It's like, well, you better follow that law.
	It's like, yeah, but the law keeps changing.
	You keep modifying your terms of service.
	And it's being interpreted in a really uncharitable way.
	You know, but basically, yeah, there needs to be probably some legal limit to the amount that social media can do.
	And Jack Dorsey himself said that he thinks social media is a human right.
	How do you justify this then?
	You know, how do you justify this?
	There probably should be some sort of legal requirement that it can only be for a certain period of time.
	Like, maybe you can say, like, you can only ban an account for, like, a maximum of a year or something like that.
	I don't know.
	I just...
	Relate it to the law.
	Like someone's convicted for murder for 20 years.
	Okay, 20 year ban.
	Because you're a murderer.
	But then they're hardly going to be able to ban anyone because almost nothing that happens on Twitter is actually criminal.
	Yes.
	And that's how it should be.
	Yeah, I agree.
	If you break the law, you should have those recompussions.
	In the same way the publisher is saying, if you break the law on Twitter by saying something that is criminal, if you said it in the public forum, yeah, same thing.
	Weird, just side note, is that rapists and murderers don't get their Twitter accounts banned.
	No, no they don't.
	Weird.
	Anyway, moving on...
	Nor the leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
	Yeah.
	He's still on there.
	Yeah, I mean, Joe Biden did give a eulogy at his funeral, so...
	Anyway, moving on.
	Google, as reported by Josh on lotuses.com, is going to be actively removing websites from their search engine, which is just the latest in the sort of...
	Okay, like...
	The problem, these other manifestations of cancel culture are not as bad as they could be because they're in your face, right?
	You're watching The Mandalorian and now, oh, Gina Carano's character's gone.
	Okay, why?
	At least I know why.
	You know, I can look into it.
	Why is, you know, I know that I'm missing something.
	You know, the guy who wrote for The Guardian, oh, his column's no longer there.
	At least I can identify that there is a difference in reality because of cancel culture.
	But this is really pernicious.
	So Google recently released their manual actions report, which seeks to inform website owners about Google's approach to moderating content in the search results.
	A manual action is when the human reviewer at Google, as opposed to an algorithm, has determined that the site is not compliant with Google's quality guidelines.
	According to Google, most manual actions address attempts by websites to manipulate their position in the search results.
	True.
	And so they've got a list of things which are very interesting.
	What Josh believes is the most concerning implications in the section on news and discover policy violation, and it seems somewhat out of place alongside the aforementioned deceptive or manipulative practices.
	So Google gives us a list, right?
	And so it's like adult themed content.
	Okay, fair enough.
	Dangerous content.
	Okay, fair enough.
	You can go down a little bit more, John.
	Define dangerous.
	Well, they do, actually.
	Google has detected content on your site appears to violate a dangerous content policy because it contains content that could directly facilitate serious and immediate harm to people or animals.
	Harm.
	Define harm.
	I don't know.
	If it's like a bomb-making instructions or something like that.
	Yeah.
	But they're not going to define it the way the law would define it, which is reasonable.
	It would be defined within a leftist paradigm.
	Yes, that's true.
	And that's why, ultimately, I think eventually, the decision-making ability to decide what is filterable will be taken out of the hands of social media companies at some point.
	So they won't get to set their own terms and conditions in that way.
	The government presumably tells them, regulates them, and tells them what can be considered removable and whatnot.
	But the next one is harassing content.
	So content on the site that appears to violate a harassment content policy because it contains harassment, bullying, or threatening content, including but not limited to, that which might single someone out for malicious abuse, threaten someone with serious harm, sexualize someone in an unwanted way, Daily Mail is in trouble here, expose private information of someone else that could be used to carry out threats, disparage, or belittle victims of violence or tragedy, deny an atrocity, or harass in other ways.
	that's That's...
	Such a bungle.
	Insanely broad.
	But just like, look at those, like two of those things that are definitely doing it.
	Harassing content, denying an atrocity.
	How does denying something harass someone?
	I don't know.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	I don't know.
	But that just demonstrates how poorly written all of this stuff is.
	Well, and how wide a net they're seeking to cast, because they're essentially saying we want the justification for anything that we consider against our interests.
	The next one is, of course, hateful content.
	Google has detected on your site that appears to violate a hateful content policy with content that incites hatred, as if this is some kind of objective standard that we all agree to.
	We do not allow content that promotes or condones violence or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against an individual or group including but not limited to on the basis of their race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or any other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization.
	So now, are we saying that all of the sort of like Kill All Men websites, the Radfem websites, are they going to get removed from Google?
	Of course not.
	They should.
	I mean, maybe they will.
	Maybe they'll be like, well, these are TERF websites.
	These discriminate against gender identity.
	And so, to hell with them.
	I mean, I don't know.
	Manipulated media?
	That's actually not in line with UK law, which goes further, which is that belief or non-belief is also added, and not just religious.
	It just uses the term belief, so you could sue on the basis of someone discriminating against you on the basis that you're a vegan.
	So...
	Which then implies that Nazis are being horribly and unfairly oppressed.
	That is their definition here.
	So they say they're hinting to it, but this is UK law.
	Anyone who experiences systemic discrimination, well, as a society, as we do, most people do not want to hire neo-Nazis.
	We decide that viewpoint is not something you want to associate with the company.
	Well, then neo-Nazis are being systematically discriminated against, in which case they can now sue us for systematically discriminating against them.
	And Google has to remove those anti-Nazi websites.
	But also they have to keep up the neo-nazi websites.
	They do.
	Because otherwise they would be engaging in hateful conduct.
	They would.
	It's very interesting, the corner they're painting themselves into here.
	But the next one is manipulated media, which is a curious thing.
	We do not allow audio, video, or image content that has been manipulated to deceive, defraud, or mislead by means of creating a representation of actions or events that verifiably did not take place and would cause a reasonable person to have a fundamentally different understanding or impression thereof, such that it might cause significant harm to groups or individuals or mislead by means of creating a representation of actions or events that verifiably did not take place and would cause Well, I mean, I don't think we should worry too much about participation or trust in civic processes because...
	The CNN gone.
	Well, I mean, yeah, and the Democrats' impeachment trial gone, which we'll cover in a minute.
	But, like, who's going to be left to participate in civic processes?
	Because, I mean, memes could fall into this category.
	If you photoshopped a meme, sorry, that was manipulated media.
	And of course this bleeds into the next one, misleading content.
	Google has detected content on your site that appears to violate our misleading content policy.
	Misleads users into engaging with it by promising a topic or story that is not reflected in the content.
	And you've got transparency and vulgar language and profanity, which is weirdly puritanical.
	Gratuitous obscenities or profanities are things they also want to not be, frankly, found on websites on Google.
	And it's like, well, I'm glad we don't swear on this podcast, but...
	But I hate it because some of these you can see as reasonable.
	Like some of these are the law.
	Terrorist content mentioned that.
	That's the law.
	And that's where I wanted to end, really, the law.
	Because you're just meant to be a platform.
	But they're casting this net as far as possible.
	And of course, that means they can, as the chat's pointing out, censor any meme they don't like.
	Any news story they don't like.
	Because they don't like the way you're representing it.
	It's misleading people this way.
	Well, that's one thing, but they won't apply it equally.
	They won't be taking down CNN's lies about what happens in cases that Black Lives Matter like to promote.
	They won't be taking down Black Lives Matter for misrepresenting them at the base.
	That's correct.
	Yeah, and the worst part about this, though, is that this is censorship that happens before you know anything has been censored.
	And it's this kind of deep editorialization that is the real problem.
	Because again, cancel culture is bad, especially for the individual who's been canceled, but at least other people can see it.
	You make a martyr out of that person.
	But this is the truly terrifying aspect of totalitarianism, is when you can't even create martyrs, because you don't know that someone's been killed standing up for something they believe in.
	And that's what Google is doing here.
	This is exactly what the papal church did during the Inquisition times, and it's also what the British Parliament tried to do when they overthrow the crown.
	They tried to do pre-publication censorship.
	Yep.
