Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 16, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:41

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #69

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Tuesday, the 16th of February 2021.
	I'm John McCallum, but before we begin, I have been instructed by our news team to let you all know that we do staggeringly good coverage of current events on LotusEats.com because apparently they keep getting messages going, Oh God, I didn't realize that all this great stuff was here because apparently we're not advertising it well enough.
	And so I have been instructed that I must do so.
	They are doing really great work, and we are actually expanding the news team because people, thankfully, keep signing up on LotusEaters.com and keeping us going, keeping us in a job.
	And it means we can expand the team and continue to provide more coverage.
	We're actually going to be working on a kind of a swift news delivery system at some point as well, so that should be really useful.
	It's not going to be there for a while, but hopefully in a month or so we'll have that all set up.
	But definitely go over there and check that out.
	And we're also, like I said, we're expanding.
	And we're looking to recruit video creators, people who can create video content.
	So what we're looking for, ideally, is charismatic political wonks who have inquisitive minds and are looking to go out and find things they want to talk about and share with other people.
	So if you think that applies to you, you can email us at contact at lotuses.com and send through some video links of things that you've done so we can check you out.
	Anyway, let's talk first about the rather tepid conservative pushback against woke.
	This is in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement still ravaging the political environment in Britain despite there being no, well, moral legitimacy for Black Lives Matter here because...
	From the data that we have, black people are not being systematically oppressed by the police.
	If that crown goes to anyone, that's the working class white people of the United Kingdom that take that crown.
	But anyway, this was interesting in many ways, and many of them seem to be revolving around identity, because earlier this month, about a week ago in fact, not even a week ago, there was, I don't know, I don't follow rugby, right?
	So I don't know what the Six Nations is, I don't know when it's played, I don't know who's involved, and so total noob, and I'm sure you do, I mean, you give me the look, do you know?
	I mean, guess.
	Well.
	Which Six Nations on Earth play rugby?
	I don't know.
	Well, where do you live?
	England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales.
	Yeah, okay, never mind.
	France, Germany?
	I'm actually trying to remember.
	Oh, see, you don't even know.
	New Zealand and Australia.
	Oh, New Zealand and Australia.
	Right, okay.
	Right, so these six nations were having a rugby tournament, which sounds like great fun, and the Irish and Welsh rugby players decided they would refuse to take a knee.
	All of them.
	And this was in the Irish Post.
	Not one Ireland player decided to take the knee.
	Good.
	As both teams lined up for their first six rounds of nation clash, the obligatory anti-racism message came over the Tannoy system.
	However, notably, every single Irish player and Welsh player remained standing, and this comes following the scrutiny of England and Scotland after 14 of the 30 players who lined up refused to take the knee, so 16 of them did take the knee, embarrassingly enough.
	Obviously, some people view the gesture of kneeling to be an endorsement of the left-wing values promoted by Black Lives Matter as the Irish Post report, which is, yes...
	Being told it's Italy and France.
	Is it?
	It's me, copper.
	I don't know.
	But the point is, politics gets everywhere, even in spheres of life that we're not interested in.
	And so we want to let you guys know that you are totally justified in not taking the knee, because as they say here, well, people are seeing it as an endorsement of the left-wing values of Black Lives Matter.
	That's a tepid way of putting Marxist subversion of Black Lives Matter, which it was, founded by, as they say, quote, doctrinaire, or was it trained Marxists?
	So yeah, it's absolutely a thing that you can do.
	But I love the way they say it, rather than simply the values of anti-racism, it's like, What's that a cover for?
	Like, just not being racist is anti-racism as far as I'm concerned, but active anti-racism just seems like a Marxist way of attacking the situation.
	It's only because that's how all the Marxists define themselves.
	Yeah, it seems to be a dog whistle for the Marxists.
	But yeah, so you had one England star called Billy Vinnie Polar who refused to take a knee, criticised Black Lives Matter for burning churches and Bibles, and Yeah, I mean, I didn't even know they'd burn churches and Bibles, to be honest.
	Well, yeah, I'm not saying they wouldn't.
	I'm just saying I didn't know about it.
	You know, I was only aware of the commercial damage that they had done.
	But he said what I said in terms of that movement was not aligned with what I believe in, which is totally reasonable.
	And the Scottish coach, Gregor Townsend, said he 100% backs his players' decision not to kneel.
	And the Rugby Football Union...
	Don't even know what that is.
	Has similarly backed the freedom of Weatherton or not to take the knee, and the Scottish Rugby Union also did the same.
	They just came out and, I mean, presumably sweating, like, you know, looking nervous in the light of the media or like, we back our players' decision to have their own political opinions?
	Don't shoot us!
	They were like, look, we fully support rugby's ongoing work to end racism and discrimination in our sports.
	This is the role of rugby.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Now's the time.
	Thank you for defeating racism, Scottish Rugby Union.
	What are garbage collectors doing to deal with racism?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Nothing, as far as I'm aware.
	They're probably pro-racism.
	Definitely pro-racism.
	The absurdity of, like, every individual thing has to be...
	Mackerel fishers off the coast of Scotland have done nothing against racism.
	This is disgraceful.
	Clearly an endorsement of white supremacy.
	But yeah, so it's interesting how kind of libertarian, like their viewers on this, like, well, we're not going to get involved.
	I mean, to be fair, I think what they could do is just come out and say, look, we disapprove of political statements in what is meant to be a competitive sports match, because just now isn't the time and the place, and that's not what this is about.
	Yeah.
	But yeah, and so you may remember, what was it, a couple of weeks ago that Boris had to answer the question, was Joe Biden woke?
	And his answer was, well, I mean, it wasn't terrible, but it's just kind of weak.
	Yeah.
	I'm of the opinion it was.
	Saying there's nothing wrong with being woke in the middle of there.
	Maybe a misstep, but still.
	Yeah, I mean, he says there's nothing wrong being woke, but, and whenever you say but about something, what you're saying is actually what I just said wasn't true.
	So, but the point is, he should be aggressively attacking wokeism, but I've always said that.
	Yeah, he should turn around and be like, wokeism is racism and Joe Biden's not that or something, you know?
	To try and defend his position and the relationship.
	But there's no way that Joe Biden would be like, hey, wait a minute.
	I don't resemble that remark.
	You know, I'm totally woke.
	But he said, you know, I put myself in the category of sticking up for your history and traditions, which surely is just the bare minimum for the leader of the Conservative Party.
	I reluctantly put myself in the category of stick-up for our history.
	I guess you have no choice.
	Priti Patel had a firmer stance on this, which was good.
	Priti Patel denounced BLM as being just dreadful, which is a good start, when she condemned taking the knee against these protests.
	She said that she did not support the anti-racism protests that were sparked by the death of George Floyd.
	And she would not take a knee, which has been adopted by many sports stars and of the public figures as a con to the Independent.
	She got attacked by left-wing activists for saying this.
	And now, again, it should come as no surprise to anyone that conservatives, who should ostensibly be some brand of liberal, like an actual, you know, propertarian sort of base liberal, would look at communists, Marxists, that are using the term Black Lives Marxists, that are using the term Black Lives Matter to advance a distinctly anti-liberal agenda and say, well, look, I'm not for that.
	That should be no surprise whatsoever.
	In fact, every single one should be very vocal about this in the same way they should be like, yeah, I'm actually not in favor of setting up a caliphate either.
	I'm actually really against that.
	That goes against my values as a conservative.
	Weirdly enough, bringing on the new Soviet Union also goes against my values as a conservative.
	I know this is a controversial thing, This is, again, hopeful, you know?
	Yeah, I know.
	The way I see conservatives talk about Islam and, you know, Islamists.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It's very weird.
	Yeah, I know.
	I posted a meme to my Instagram the other day.
	It was Christian Bale in American Psycho, where, you know, he's like, you know, very impressive.