	And this is, I mean, all of the regimes of the 20th century, this is one of the things that they did.
	And this is where it gets really bad.
	And the fact that Google's just coming out and saying, yes, so we're going to be manipulating the results like this.
	I've been reading some history and I've found some really good ideas.
	Pre-publication censorship.
	Basically, yeah.
	It's terrible and it's out of control and it needs to stop.
	There's no reason that people should be deplatformed because they have opinions you don't like.
	End of story.
	What can you do, though?
	Moving on to people not having opinions that the left doesn't like, how are things going with the impeachment?
	So the impeachment's...
	I've got to say, it's good to watch because we reported on this yesterday and it was, if nothing else, a little bit embarrassing to watch Trump's lawyers kind of fumble through their arguments about constitutionality.
	And yeah, I mean, not only is it kind of boring, but it was a weak defense that they had for those lawyers.
	And just to be clear, we agree with all of the things that they're saying about like, you know, because it was very, in many ways, a very quite high-minded argument that's being made, an appeal to the values of the founding fathers and...
	and the purpose of the American Republic and all these sort of things that the left does not believe in.
	The left believes they're racist, are imperialistic, are oppressive.
	And so you can't appeal to these values and expect to get any traction with the opponents.
	Because what you want with these things is to present something the opponents have to accept as true and have to accept as a real moral claim, and then they start going on the back foot and then you can start advancing.
	And they couldn't do that with the way they were presenting.
	But what would the Founding Fathers think?
	Dude, we think the Founding Fathers were Nazi racist slave owners who needed to be hung.
	You know, what are you talking about?
	Why would you appeal to them with us?
	You know, that's essentially the response that the Democrats would have given.
	Anyway, yeah.
	So how was today?
	That whole thing was just kind of pointless, to be honest.
	The new debate in the impeachment obviously then went on to whether or not he incited people to go into the Capitol.
	And we're going to get to hear Trump's response to this in the coming day.
	We're recording this in England, so we're a little bit behind.
	But the Democrats went first in making their case that he did incite violence, and it's pathetically bad, like really bad.
	So first thing we have to do is issue a correction from yesterday's podcast.
	So we played a clip from Sky News reporting on what went on, and we're going to play this clip again, just for anyone who didn't see it, and also to remind yourselves of what they try to do.
	Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, itself a moment of American history, beginning with the simple question of whether Congress has the right to try a former president at all.
	What we expected to be procedural, though, quickly became very visceral.
	I'll show you.
	And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you.
	We're going to walk down.
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol.
	Senators shown this cinematic retelling of the events of January.
	So I had thought that it was Sky News that had cut it at that point.
	And it turns out that was actually the footage that was being shown in the trial, wasn't it?
	Yeah, so we all assumed Sky News had been the deceptive ones here, because anyone who doesn't know, after that cut, where he says we're going to go down to the Capitol and peaceably and patriotically make our voices heard, they cut that segment out.
	We assumed that Sky News had cut that, been deceiving the world.
	Turns out it's even worse.
	No, that was the Democrats' video that they played at the hearing, and that had been given to CNN, who then uncritically just showed it.
	And Sky as well.
	All of them.
	And that's the thing.
	So the first one here is CBS News did exactly the same thing.
	The next one is CNN doing exactly the same thing.
	Next Twitter link.
	And they're reporting on it.
	And then the next one was also Al Jazeera doing exactly the same thing where they cut it up so it didn't look like that.
	I also saw BBC News did exactly the same thing.
	But that's, it's not just, so if they had just shown footage of the Capitol, you know, people going in, breaking stuff, that would have been fine to play uncritically, because it's like, look, this was what they showed.
	But that wasn't what it was.
	It was a partisan video made dishonestly.
	And all of the media at this point therefore have a responsibility, a duty, to present the other side of the argument, which is Trump saying peacefully and patriotically, as in not inciting violence, and none of them did.
	Well, we have strict rules, especially around the BBC, because it's taxpayer funded, not privately funded, so they should get in trouble for lying, but they don't.
	Which is that you cannot run party political broadcasts like this, because that's what this was.
	This was them dishonestly cutting it so it could be partisan.
	And it's an indictment of how bad the media are.
	They do not even attempt to check what the Democrats give them.
	If Republicans are giving them a tape to run...
	But the thing is, I don't believe for a second they don't know that Trump...
	I mean, it's literally the next sentence he says that Trump says, we're going to march down there peacefully and patriotically.
	I know that they know that he said that, and I know that they know that they should have made that clear.
	And if it was the other way around, if it was Republicans who had taken something of Hillary Clinton out of context, you would then get the full statement for her to say, you know, actually, I want it to peacefully and patriotically...
	They would have done this and so we can be absolutely sure that this is just about partisan bias Yeah, we can.
	So that's the first thing to mention.
	The next parts of the trial were them setting up, as the BBC reports, new evidence of what went on.
	I was kind of underwhelmed by the new evidence that was presented.
	Some of the things we're not going to talk about, so I'll just mention them quickly.
	It's like some new security footage of people walking around.
	Some of Nancy Pelosi's staffers had to barricade themselves, and apparently some people tried to get into the room they were in, but they utterly failed.
	So it's like, okay...
	And then some voices on a radio from police.
	It's like, okay, this isn't anything we didn't know.
	So this is actually kind of a waste of time.
	But the things they did present, which made everyone just cringe, like, what are you doing?
	Is things like this.
	So the next link is them trying to present Nick Fuentes giving...
	Giving a speech about destroying the GOP as evidence of Trump inciting the Capitol invasion?
	Like, how does Nick Fuentes giving a speech have anything to do with this?
	How is it that Nick Fuentes and Baked Alaska have brought down the Republic?
	How has this happened?
	You know what?
	Actually, I didn't want to play this, but let's play it just because I think it's that funny just to watch him speaking.
	Here's Nicholas Fuentes, a commentator who would organize a Stop the Steal rally in Michigan with Trump supporters.
	In the first million mark of marks, we promised that if the GOP would not do everything in their power to keep Trump in office, that we would destroy the GOP. Those
	words, that was Trump's message.
	Destroy anyone who won't listen.
	Who won't help them take the election for Trump.
	Isn't she in favour of that message?
	But this man that's not Trump, who's an America First group, giving his speech, that's Trump's message.
	But even then, what was the message?
	Yeah, destroy the GOP. That's not hang Nancy Pelosi.
	Well, but it's also not violent.
	Destroy the GOP is normal political terms for, like, we want to rework it in a way that suits our need.
	Vote against them, you know, get rid of them, yeah, yeah.
	How does AOC and Bernie Sanders talk about the Democratic Party?
	Absolutely.
	Exactly the same.
	But, again, like, someone else speaking somewhere else is not inciting capital rioters.
	That's just ridiculous.
	So pathetic.
	I can't get over it.
	And it got worse.
	It didn't get better somehow.
	So the next one is just them showing tweets.
	They brought tweets as evidence that his speech outside the Capitol incited this.
	A tweet on January the 1st, so five days, six days later.
	Five days ago, you tweeted a thing in which you're retweeting that people were going to come there.
	Yeah, it was a rally.
	And that proves that your speech on the day incited them that doesn't make any sense.
	And of course they know this doesn't make any sense because that's the part as well.
	The reason they're showing this is to try and confuse you into thinking that if you say something days in advance that is criminal, it's not.
	If I can say anything I want about committing violence and then, you know, 70 days later I then make a speech.
	Because, I mean, legally it has to be imminent.
	It has to be imminent.
	That's the standard.
	Yeah.
	But this wasn't the worst part of this.
	You can see there, you can see Jennifer Lynn Lawrence.
	You can see our lovely little checkmark there.
	Verified checkmark.
	Verified checkmark.
	Yeah, she's not.
	This is just an outright lie.
	So this is her account with no verified checkmark, tweeting out, what am I doing on the news with a verified checkmark?
	I've never been verified on Twitter, so why did my tweet used in the fact-free impeachment include a verification badge?
	I'm assuming Democrats faked it like they're faking the whole case.