	And someone had modified to be impressive, very base.
	And I was just like, yeah, this is basically me whenever a conservative says something accidentally not Marxist.
	And that's how I feel about it.
	There's an emptiness in conservative thinking, frankly.
	Yeah.
	But anyway.
	British conservative thinking.
	British conservative thinking.
	American conservatives are actually much, much better in this regard.
	But Abba Amoa, who leads the action group Justice for Black Lives, said she felt upset by Miss Patel's comments.
	Oh, well, if Abba Amoa is upset, then bring on the communism.
	I don't want to upset this random race activist.
	She's busy grifting out here because she's black.
	I mean, she's upset that Priti Patel isn't going to let the grift go on.
	It's literally that meme of, like, here's 36 pictures of a brown child crying, therefore burn the Constitution.
	Yeah, don't worry about the borders, abolish the country.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Abolish individual rights, only race rights matter.
	Yeah, exactly.
	She says, it just shows how little change has come from last year, which is a shame.
	I think Priti Patel's comments were an attack on Black Lives Matter.
	I mean, she called you, what was it, a disgrace?
	A dreadful, sorry.
	And she said she totally opposes Black Lives Matter.
	Yes, they were an attack on Black Lives Matter.
	It really proves how our government is threatened by our political action.
	Yes, yes.
	A liberal government is threatened by a race uprising.
	That's correct.
	That's true.
	A communist race uprising is not what a liberal government wants.
	And then this is the best statement.
	The movement challenges the white supremacy, patriarchal, ableist capitalism of today by giving voice to black, brown, working-class Brits, and this is not what our government, particularly this conservative government, wants because of the threat to wealth and power.
	It's a threat to common sense and good governance as well, okay?
	There are other concerns, but I find it really interesting that two non-white women are busy having this argument about Black Lives Matter.
	And they're like, yeah, but the white supremacist capitalist patriarch is like, what the hell have we got to do with this, you know?
	We're all busy writing tax policy, I guess.
	Yeah, I guess so.
	But it's like, you know, she's like giving voice to brown women.
	Well, there's a brown woman who's like, shut up, go away.
	Yeah.
	But this is the thing.
	It's just progressive.
	Not even progressive.
	Intersectional buzzword bingo with these activists.
	And they get airtime, so we've got to cover it.
	But this has led The Guardian to start pushing back on the conservative war on woke.
	The white women are here to defend Black Lives Matter.
	Thank you, Gabby Hinslet, for your service.
	Without you, I don't know where Priti Patel would be.
	Presumably silenced, as you want all brown women to be, clearly.
	Just like this image of all these, like, left white women with clubs looking at the brown woman.
	The Indian women are like, actually, law and order is good, and the left white women are just like...
	The funny thing about this article, right, is that I had to go through it to extract what she was trying to say, because everything...
	She's got paragraphs, entire paragraphs, describing, like, a one-line example that you have to pick out, because the framing of it is as if all of this is either not happening or a good thing, really, right?
	So there's a crusade to stop historical statues being taken down if they cause a contemporary offence.
	That's a good thing.
	appointed to universities to fight back against the no platforming of speakers on ideological grounds that's a good thing uh oliver dowden the culture secretary would instruct heritage bodies and museums to defend our culture and history from a noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do britain down that's totally sensible you can see how far we've got to go down through the thing just to get those three lines right
	Because she's framing all of this as if there's something wrong with museums saying, actually, maybe we shouldn't burn down our own heritage.
	I mean, I know that we're just the museum where it's located, and that's our raison d'etre, but it just seems useful that we'll have something to display.
	But Gabby says, these attempts to breathe new life...
	Excuse me.
	These attempts to breathe new life into suspiciously old fights aren't merely about telling the Tory base what it wants to hear or distracting Tory backbenchers restless about the lifting of lockdown, though they usefully serve both purposes.
	They're also about trying to dictate the terms on which normal domestic politics might resume as the panic begins to recede.
	Pandemic, sorry.
	Old fights.
	These are old fights, are they?
	I mean, how old is old?
	This was last year.
	Six months ago.
	Like these old fights.
	Oh, don't worry about this, says Gabby.
	Provide diving in the way of Black Lives Matter so we don't...
	So Priti Patel doesn't continue to stomp on them.
	The last thing Keir Starmer wants ahead of May's election is a culture war.
	Well then, The Conservatives are doing the right thing, and should continue to prosecute this culture war.
	If the Guardian is like, yeah, no, don't do this, it's bad for Keir Starmer, then do it even more!
	Do it more and more and more!
	Make Keir Starmer get down on his goddamn bended knee again!
	And I love that picture of Keir Starmer on his bended knee, because he looks so angry about having to do it.
	Like, I'm so Keir Starmer, damn it!
	You know, why am I on my knee?
	But like he says, you know, dragging him into a damned if you do, damned if you don't position last summer where there was no conceivable stance on taking the knee or pushing statues into Bristol Harbour that could possibly please both millennial Labour voters at ease with contemporary identity politics and older, more socially conservative voters thoroughly exasperated by it.
	Well, given how the millennial Labour voters aren't really a very big voting bloc and tend to be unreliable voters at best, why wouldn't Keir Starmer go for the old...
	Socially conservative Labour voters.
	Why would he not?
	Again, the Conservative Party should be pushing all of these.
	Make Keir Starmer marry his young identity politician Labour voters.
	Make him, like, bring them in.
	Yes, you're Black Lives Matter.
	Make him defend these things.
	But anyway, I love the fact that Gabby is pretending as if the culture war isn't just raging across this country in all aspects.
	Like the rugby.
	They've got to sit there and talk about Black Lives Matter.
	Why?
	Football as well.
	Like, I was home for Christmas and I was watching football with my family.
	And we saw, like, the stands have Black Lives Matter written all over them.
	I was like, why?
	The obligatory anti-racist message is coming over the tannoy.
	It's like, oh, God.
	But that's only when the camera's near the goal, and when it's away from the goal where you can't see the message, they just bring up a little logo that says Black Lives Matter as well.
	It's so cringe.
	I couldn't stand watching it.
	Disgraceful, right?
	And so, like, the idea that Gabby can sit there and go, oh, well, I mean, no one's talking about culture, or the Conservatives just bringing this up out of nowhere.
	Gaslighting.
	Just pure leftist gaslighting and defensiveness because they know that they're really out in the open.
	They're quite exposed.
	I mean, it's everywhere, right?
	This is, again, just another one of those examples where the argument that they have just has no legitimacy about racist pubs, right?
	Pubs in England are racist.
	We'll go to the next one, John.
	It's not about the content of the pub.
	It's not about what happens inside the pub.
	No one's accusing them yet of being racist.
	Although, I don't doubt...
	The inanimate building is the problem.
	Yeah.
	It is actually the building that's the problem, yeah.
	It's not even the building, it's the name of the building that is the problem, right?
	Because I mean, I'm sure I probably could find articles saying, well, what goes on in these pubs is also racism, presumably.
	But this is the thing that reported the other day by BBC. Green King Black Boy Pubs renamed an anti-racist move.
	You know why, right?
	Is this to do with King Charles II? Maybe.
	No one knows.
	But it's assumed to be racism.
	I'm not even joking.
	So the pubs are called The Black Boy.
	Yeah, there are three pubs called The Black Boy.
	Now, a lot of pubs in England are very, very old.
	Like, unironically, like, predating the United States.
	And they come from much older traditions.
	Predating large amounts of black population within the UK.
	Or any black population.
	I mean, predating colonialism.
	Predating the discovery of the Americas.
	And the discovery of, like, Africa and things like this.
	Or, like, you know, the sub-Saharan Africa.
	So a lot of these things do not come from...
	And you get this in, like, the Viking sagas.
	We've got, like, half Dan the Black.
	everyone's like, oh, that must mean he had black stint.