	That's a good question.
	Yeah.
	Because there is none.
	Whoever made this slide, and presumably it's the same person who's made all the slides, because it's all consistent layout, they made a fake tweet.
	They sat there on Photoshop, made a fake verification badge, and put it there.
	Very interesting.
	Pathetic.
	And it's just some random person on Twitter.
	Yeah.
	Best day ever.
	Thank you, Trump, for the retweet.
	It's been an honour to stand up and fight for you and our nation.
	We stand strong January 6th.
	We'll bring the cavalry to spread.
	So it's a protest.
	They're protesters.
	Yeah, we're going to come and protest.
	So there's not even anything criminal here.
	But they still had to fake it.
	They had to fake something that doesn't even help their case.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	I don't know why they're doing this.
	Well, it's because the case is that weak, isn't it?
	It is that weak.
	And it got worse.
	Again, they then went from random tweets that Trump had retweeted, so at least Trump was involved, to random message board threads.
	So this is the next one.
	Just a meme on some message board.
	I think this is the Donald on Reddit.
	Right, yeah.
	Again, not Donald Trump.
	Again, nothing to do with the Republican Party.
	It's not affiliated.
	It's just a random group saying things like they wanted to come to the Capitol.
	I was like, yeah, and...
	How does this prove any criminal intent or anything criminal?
	Yeah, this is not Trump's doing, so why are you tarring him with it?
	So it's just a complete waste of time.
	And they know it's a waste of time.
	I like Michael Tracy's commentary here.
	The impeachment managers should be genuinely embarrassed that they're on the floor of the Senate reading out random BS online memes and posts.
	But they're clearly not embarrassed.
	Yeah, he's totally right.
	They should be embarrassed.
	And then it got worse.
	So not only did they have, you know, trying to fake stuff to try and make it seem more important, and also non-arguments and deceptive editing, and then random message board threads as if that means anything at all.
	They then just openly started making stuff up.
	So this is a video of one of the senators who had been quoted in their attempts to try and show the Republican Party endorsed this.
	And he's like, no, I didn't say any of this.
	Retract it.
	I'm having an objection.
	You need to retract this.
	And the next one is the Dems actually accepting, yeah, we lied.
	We were peddling fake news, and they accept the retraction on the grounds that he didn't make those statements.
	That's how weak their case is.
	That's amazing.
	Making up statements and describing them to people.
	They have to admit that it's fake news.
	And you can see this chap here, he's the one leading it.
	I don't know much about the guy, but I don't need to.
	You can just look into the fact of, okay, he's the one leading an impeachment trial on the basis that Donald Trump didn't accept the outcome and then went on to protest about it.
	That's what he did.
	You can talk about his supporters who then raided the Capitol, fine, but that's not who's in court today.
	It's Donald Trump.
	And he himself is a chap who has a history of not accepting the election results.
	So the next link here is something earthed up about the election of Donald Trump in which he was objecting to the Florida's electoral college results, trying to get them struck down.
	And he says the 10 results shouldn't be so on and so forth.
	And then Joe Biden interrupts.
	And he's like, wait, have you got any standing order for this?
	Have you got anyone signed on to this?
	He's like, no, I've got a bill.
	No one signed it, but I've got a bill.
	He's like, right, shut up.
	Shuts him up.
	But, you know, these people are pathetic.
	I can't take them seriously when they're engaged in the conduct they're accusing Trump of.
	And the next one up here is also Speaker Pelosi, who is obviously, we've covered before, guilty of the same thing, saying that the election in which Donald Trump was elected was hijacked.
	Yep.
	Okay, then you're going to jail too, lady.
	Yep, and especially as we can actually, well, I mean, you have actually proven that the 2016 election wasn't.
	There was no interference from Russia.
	You had your investigation, Trump didn't.
	You had a really long and expensive investigation and you turned up literally nothing.
	So if we're going to accept the questioning results of federal elections for president are enough to be sent out of office, as two people are going to go, but the other part they tried to get him on was the fact that he said you had to fight like hell.
	That was his statement on the speech.
	Other problems here.
	Obviously, not an incitement.
	That's political rhetoric.
	And if it is incitement now, oh boy, a lot of people are going to jail.
	Including the guy who's running the show.
	So this is the guy giving an interview in the Atlantic saying that we're going to fight like hell.
	So he's going to jail.
	And then the next one is Ilhan Omar, also presumably going to jail for saying we need to fight like hell to get Donald Trump out of the White House.
	Not my girl, Ilhan.
	And then Joe Biden.
	Joe Biden's also going to jail, I guess, for saying we need to fight like hell.
	I mean, fight like hell is clearly very stock political rhetoric in the United States.
	It's so stock.
	It wasn't just these three.
	Like, a good boy's been making compilations of Democrats saying this.
	We won't play it because it's just too long.
	But it goes through all of them.
	Like, you've got the Obamas talking about it.
	You've got Elizabeth Warren talking about it.
	Everyone's said like that.
	Because what they mean is campaign.
	Yes.
	They mean campaign.
	It's just campaigning rhetoric.
	It's obviously not...
	It doesn't mean pick up a gun.
	No, it doesn't.
	Christ.
	And this is how pathetic their claims are.
	I love Chuck Schumer and the bloody African thing.
	Oh, yeah, that's cringe.
	That's such cringe.
	So this is how pathetic their attack is in which they want to convict him.
	So Trump's gonna have...
	His team should have a field day.
	Jesus Christ, guys, just do this right.
	Because you're fighting a child.
	This is so pathetic.
	A bunch of emotional children.
	And the point is that they know it.
	They know that they've got no case.
	So this is Vox.com, a very partisan leftist outlet, saying that he won't be convicted.
	They know.
	They know they've got nada.
	So they're saying impeachment...
	For anyone who can't see it, Trump won't be convicted.
	Impeachment is still worth it.
	So this is their defence, just to give their side of the story, which is not that they think he's broken the law and this whole thing is a sham, they admit.
	But they have some reasons for this.
	The central fact of American politics today is that one of the country's two major political parties is broken.
	Not merely wrong, but broken in a fundamental way.
	Hostile to democracy and incapable of serving as a good faith partner in governing.
	One of them is, yes.
	Yeah, the one that's currently engaged in a fruitless impeachment trial.
	A second fruitless impeachment trial.
	Which you have already admitted is a sham, mate.
	What are you talking about?
	To which you have no evidence.
	So, talking about the impeachment, why it's good again, it will show that even in a dramatic case of outright insurrection against the United States government, the country's political system is incapable of holding the elites accountable, largely due to the country's extreme partisanship.
	Demonstrating this will serve as a justification for people, Democrats, and civil society alike to take dramatic steps to repair American democracy down the line.
	I love the projection.
	This is such projection.
	They're the source of it.
	The elites won't be held accountable and this shows it.
	Therefore, this was good for us to fix democracy.
	You are the elites who aren't being held accountable.
	What are you talking about, lads?
	It's unreal.
	Oh, man.
	And then there's another part in here which he talks about, the further reason for this, cementing it.
	To really fix America, Democrats need to engage in a kind of partisan warfare.
	Is that a literal quote?
	Yeah.
	What?
	As if that's good.
	Oh, that's what's going to fix America.
	Nonstop, unrelenting, partisan warfare.
	That's going to fix America.
	Such as an impeachment trial that you know is just fake.
	This is complete nonsense.
	He's admitting it in the fact that he knows they can't convict him.
	This is the worst kind of incitement as well.
	Like, just literally, everything the Republicans do is evil.
	Everything that we do is good.
	We need to engage in this kind of partisan warfare to fix America.
	This is the problem.
	It is the left that has begun and done this, in my opinion.
	Anyway...
	But you notice how you hear, like, extremist Republican types, this is how they talk, where they're like, no, we're not even going to play any attempts at moderation here, we should just go hardball.
	And that's the mainstream opinion of leftist outlets, so that's what it is.
	Yeah, I mean, you know, fringe, like, Republican QAnoners have got that opinion, and Vox.com, and Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton as well, in fact.