	No, it means he's black hearted, or had black hair, or something like that, you know.
	We use black as a description to describe things that aren't skin colour, right?
	Like, there is a world outside of racial politics, folks.
	If you can believe it, you know.
	And we lived in that world for generations, thousands of years.
	But yeah, so one of them called The Black Boy and another called The Black's Head.
	The managing director said there was a perception that the names were, quote, linked with racism.
	Well, there's a perception.
	A perception in your own head that you've made up.
	Exactly.
	Well, yeah, the Marxists are made up.
	And Halima Begum of the Runnymede Trust welcomed the news.
	Yeah, exactly, right?
	Like, Halima Begum.
	Runnymede Trust.
	Yeah, Runnymede Trust.
	Opinion disregarded.
	Exactly.
	The Runnymede Trust is named after, of course, Runnymede, where the Magna Carta was signed.
	But it seems to be an explicitly anti-British organisation that is staffed by people like Halima Begum.
	Halima Begum.
	Who are glad that this is happening because these names, as she says, have been a continual reminder of a history of oppression.
	What, from King Charles II? I mean, okay, base.
	It's not about race as far as we can tell.
	So there are apparently about 70 pubs called the Black Boy in the UK, and there remains no consensus on where the name came from.
	Links to the mining industry and a nickname for King Charles II have both been cited as possibilities.
	But as you can see, these names go back a very long way.
	Another theory relates to Native American figures placed outside the premises sell tobacco, and no one knows.
	But, as they say, the perception is the names were linked with racism, which is why we knew we had to take the first step.
	We want to continue on our journey to become a truly anti-racist organization, said the owner of Green King.
	king and it's like you just have no cultural respect for this country at all do you you see the word blacking like dog whistle that means me it's like no it doesn't it actually doesn't mean you it actually really has nothing to do with you this the world doesn't revolve around you you are not the center of the universe actually we're not really interested in your opinion but i love the So they talked about if it's the mining industry.
	So the guys go down the mines, come back up, you'd be covered in soot.
	So you'd be blackface.
	And that has nothing to do with race.
	So opinion disregarded.
	You can't call it blackface because it's not deliberate.
	They don't want to be covered in coal.
	It's just coal.
	Yeah, you're mining all day.
	You've got no choice.
	The Choss, the second one I found interesting, because I got in an argument with someone.
	Because he had black hair, right?
	So there's an argument from the black nationalist that apparently when he was young, his skin used to look black as well, and therefore he got nicknamed as the black boy because of it.
	It's like, not sure that really makes sense, because I'm not sure how many black people were available in that sort of time period near England and France.
	1610?
	Not many.
	So not sure about that.
	But then it's like, well, if it's the black hair, again, who cares?
	Like, this doesn't make any sense.
	Yeah.
	I actually got in an argument with someone about this, and they were trying to argue he was black.
	I'm just like, here's all the paintings of him.
	Believe it or not, we actually have literally paintings that old in this country.
	It's like the Anne Boleyn thing, where they've cast a black actress, and it's like, okay, but we actually know exactly what she looked like.
	They accused me of showing propaganda when I showed the paintings.
	Because, you know, that was what was on their mind at the time.
	Yeah, we want to erase the black people.
	I've had these arguments like Edward the Black Prince, who's Edward the First, was it?
	I can't remember which one it was.
	But he fought in a bunch of battles in the Hundred Years' War in the 14th century.
	And why was he called the Black Prince?
	Because he had black armor.
	He painted his armor black because it was intimidating.
	That's it.
	It's not about race.
	It's kind of just not as exciting as the racial activists would want us to believe.
	Actually, it's kind of exciting to have a guy who's painted himself in black armor.
	Yeah, it's cool.
	I mean, he looked like, yeah, exactly.
	Terrifying on the battlefield.
	It's more interesting, to be honest.
	Yeah, I mean, he definitely was the terror of the French.
	He's just some black guy.
	I'm just like, okay, whatever.
	Yeah, it's not really very exciting.
	But, I mean, Edward the Black Prince, he was an absolute titan on the battlefield as well, so the French must have been terrified.
	So that's good.
	So we're not renaming that.
	No, we shouldn't.
	But this brings us nicely on to our next bit about the universities, doesn't it?
	Yeah, so I want to talk about the university in the UK. So I just wanted to comment because I've seen some people in the chat.
	This is podcast number 69, so obligatory.
	Nice.
	Nice.
	So the education minister, was it Gavin Williamson, if I'm getting that right?
	He's in a bit of a sore spot because he's been irritating people with the fact that he messed up, or at least they've perceived to have messed up the grades because of COVID. Yeah.
	But he's done something pretty good here.
	So this is something that's been brewing for a long time and has finally come down, which is that if a education institution like a university gets government funding, surely they should adhere to the principles of free speech.
	Yes.
	Because, okay, if you don't, well, then you're a private institution and acting like a publisher.
	We don't need to fund this then.
	And the Conservatives have been buckering around about what to do with this because universities in the UK have been terrible on this issue.
	Oh god, we're going to have to do something, but that means that the left are going to be angry with us.
	Oh god, what do we do?
	You tell them to get lost.
	They've actually done something, so they deserve the praise.
	A lot of them say things, like Priti Patel saying a thing, and I'm just like, I don't care.
	Like, do something, and then I'll be interested.
	Like, the rumours about her getting rid of hate speech laws.
	Do it, and then you get praise.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm going to get a soundboard and have non-stop applause if you got rid of hate speech laws.
	The first thing I wanted to show here was actually the BBC changed their headline.
	So this was the original headline I was going to show you.
	Free speech plan to tackle silencing views on university campuses.
	Sounds great.
	It sounds really positive.
	But that's also, you know, accurate reporting from the BBC, though, if they want to be neutral on that.
	They changed this because, of course, that wasn't good enough.
	So if we can get the change up, campus free speech champion and unnecessary bureaucracy.
	That's really ironic coming from leftists who love unnecessary bureaucracy.
	But also coming from the BBC, who has BBC Somalia and BBC Pigeon, of all things.
	If there's any unnecessary bureaucracy, it's you guys.
	The irony, we love unnecessary bureaucracy.
	What are you talking about?
	You ought to put a bureaucrat between every human interaction.
	But anyway, just the BBC being scumbags, nothing new there.
	So Gavin Williamson gave some good speeches on this.
	He was basically saying that there was a chilling effect on British campuses because of silencing of speakers, because of silencing by the student unions against faculty or staff.
	Yeah, okay, good.
	So he wanted to appoint a free speech champion.
	I don't know if it's paid or unpaid.
	I don't really care, to be honest.
	Make it paid.
	Make him hyper-libertarian.
	Hire some real far-right free speech extremists.
	Make sure they're making money.
	We need our own cathedral.
	Drag that money away from Black Lives Matter and give it to someone who's like, yeah, it's going to be mandatory for everyone to say the end word.
	No.
	Give it to someone sensible who's going to enforce liberal principles.
	Fine, fine.
	I was going to make a joke there, but I can't.
	So anyway, their role, the free speech champion from the government, would be to overlook universities when they are breaking these new rules they're going to bring in on free speech grounds.
	So whether they're no-platforming speakers on the basis that they're controversial, ooh, how scary, for adults at a university to deal with.
	Or if they're, you know, having rules against the academics and whatnot.
	So, I just want to read through this.
	So, the free speech condition placed on universities in return for being registered with England and being accessible to public funds.
	So, this is all in return for public funds.
	Yeah.
	So, this isn't, you know, if you want to set up a private university and ban every right winger, go for it and give it to us.
	Yes.
	Set up a right-wing university and ban every left of them.
	Go for it.
	It'd be very popular.
	It probably would, yeah.
	Universities would be legally required to actively promote free speech.