	This was a tweet that Hillary put out yesterday.
	If Senate Republicans fail to convict Donald Trump, it won't be because the facts were with him or his lawyers mounted a competent defense.
	It will be because the jury includes his co-conspirators.
	285,000 likes.
	That is unity right there.
	If you don't agree with us, you're in on the conspiracy.
	Also, we're part of a conspiracy.
	I mean, here at Time Magazine.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And we wrote a thing in Time Magazine proudly saying that we conspired.
	I mean, unreal.
	Unreal.
	If it's not obvious that the source of the problem is the Democrats at this point, then I don't know what it is.
	I mean, I love that guy's framing from earlier.
	I'm going to use that back at the Democrats.
	Like, one of the political parties in this country is fundamentally broken.
	Yeah, I'm looking at it.
	You seem to be awful.
	Absolutely awful.
	And the Republicans, thinking there can be any kind of goodwill between the Republicans and the Democrats at this point, I mean, the Democrats seem to have ruled that out.
	They want to engage in partisan warfare, and if you don't convict Trump, it's not because he didn't incite someone, it's because you're a co-conspirator in his insurrection.
	Again, the other part of that, where he says that the Republican Party, he's saying, one of the American parties, has become such a bad faith actor, they're not to be treated in good faith.
	Really?
	I mean, I agree, one of them is.
	When your ex-leader here is saying that anyone who disagrees with them is a co-conspirator in this conspiracy...
	Yeah, I think it might be the blue side of some of the lads.
	I don't like being this...
	I'm going to say partisan in the sense that I can see that the Republicans are on the right side of this.
	Because it feels...
	I don't really like doing it, but it's just true.
	I'm sorry.
	I mean, the Republicans, people like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham haven't been going out and saying we can never trust any Democrat and every Democrat has to, we have to, as Republicans, wage a partisan war on the Democrats until they're destroyed utterly.
	They haven't been saying that.
	They didn't prosecute the attack on Hillary Clinton hard or anything like this.
	They're fairly moderate.
	Trump appoints moderate judges.
	They're not playing just this one-sided partisan game that the Democrats have obviously been playing.
	And like I said, I don't even like the Republicans, the Republican Party.
	It's not even in my country.
	No, I don't care.
	Do I think that Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham haven't taken money from big business?
	Of course not.
	Of course they're taking this money.
	They're just not trying to destroy the Republic.
	So, you know...
	But anyway, good news.
	Their attack on Trump is that pathetic.
	They've got fake quotes when they don't have random message board threads and random tweets.
	Or they have literally just made up statements.
	Or deceptively edited videos.
	That's all they've got.
	Trump's team, I look forward to what you have to bring.
	Yeah, I assume you've got, well, I don't know, a video of Trump saying, don't do anything violent?
	Yeah, just play the whole video.
	Play their video and then play yours.
	Yeah, and then play the selection of clips of them saying, fight like hell, fight like hell.
	Don't even have to say anything.
	And then quote extensively from the Time magazine article.
	Spotify just removed fake woke song.
	Did they, John?
	Oh, wow.
	Really?
	Well, there we go.
	There's something cancelled live on air, breaking.
	But I don't think Spotify's engaged in this.
	Well, apparently they are now.
	Because they were quite feisty on Joe Rogan, the fact that we were going to keep him there.
	It's because Joe Rogan is Joe Rogan.
	I mean, I'd never even heard of this fake woke song.
	It was very popular.
	It must have made a lot of money in ad revenue.
	Well, not anymore.
	Live cancellations.
	Happened by the day.
	So the last thing I want to talk about here was the Southern Poverty Law Centre has come out and said that black separatism is okay, kids.
	There's nothing wrong with this.
	We should all endorse it.
	And that's how I'm going to phrase it, because that's how it reads.
	It's not how they want it to be.
	Isn't black separatism considered in America by the FBI to be a form of terrorism?
	Yes, because it is.
	Like, I want to separate from the United States, and the separation I'm going to do is on the basis of my race, and the only people of my race will be allowed inside my separated state.
	Yeah, sounds pretty bad.
	Sounds like the sort of thing they'll have on CNN. Sounds like the kind of thing the SPLC should keep track of.
	Richard Spencer, black separatist, calm discussion.
	When's the debate happening, Jack Tapper?
	Set it up.
	Turns out they agree on almost everything.
	Just Don Lemon in the middle, though.
	Anyway, so this is them on Twitter saying that they are collapsing the black separatist listing of their hate map.
	So for anyone who doesn't know, the Southern Poverty Law Center has like a hate map in which they list hate groups, their wording.
	Black separatism was born out of a valid anger against a very real historic and systemic oppression.
	Okay, so...
	So that justifies terrorism?
	If you can say your terrorist group, who has an extremist viewpoint, is justified, then the Southern Poverty Law Centre will take you off their map, and you are valid in what you're doing.
	ISIS are typing furiously.
	Several people are typing.
	Drone strikes!
	Palestinian kids!
	You know, they know all the buzzwords that you guys react to, like...
	Like, where does this go?
	And just before we start as well, I just want to make it clear that our official position is we don't want racial separatism, we don't like race politics, and we don't like terrorism.
	No, but Southern Property Law Centre disagrees.
	They think a certain kind is okay.
	We're pro-incorporative democracies.
	So then we're going to get up the article here.
	Radical position these days.
	You can read the whole thing in your own time, but I've taken out the best bits just to go over, because it's amazing.
	So they say this decision comes after internal-external conversations, so they just had a lot of conversations with woke activists that came to this decision.
	Black separatist groups land on the Southern Polity Law Center's hate map because they propagate anti-Semitic, anti-LGBTQ, and male supremacist views.
	Not because they oppose a white supremacist power structure.
	You notice what's missing there?
	Not because they want a black ethnostate, but because they're anti-Semites, anti-gay, and pro-man?
	Not because they're terrorists.
	Not because they want, like, race war.
	That's not a problem.
	That's all okay.
	It's the anti-Semitism and anti-LGBTQ views.
	You'll also notice they don't mention their anti-white views.
	No.
	I mean, if you read any black separatist literature, most of it is about a whitey, but not according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
	Well, I mean, a fair amount of it is about Jews and gays as well, to be honest.
	It is.
	It is.
	And I'm not denying it.
	It's not.
	But that is not the main thrust.
	The main thrust is against this white supremacist state and, you know, so on and so forth.
	I never thought I'd have to spend so much time defending Jews, actually.
	I assume that places like the SPLC and the ADL would be doing a good enough job of this that I wouldn't actually have to weigh in and say, by the way, maybe persecuting Jews is bad.
	You've got some stiff opposition from the woke department.
	I mean, I guess they've really got...
	Guy criticizes Israel, so I guess fine.
	Anyway, let's carry on.
	So they go on here.
	It is important to acknowledge the moment we are in and the incredible efforts of groups such as the Movement for Black Lives.
	So they're directly endorsing Black Lives Matter, but they don't want to explicitly say it because I think they know it's a political movement.
	And they'll lose their charity status probably or something like this.
	The continued police violence directed against the black community and a lack of justice for the victims shows plainly the struggle for black lives is not over.
	That is horrifically framed.
	Police violence directed at the black community implies a directed will from the police to victimise black people.
	As if the police, as an institution, want to do this.
	But I think they'll be happy to accept that that's their viewpoint.
	What they won't be happy to accept, which is what they've just done, is lay out, this is a statement on black separatist groups...
	BLM shouldn't be included as separatist groups.
	That's why we're just classifying separatist groups.
	So they're literally saying that BLM is a black separatist group here, that they're saying they should not be treated as a hate group, but they do because they engage in anti-police brutality.
	Okay.
	Based in Red Peel SPLC, I guess.
	BLM are terrorists.
	Fine.
	So they then go on to say that the SPLC intelligence map, more specifically, recognizes the common language shared by our black separatist listing and federal attempts to criminalize black activism.
	Jesus.
	So yeah, literally they're saying, well basically, Black Lives Matter, black terrorists, separatists.