	Student unions would also have to take steps to ensure lawful free speech for members and visiting speakers.
	The Office for Students Regulator could fine institutions that breach the rules.
	So that's the mechanism.
	You break the rules, we're giving you public money.
	That's fine.
	You want to do that?
	Then you pay the fine.
	That's how this works.
	Yep.
	And people could seek compensation, so this is the academics, for if they go to court because they've lost their position through a free speech dismissal, so they've said something.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So some professor has been fired for opposing Black Lives Matter or whatever.
	Yeah.
	Their academic freedom, they're exercising it, and then they end up getting fired for it.
	Well, they will now be able to take the university to court and say, you did this, you broke the university guidelines, you have to pay me.
	Brilliant.
	Fine.
	Fine.
	I'm happy with that.
	That's a defense of academic freedom.
	That's a defense of free speech.
	Yeah, I mean, if the government has any role, I mean, the right to free speech is a God-given right, as an atheist, I'm going to use this language because it's...
	It's a natural right.
	Yeah, it is something you're born with.
	You can believe that evolution provided it with you, if you like, but the point is it's natural, it's inherent to you.
	And if the state has any role in society at all, it is to protect those natural rights.
	This is liberal theory 101.
	So simple.
	I'm glad the government have got that point.
	You could even take the Polish route and say, look, other people, social media, if you're going to deplatform British people, we're going to fine you for that because that's their rights you're infringing.
	They should.
	They should.
	They should expand it.
	But this is a problem that's been going on for a long time.
	So I want to go to the background of this, just so also people who are not British understand how bad it's gotten here.
	And then we'll get to the response from the leftist side.
	So this was ages ago, talking about Jermaine Greer, so 2015, five years ago now?
	I recall literally in 2014 making videos saying, Jermaine Greer is a lunatic who hates men and has all of these insane ideas.
	And then the very next year, I'm like, Jermaine Greer is unjustly deplatformed from these universities by even crazier people than her.
	Yeah, so the Students' Union's women's officer at the University of Cardiff said that Mrs.
	Greer's views towards transgender women were misogynistic.
	Misogynistic.
	The feminist is being misogynistic to transgender women.
	Love it.
	Love everything about it.
	You weaponise the term misogynistic a lot, Jermaine.
	What do you say to it now?
	But also, misogynistic towards trans...
	You know, I'm just going to leave it there.
	Everyone knows what's going on.
	And the university issued a statement saying, we in no way condone discriminatory comments of any kind.
	And then she was able to give the speech, and in the speech in which she gave, she condemned the university for being as weak as P-I-S-S. I don't know if that's a swear word.
	Which is good.
	But she's not wrong?
	She's off the, let's say, left-wing persuasion.
	She'd be centre-left or far-left, depending on your definition.
	Centre-left?
	She's one of the bra-burning feminists from the 70s.
	I don't know her views on economics and things.
	Oh, well, who cares?
	Like, on her gender politics, certainly she's a more extreme social.
	Yeah, insane radical leftist who thinks that the patriarchy's been holding her down, which is why she's become a rich, famous public figure.
	And you can see the BBC reporting this, and the next one is Peter Thatchell and The Guardian supporting him here.
	It's Thatchell.
	Tatchell, sorry.
	I want to talk to him at some point.
	He's a really interesting guy, even if he's a bit weird on some things.
	So he tried to give a speech and ended up getting deplatformed.
	So they successfully deplatformed him.
	And the union's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender representative said that she would not share a stage with a man who she regarded as being racist and transphobic.
	What had he done specifically to this?
	He had written a letter that said Jermaine Greer should be able to speak.
	LAUGHTER That's enough.
	And also, he actually supported the bakeries in the whole bake the cake debacle.
	So they, sure people know, but a gay man comes into a Christian bakery and says, give me a cake that says I love gay marriage.
	And the bakery was like, no, we're not doing that for Christian.
	Peter Thatcher was on their side because it's like, well, okay, if you want to take the stance that they're able to do that, why can I not walk into a Jewish bakery and demand that the Holocaust didn't happen on it?