	The Venn diagram is getting smaller and smaller.
	Therefore, we're going to just say that terrorists don't exist.
	Therefore, it's no longer terrorism.
	Interesting.
	So they say this part in response to the FBI, as you said, list black separatism as a terrorist group, because it is.
	And then they say this is contributing to a false dichotomy, and it does not serve the SPLC's mission for racial equity.
	Oh, right, okay.
	Okay.
	So that's the reason here, is, as you say, the Venn diagram's getting smaller, and they're panicking.
	And they then go on for more reasons for the change.
	So they say that this one's actually fair, which is that a lot of these groups that they're looking at are not entirely black.
	So in a sense, they're not uniquely.
	But that's kind of...
	But they are politically black, aren't they?
	That's one problem.
	But also, you know, my experience of looking at what they would call white supremacist groups, they list, I think, the Proud Boys as a white supremacist group.
	The leader's not white.
	So are they no longer that kind of extremist?
	And they also don't avow white supremacy.
	That's more important, yep.
	Weirdly, but I mean, like, a lot of these black separatist groups do avow anti-Semitism.
	And black nationalism.
	And black nationalism.
	Which is kind of the point.
	So they say these groups are very much part of activist spaces, which is a condemnation of the activist spaces.
	Black Lives Matter is riddled with these anti-Semitic black supremacists.
	Okay.
	Therefore we're just going to stop saying that they're terrorists.
	And while that should be exposed for their harmful rhetoric and be held accountable within the activist space that they inhabit, so they are there, and we think they should be good at it, the SPLC does not believe criminalizing and over-policing is an acceptable solution.
	Huh?
	Like, we're talking about the terrorists here.
	If we're going to criminalize them, that's fine, surely.
	I mean, do they understand that it's the black identity extremists, the black separatists, who have been attacking Jews in New York?
	I mean, there are loads of videos of it, just random attacks on the street.
	Well, they do.
	They know that they're anti-Semitic in the opening statements.
	Yeah.
	But they're still running defense for them.
	That's wild.
	So, they mention here, unfortunately, the FBI had a black identity extremist label for monitoring domestic terrorism.
	Unfortunately.
	Unfortunately.
	What?
	I mean, I guess it's unfortunate that there's domestic terror in the United States.
	I agree.
	I mean, that is unfortunate.
	And then they go on to say, so they take a quote from a former FBI agent, and I don't want to read the whole thing because it's kind of boring the way he phrases it, but it's essentially just using the label black identity extremists or black separatists, he thinks creates an irrational fear of black activist movements that people become obsessed that maybe they're separatists.
	And to be honest, I can actually have some sympathy with that position.
	If you see some loudmouth activist group Yeah.
	Making noise.
	He could make the assumption maybe they're extremists.
	Yeah.
	But then the same runs for all other groups.
	Any Muslim group, any group mainly made up of white people.
	The Proud Boys.
	The Proud Boys is the best example.
	Yeah.
	So how is this not true of white groups?
	Or groups that are perceived to have been white supremacists, like from the SPLC? Yeah.
	So they go on saying, dropping this listing, we can lead by example and be able to contribute to a more accurate understanding of violent extremism by ignoring an accurate understanding of violent extremism.
	Good job, lads.
	One that foregrounds white supremacist extremism as the most dangerous terror threat to national security.
	Right?
	That's not your job.
	You are not the CIA. You are not the FBI. You are there to list them, not to stop them.
	But I like the way that you've decided on which one you think is the most dangerous, and now you need to sort of kind of gerrymander the statistics.
	So it's like, right, okay, we're going to move that into column B, so we'll just consider that all there.
	And then, oh, look at that!
	White supremacy is the most important thing.
	Don't worry about the rest of it, because that's in the special category that we actually don't look at.
	So it's like, I said earlier, but the equivalent of the UK, Islamist terrorism is the number one threat in the UK. They make up all the prescribed groups.
	You just look at the list yourself.
	But we do have far-right groups.
	So it would be like saying, right, we're not going to list white terrorism in the UK, you know, white separatist terrorism, because Islamic terrorism is the main threat.
	That's how pathetic what they're doing is.
	Yeah, you wouldn't want that.
	They're also going to say that the black separatist listing created a colour of lines bias, separating hate and extremism by race.
	Well, that's what they're doing, the people you're describing, you idiots.
	you idiots, and granting the appearance of a false equivalency between equal hate of race on both sides.
	So the idea that a black separatist and a white separatist are similar.
	Yeah, they are.
	How are they not?
	So they say, the hate is not equal.
	Black separatism was born out of a valid anger against a very real historical and systemic oppression.
	So it came when we do it.
	Got it.
	Yeah.
	That's special pleading.
	But then what?
	Like, I just turned around.
	Like, my government in the UK, if you apply for the diversity internship that the civil service runs, government run, they have a discrimination there on the basis of being white.
	They will rank you lower.
	You cannot apply.
	So you have to be disabled or something.
	But if you're black or brown skin, you can apply without being disabled.
	Well, okay, if I set up a white separatist group in the UK now, the SPLC will back me, presumably.
	That's what they're saying.
	But the thing is, like, the fact that they're giving the reason, right?
	It's like, oh, well, it's born out of valid anger against very real historical and systemic oppression.
	Well, that's a subjective judgment.
	That's if you feel that this is valid, then okay.
	But, I mean, the white nationalists, the white separatists, would surely be like, well, we think that we're valid as well.
	And anyone who's sympathetic to us would obviously say, well, they're valid...
	And so you've got no objective standard, so you can't apply the principle equally.
	So they're literally just saying, we're going to do it one way, and we don't care, and the other way, and we don't care.
	It's not fair.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	So they then go on to say that part of the reason for this is that we don't live in a black supremacist society, but we do live in a white supremacist society, according to them.
	Therefore, this is fine, but it doesn't make any sense.
	And then they admit, yes, some black nationalists have committed violence against Jewish communities, but those are fuelled by anti-Semitism, not separatism.
	I'm not sure about that.
	What's the difference?
	Are they saying, okay, we want Jews around, but we just want to be able to bully them?
	Is that what they're saying?
	It's not separatism, but it is anti-Semitism.
	Wanting separation from a society that has historically and systematically oppressed black communities isn't extremism.
	That's a direct quote.
	Okay.
	So if you are a racial group being oppressed, you're allowed to argue for separation, and the SPLC is like, that's not even extremist.
	Not even not, it shouldn't be illegal.
	It's a moderate centrist position.
	That's a centrist position now.
	The black identity extremists are centrist.
	I didn't realize JREG was running the SPLC. So they then want more accurate representations of what these groups are.
	Black separatist groups earn their place amongst our hate listings, not for their calls for separatism, Because that's fine.
	But rather for how entrenched these groups are in anti-Semitic, anti-LGBTQ, misogynistic, xenophobic rhetoric.
	How is it you've found yourself defending anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-woman, xenophobic terror groups, SPLC? When you're in defence of these groups, maybe you've done something wrong.
	Maybe you've made a bad decision.
	Going forward, groups formerly designated as black separatists will be characterized by anti-Semitism, anti-LGBTQ, male supremacy, and whatever additional ideological categories most accurately describe their offending beliefs.
	We don't like what they think.
	Okay, gotcha, SPLC. Because that's an acceptable political bigotry to hold.
	This has harmful effects on other marginalized groups, such as queer and trans people, for the last bit.
	Again, no mention of that.
	As long as we're getting to the real victims.
	And they do mention, and I do want to say that their focus on anti-Semitism and these other groups is not unjustified.
	They mention the Nation of Islam's leader, Louis Farrakhan, saying that he's not an anti-Semite, he's just anti-termite.
	His quote, YouTube, not me.
	And then, you know, various other things.
	But...
	The main point for me here is that if someone is attacked for being white, the SPLC thinks that's fine.
	They don't care.
	They're explicitly saying that here.
	But if you're attacked for being a Jew or being gay, then they care.
	Because it's the intersectional paradigm.
	It's all couched in the language of power relations.
	And so if you are a white supremacist society, you're a dominant white society, then therefore they are de facto definitionally the oppressors, and any minority is definitionally Oppressed.
	But this is something you've been saying and anti-progressives have been saying for 10 years.
	Yeah.
	This is what we think they believe.
	They're honestly like this.
	Yes.
	And everyone's sort of been able to bat it off like, no, but they do say they're just anti-hate.
	They are now explicitly stating it.
	If someone commits a hate crime against someone who is white, not a hate crime.
	In fact, not even extremism.
	A moderate centrist position to do this.
	Wow.
	And I just wanted to give some quick examples of moderate centrist positions according to the SPLC. So we'll just start with the shooting of Dallas police officers.
	So...
	Oh, yeah?
	Wasn't this guy a Young Turk subscriber?
	I think he might have been, yeah.
	So get this up.
	This is a Guardian article reporting.
	I'm just going to use leftist outlets because, you know, I want to remember how pathetic our enemies are here, the left-wingers.
	Like, they'll try and cover this up any time they can.
	So this is 2016, they admit that he wanted to kill white people.
	So he spoke about wanting to kill especially white officers.
	The police gave evidence to this.
	He also liked on Facebook black nationalist organizations such as the New Black Panther Party, Nation of Islam, and Black Riders Liberation Army, three groups which are listed by the SPLC as hate groups.
	But not because they hate white people, because they're anti-Semitic.
	So he killed five cops, injured nine other cops, and injured two civilians.
	But you'll notice that the groups are listed by the SPLC as hate groups in this article.
	And that's something that happened in 2016.
	Yeah.
	And now the SPLC have changed their policies, so they're no longer hate groups.
	And then they're just covering up their tracks for the future crimes that will be committed.
	The next one is just Fox reporting on the famous video of a disabled white kid, I think it was 18 actually, who was kidnapped and then tortured.
	And this was live streamed on Facebook.
	And they were yelling F Donald Trump.
	F white people.
	And this is Vox trying to cover for it.
	They were saying it looks like an anti-Trump attack.
	Not sure I'd phrase it as anti-Trump.
	Explained.
	And then it's like it could be a potential hate crime.
	You can literally hear in the video them saying F white people as they torture this guy.
	To some poor kid.
	So they were arrested, and they got- This was a brutal thing to watch as well, for anyone who didn't.
	Like, they're cutting his head and stuff like this.
	It's just awful.
	I have a description.
	The victim was bound, gag, beaten, taunted, and part of his scalp was removed with a knife.
	He was also forced to kiss the floor and drink from a toilet bowl.
	The attackers can be heard shouting F-Trump, F-White people.
	They forced the victim to say F-Trump once, and once the perpetrators contacted the victim's mother, they demanded a $300 ransom for her son.
	Although the Facebook live stream only lasted 28 minutes, the victim was tied for hours.
	So this guy was tied up for hours.
	And they're so proud of what they did.
	They live streamed it to Facebook.
	Yeah, they wanted praise for this.
	Amazing.
	Thankfully, they were arrested.
	They all accepted a plea of guilty on the basis that they had kidnapped someone and they had committed a hate crime.
	So this is a hate crime.
	Fox.
	Potential.
	They got three years, seven years, and eight years, and the other one got 200 hours community service.
	And then the last one here I wanted to talk about was another shooting.
	So this is the Guardian trying to cover up for it again, saying it was described as an anti-weight hate crime, but the truth is complicated.
	Well, no, it's not, because we have the admittance from the guy who did it.
	Liars.
	So this guy shot four white people to death on the basis that he wanted to kill white people.
	He took a stand and testified that he already knew he was wanted for one murder, so he might as well take down as many white men as possible.
	That's not a hate crime, according to the Guardian.
	That's complicated.
	Yeah.
	There's a lot to discuss here, you see, says the Guardian.
	Part of this attack, he ran over to a truck driver, and upon noticing the truck driver was described as Hispanic, he decided not to shoot him.
	Okay, so what was the basis for this crime?
	Yeah, well, it's obviously race.
	And then he's also quoted here saying, all I know was that white supremacy has to die, and the people who benefit most from white supremacy are white men.
	So he went out to kill white men.
	So he's convicted of four murders, four attempted murders, and got life in prison.
	But I noticed again here, Mohammed's social media posts made multiple references to terms used by the Nation of Islam, a black separatist organization labeled as a hate group from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
	This is them.
	This is the reason, I reckon.
	They're getting embarrassed that every time a BLM or an anti-white terrorist attack takes place, they're getting name-dropped as the ones criminalising him and proving that it's anti-white.
	Oh, it's very un-progressive.
	They're embarrassing the progressive movement.
	They are.
	So now they're scrubbing the idea that there's any such thing as black nationalism or black separatism.
	It's all just Black Lives Matter, you see, folks.
	It's all just civil rights all the way down.
	We swear.
	Hmm.
	Anyway.
	Right, okay, yeah, let's read some comments.
	So we've got, obviously, if you're a member of Logistics.com, you can leave a comment on the webpage where we're streaming to the website, and we're going to read them out, preferencing them over Super Chats.
	Fenric Holiba says, Unbelievable why they cancel so many people.
	Is $1 not worth the same to them, regardless of whether it comes from a Democrat or Republican?
	I can't believe big corporations find it this easy to say no to money.
	Well, I mean, it's going to hurt them in the long run, as everyone obviously can work out.
	But Zen Chan says, Carl, I remember years ago you said that you believed, and I'm paraphrasing here, EU politicians were bad people because they were childless.
	I don't think they're bad because they're childless.
	I think they have a different set of interests to people who have children, and therefore they take on a different perspective on the world.
	And they tend to project these sort of parental feelings on, well, minority groups, frankly.
	Do you still believe this?
	I think it's an unfair judgment to make.
	Well, no, not really.
	I mean, go back 20 or 30 years, and it would have been impossible to be a politician if you didn't have a family.
	Because obviously families are going to be looking at you going, why would I vote for someone who's not going to be voting in the interest of their family, and therefore the shared interest that we would have there?
	Interest after their death.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Concern about what comes after the death.
	And no, I think that's a fair judgment to make.
	I think it's...
	An important thing, so many European leaders are childless, and look at the decisions that they're making.
	The decisions are terrible.
	But it's not that they're bad people because they're childless.
	They're bad politicians that they're childless.
	Robert Evans says, I've become concerned with the left's ability to successfully co-op language.
	Words like equality, inclusivity, and diversity no longer mean what they used to mean when in common parlance.
	How can we combat this when language we use heavily influences our thought processes?
	Should we create new terms to mean what those words originally meant, or try and revert them back to the original definitions?
	Says Rob Evans.
	Right, this is actually something I'm doing a lot of work on, just like, you know, privately, like, studying, really.
	And it's something we've, I think we've done a premium podcast talking about something similar to this, haven't we?
	Have we not done it?
	I'm trying to remember.
	Okay, so if we haven't done it, I've been meaning for us to do it.
	But there is much to be said about the concept of evaluative language.
	And you'll notice that almost everything that the...
	Every time the left tries to describe a situation, they're effectively trying to devalue what has happened in the situation.
	So they'll try and use language that doesn't contain within it a moral judgment.
	For example, words like courage and cowardice.
	They describe something that has happened, but they also have a moral evaluation packaged into them.
	And you'll notice that these terms have fallen out of favour.
	And it's quite a big thing that we'll do a podcast on.
	For anyone who doesn't know, I think your best example that made me understand this was that speech was at King Henry V. If it is our destiny to die here, it's part of the speech.
	You can see destiny.
	Like, you don't get to get all of this.
	There's a will behind it, right?
	There's an intention.
	Whereas a non...
	Scientific, sort of, valueless language.
	Whereas in scientific language you'd say, if we die here.
	Yeah, exactly.
	If we were to die here.
	Could be, couldn't be.
	But there's a lot that's packaged into this, and it's something I'm going to...
	We'll do a podcast, a premium podcast on it at some point, when I'm prepared to fully articulate the thoughts that I have on this.
	But yeah, the battle is being waged in the realm of language, and so it can only be won in the realm of language.
	And so you are right.
	We have to know exactly what we're saying.
	This is why the definition of woman is actually such a surprising vulnerability for the left.
	And it's interesting how it was a massive vulnerability for the people they were attacking using this method.
	But it's also a really easy thing to flip around if you can just get them to sit down and have a conversation about it.
	Because the question is, like, oh, well, are trans women and women?
	It's like, okay, well, what is it about your reality you're trying to describe?
	Like, if I want to say, right, you know, if I want to use a word to describe a table, then what I'm doing is trying to describe something that, you know, has four legs and has a flat surface upon which you can place objects, right?
	And we use the word table for that.
	And so if you go, right, yeah, this chair is a table, I'd be like, okay, well, That doesn't perform the same function.
	What aspect of reality are you trying to describe?
	And why are you trying to make this be the same as that, right?
	But anyway, I'm not going to care I'm going into it.
	More things for another time.
	Can we talk about how Sadiq Khan will be the unelected caliph of Londonistan for a year because of his postponed election?
	Our democracy is sacrificed on the altar of the coup.
	Also, please set up a Facebook group for us to stockpile spicy memes of mass destruction for the second meme war.
	Recon Meemster.
	We have various Facebook groups, like the Liberalist Facebook groups.
	I don't know if we want a lot to see someone.
	I haven't thought about it really.
	But yeah, Sadiq Khan postponed the London elections, because apparently that's within his power, to just by fiat say, okay, well, because there's a disease, we're not going to have elections.
	And that just happens to benefit me, the guy who's postponing the elections.
	Michael Grzbalski, I think?
	Gina Carraro got cancelled by Twittermob for daring to mock pronouns in the Twitter bio.
	Then she did the unbelievable.
	Didn't kneel down before the Twittermob.
	Now she lost her contract with Disney Star Wars.
	That's correct.
	Nicholas Malson.
	Hello, folks.
	Not sure if you see this because you're having quite a few technical issues today.
	Earlier this week, you said you're into elevator music.
	What?
	No, I didn't.
	You said your elevator music was particularly good, the intro music.
	Oh, right.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Are you into Muzak and Vaporwave as well?
	No.
	I'm not.
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	No, I don't think I'm into those things.
	Also, how about instead of using the term chest milk, we start using the saying ribcage milk?
	I mean, everyone has a ribcage, right?
	God, these people make everything more difficult than things already are.
	Hemi Eventide says, As a way to prevent corruption of government officials, how about this idea?
	We raise their base salary to make the job that pays great, but as long as you represent the people, your right of privacy is suspended until your term is over.
	Pair that with a robust surveillance system.
	I mean, that's actually one of the things that happened in Britain recently.
	MP's salaries went up, but their expenses went down, because obviously it was like, well, they're claiming a lot of things on expenses, and...
	It's probably safer to just give them a bit more money and then take that away from them.
	Yeah, it's pretty awful.
	Boris came out yesterday and told everyone that holidays are illegal, because they are illegal.
	This hasn't gone through the Parliament.
	This isn't something that is...
	It's just by fiat.
	Everything is done by fiat now, and we just expect to comply, and the worst part is that everyone is complying.
	I don't know.
	The thought is that children might be able to go back to school on March the 8th, which would be, oh, thank you, thank you, like Lord Boris, for giving us the possibility of hope that in the future maybe our kids won't be confined to their houses and deprived of an education.
	Thank you so much.
	I know you're just sick of talking about it, but it's It's awful.
	I'm worried about the guy.
	Like, don't take the first drink is all I could think of as advice.
	Yeah, don't drink.
	Don't drink.
	It's just...
	If you're an alcoholic, it's not worth trying.
	No.
	And Mike DeJesus sends a $50 super chat.
	Thank you very much.
	They make us Q look like crazies for a reason.
	The shaman was a plant, a viking with devil horns.
	We understand the importance of optics and symbolism.
	Good versus evil.
	You awake is their greatest fear.
	Why go after us hard?
	Don't look here.
	It could well be.
	I mean, I'm just sick of hearing from the QAnon shaman.
	QAnon shaman isn't getting his vegan meals in prison.
	I don't give a damn.
	Well, I want to hear from him.
	I don't want to hear about him.
	I don't even know if I want to hear from him.
	He's not anyone important as far as I'm concerned.
	No, I just find it funny because he's obviously nuts.
	I want to hear about the sex trafficking that's been going on and people getting arrested for that.
	Who killed Jeffrey Epstein?
	What's Ghislaine Maxwell doing?
	Why can't we hear from these people?
	But anyway, let's go for a few more.
	I rate this podcast 1776 burgers out of 1984.
	Well, thank you very much, Richard Wald.
	I appreciate that.
	That's a lot of burgers.
	Man, I haven't had a burger in so long.
	I Wanted RN says, thoughts on the COVID-19 vaccine certificates?
	EU and Australia have announced you'll likely need one to access certain services and venues, including travel and others.
	Doesn't this violate medical privacy?
	Well, yeah, it's just obvious tyranny.
	It seems to be a form of social credit score.
	I don't know why anyone would want to agree to this.
	This is evil.
	Didn't we have a debate about this?
	Like, I'm in favour of it, but for very specific reasons.
	Yeah, which is wrong.
	Yeah, well, go back to the episode and see the debate, I guess.
	Yeah, you can see Callum lose a debate.
	The engaged few.
	I hope Cruise sues AOC for libel and she has to start an OnlyFans channel to pay for the damages.
	She would make a lot of money, I imagine.
	Gareth Green says, I made it to the start at last.
	Oh, hello.
	Anthony Willis says, Commander Cody, the time has come.
	Execute podcast 66.
	Dan Cruddy says, Where's my trans beef, bacon and cheese burger shirt?
	That's a good question.
	We do need to get our merch store sorted.
	Sho Seguno says, Trump buys Pearl Milling Company, renames it Aunt Jemima.
	Cheers from the Isle of Lucy.
	Yeah, well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	So the brand of some sort of syrup?
	Oh, Aunt Jemima, yeah.
	It's an American thing, and it had a black woman on, and the progressives were like, yikes.
	Now they've got rid of the black woman.
	That has to go.
	So racism has ended, boys.
	That's how that works.
	We've deplatformed an image of a black woman, and now they've got to the point where they're not even going to use the name Aunt Jemima.
	I mean, that is the woke solution.
	Where there are no minorities left, racism will have gone.
	Well, yeah.
	So, good reason to avoid it, if anything.
	Just destroying representation.
	Alexander Cross, last day on YouTube, lads.
	Going gold and never looking back.
	Thank you very much, sir.
	Jack Kinov, do you agree with James Lindsay that we've lost the war?
	I mean, it certainly looks that way, doesn't it?
	Not to be too pessimistic about it, but they do control everything.
	I mean, what is it that they don't control at this point?
	So they've got the US government, they've got Silicon Valley, they've got Hollywood, they've got the video game industry, they've got unions, they've got schools, universities.
	Guns.
	The NRA is something they don't control?
	They don't have enough guns.
	Yeah, okay, they don't have the majority controlling share of guns, that's something.
	But they do happen to be in control of the US Army.
	No, but I mean the gun community at least.
	Yeah.
	The gun community is Republican.
	That's agreed.
	But that's it.
	Isn't it?
	Pubs?
	I feel like we're going to be having a long time trying to think of stuff.
	In this country, the left may as well control them because they've been shut down.
	Which is their position.
	Shut things down that aren't our things.
	So, I mean, the left just controls everything.
	It's actually quite staggering, really.
	James Lindsay's not wrong.
	cough Excuse me.
	Sam J says, "Giving some dollary-do's to remind you the best 40k faction is the Death Guard.
	Get you some of Papa Nurgle's koof." Well, I mean, changed my mind, basically.
	My first Chaos Army was a Nurgle army.
	Well, it's our pleasure, honestly.
	It's just someone in the chat.
	I will go to the one place that hasn't been corrupted by leftism.
	Space!
	That's what Elon Musk is doing.
	He's like, you know, we won't be governed by Earth laws.
	It's like, what you mean is we won't be governed by leftist laws.
	Matt Streetman, YouTube is hiding this podcast.
	Had to search for your channel directly to even get it to show up.
	It might have been a technical glitch on our end, to be honest.
	Mastercard just announced they would be accepting crypto, apparently, so breaking news.
	But will they be accepting Dogecoin?
	But Mastercard also deplatforms people on the regular.
	Yeah, so it's not exactly a good thing.
	Anyway, CEO of Gab is testing physical hardware for Gab apps, and I want to buy and send these to as many folks as possible to support the First Amendment.
	You guys accept gifts?
	Yeah, I guess we do.
	Right?
	There's nothing wrong with that, as far as I'm aware.
	Trebaceous T says, do they think that 1940s people woke up and felt anti-Semitic one day?
	No, it happened because of hatred built over years.
	Like, wow, like now, as Gina is trying to say.
	Yeah, and, like, it's not wrong.
	Censorship just doesn't solve anything.
	It really doesn't.
	An honest conversation solves things.
	And no one can have an honest conversation.
	Wolfgang Deo.
	My ISP is preventing me from accessing the website, but I can stay here on YouTube where filters are.
	I can load the site on my phone, not on my computer, though.
	Right, okay.
	Can you send us a screenshot?
	Yeah, send us a screenshot to...
	We're aware.
	We're aware.
	Is it something we can fix?
	Right, devs are working on it, apparently.
	Shadow Rodney, oof, what happened with the stream at 2?
	Welcome back, Commander.
	Welcome back, WAG. Callum, orcs, orcs, orcs.
	Yeah, we don't know, just a bit of a technical glitch.
	I think we've got it figured out.
	RandomGameVids says, on the burger scale, where does pineapple double egg burger with daddy's sauce lie?
	Quite high, to be honest.
	I'm pretty hungry.
	PW says, so everyone that's ever used SEO techniques should now be removed by Google for manipulating search results.
	Yes.
	I mean, there's an industry that's built around improving your Google rankings that Google have just, like, outlawed.
	So, bad luck.
	Gareth Green, why do I always miss the opening?
	I don't know.
	Larry Romano says, a Disney statement on Gina makes sense if you take a comparison between American conservatives and Jews as derogatory to Jews.
	Yeah, it's not, though.
	It's stupid.
	Free speech is not to be abridged.
	Abridge my speech to my face, I dare you.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Claire DeLuna says...
	Sent these the wrong order, apparently.
	Can we scroll up a bit?
	I think Claire's sent us first right.
	Gina's tweet, Jews were...
	Oh, right, here are the tweets.
	Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers, but by their neighbours, even by children, because history is edited.
	Most people today don't realise that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbours hate them for simply being Jews.
	How is that any different to hating someone for their political views?
	Exactly correct.
	Perfectly salient.
	Yeah, so she wasn't even comparing it to the Holocaust.
	She was just making the point that you have to make people hate their neighbours.
	Yes, and if they do, then they're going to cooperate with the genocidal government, and so all you need now is a government that seems to have, oh, I don't know, an animated will against MAGA and wants to do something about it, you know?
	media is a human right then does that mean that jack does not see the opposition as human uh yeah yeah if if trump doesn't have a right to his twitter account then jack doesn't believe that trump is human the google rules will only be used as a tool of war against the deplorables as they view it remake the world by removing diversity of thought Yes, that's exactly what's going to happen.
	I think the issue is Cloudflare.
	It's based in Los Angeles, the city of demons.
	Could be.
	I think it's all part of a kind of, just a culture that just has this animating belief.
	Yeah, this was Jessica Yaniv, who appears to be an obvious troll.
	Yeah, I don't think that's new then.
	I thought that was kind of old, to be honest.
	Yeah.
	I guess the court case finally ended, so good for reality.
	Excuse me.
	Mike DeJesus says, I've been on the ride since I was 14, now turning 20.
	Gamergate, every day I continually get surprised by the sheer stupidity of the people in charge.
	I think that we need to start considering it's not stupidity, it's actually malice.
	especially when it comes to people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
	Wolfgang Deo, let's get those people to speak on their oath.
	Bring in the Donald into the perjury trap and have him say nothing, just smile.
	Rudy Rhodes, Brandenburg test.
	The two-part legal standard to be met has yet to be satisfied with the evidence presented by the Dems.
	I doubt they can even do that.
	But they can't even do the basics at the moment.
	No.
	Their position is terrible.
	Mr.
	Fantasmic says one of the managers is Jamie Raskin.
	I used to live in his constituency.
	We talked about him earlier, didn't we?
	He represents the D.C. suburbs of Maryland.
	His constituents are lobbyists.
	Of course they are.
	Wolfgang Deo again.
	Trump's 2020 investigation cost barely anything to the government and uncovered more volunteers, yet Pelosi's 2016 investigation was a farce.
	Shaker Silver says, not fair, Carl.
	They totally found Russian interference.
	Those small troll farms that made Facebook ads definitely stole dozens of votes from Hillary.
	Yes.
	But that was actually the evidence for people who don't remember.
	Yes.
	I remember watching it on TV where, you know, mainstream media were trying to convince the public, at least in Britain, that look at this, these Facebook posts were made.
	And it was like the most boomer thing you've ever seen.
	Like Satan and Jesus are like ladies, Hillary and Trump.
	And these are made in Moscow.
	I was like...
	Yeah, it's not convincing anyone.
	You can look at the numbers.
	They had three likes.
	This is not news.
	We're running over time, of course, as usual, so we'll wrap up in a minute.
	They're trying to get Trump of the Chewbacca defense.
	That's a family guy joke, but I can't remember what it was exactly.
	Helen Herbert says, the U.S. judicial system requires establishing jurisdiction first, and that's why the first day was to establish constitutionality.
	It's not supposed to be a review of the material claims.
	Yeah, I appreciate that.
	Yes, it was just kind of boring.
	Yeah, and it wasn't brilliant, frankly.
	Wolfgang again, one of the parties in this republic is fundamentally broken and advocating antithetical ideologies.
	There, I fixed Vox's rubbish burger.
	Man, it really is true that Americans measure everything in burgers.
	But you're completely right, though.
	Completely right.
	And now it's not just the quantity of the burger, it's the quality of the burger that we're talking about.
	I like it.
	You should make this a new rule for every American super chat.
	Yeah.
	Mr.
	Fantasmic, in theory, impeachment bars you from holding federal office in the future.
	In practice, Democrat Alice Hastings is an impeached federal judge and is sitting in the House right now.
	Yeah, I saw this.
	She was impeached like two decades ago or something.
	And it's like, well, we don't care.
	And we'll go for the last one from Sadwings Raging.
	Isn't it fringe to not comply or accept unity with these lunatics?
	Sorry, it isn't fringe to not comply or accept unity with lunatics.
	I do not compromise with Pravda.
	Yeah, well, debunk.
	Anyway, thank you everyone for joining us.
	If you would like more content from us, you can go to lowseas.com.
	See that one.
	I was watching the other day with my three-year-old in the room.
	He looked up on the screen, saw Callum and said, I don't want to watch Mr.
	Rogers.
	Thanks for afraid of swearing in front of him.
	How am I Mr.
	Rogers?
	I don't even know, because it's not really a cultural reference I get, because we didn't have Mr.
	Roger.
	I'm going to swear next time.
	Thanks for joining us, everyone.
	We'll be back tomorrow at the same time, of course, to cover more of the collapse of Western civilization.
	But in the meantime, if you want more from us and the more nourishing content, it's on lowseas.com.
	It's premium content that we do.
	The Christopher Hitchens podcast is up.
	Over the weekend, we'll be publishing Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, our podcast on that, the book club on that.
	It's a very, very good book club that myself and Hugo did.
	Really enjoyed it, and I think you'll get a lot out of it.
	It's a really positive and empowering way of looking at the world, which is one of the reasons we covered it.

▲