	What's your basis here?
	Can I go to a Muslim bakery and have pictures of Mohammed ladened into the icing?
	I love the meme potential of this, to be honest.
	But that's the thing, I think that did actually end up passing.
	I think that might be law.
	Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No, no, they have to bake the cake.
	So, I mean, Tesco has the cake.
	Bake the Holocaust denial cake.
	Yeah, that's the position that we ended up in.
	Which, Peter Thatcher was on the right side of this.
	I totally agree.
	I mean, just to be clear, I don't think that anyone should be compelled into a contract.
	So it's like, you know...
	It's not like I'm not in support of gay marriage either.
	It's just, this is absurd that you should be forced to write things.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You shouldn't have to engage in a contract if you don't want to.
	And then there's another one here by The Guardian.
	So you might recognise this guy.
	Hope Not Hate.
	Nick Lowell's.
	I do recognise Nick Lowell's.
	Very famous for basically being a smear merchant who spends his time slandering people unjustly.
	To get them to be platformed.
	To get them to be platformed.
	And then tries to cover it up by correctly labelling people who are far right.
	And then it's like, oh look, I'm actually just labelling the far right, but he's not.
	He's actually using that as a front.
	Yeah, he'll tar people, well, like us, with the same brush as people like Atom Waffen and things like this.
	You know, it's Yeah, and it's an obvious smear job.
	I mean, they literally have a communist who runs their research.
	Like, a confessed member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.
	So I don't take their words seriously.
	But he was also a victim of deplatforming.
	You'll notice a theme here.
	You know, Guardian defending them, and they're all left-wing.
	So what do you reckon he was accused of?
	Grooming young boys?
	The opposite, actually.
	Really?
	So he was accused of Islamophobia.
	What?
	The opposite?
	I'll explain.
	So he issued a statement in here saying that it seems that the National Union of Students, black students, are opposing a plan to invite me to speak on an anti-racism platform because I'm Islamophobic.
	He confessed.
	It seems that some activists believe that I'm Islamophobic because I've repeatedly spoken against grooming and dared to condemn Islamist extremism.
	So him condemning grooming by Islamic groups is him being Islamophobic.
	Is that how this works, is it?
	I just find it interesting that this is a guy who will then turn around and smear people on the basis of saying the same things.
	Tommy, well, Lord Voldemort, yes.
	I mean, that's literally what Voldemort did.
	Nick spent as much time as he could denouncing and deriding Tommy and his supporters for exactly this.
	Honestly, you'd love to see it.
	I think there's some fair criticisms of Voldemort in the way he went about things, but there is the obvious thing here that no, the substance of both is condemning this action in different methods.
	But if that's just it, well then there's nothing wrong with what you said.
	Anyway.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, Nick.
	We agree.
	You did nothing wrong.
	In this case.
	In other cases, you're a dick.
	That's weird.
	So anyway, this is all left-wingers and The Guardian supporting it.
	And then all of a sudden, the narrative sort of started to change.
	So you saw that Boris Johnson got de-platformed.
	Because of his comments on Barack Obama.
	God, what did he say about Obama?
	He got invited to a debate about the EU, and they deplatformed because he had written in response to the Churchill bus being removed that this was a snub to Britain.
	Because of his Kenyan ancestry.
	Someone said it was part of his part Kenyan...
	Sorry.
	He said it was a symbol of the part Kenyan president's ancestral dislike of the British Empire.
	So...
	Boring, kind of.
	Because he is part Kenyan.
	He is, yeah.
	Okay, this is the thing.
	He's not African-American at all.
	No.
	He's got no relation to that.
	Yeah, he's not like black American, no.
	No.
	And then the narrative kept on going this way, which is suddenly it wasn't left-wing as being most persecuted, or at least gone after in this way.
	So Spikes.com released a new free speech ranking in which they ranked all the universities.
	And then the Telegraph went through the data and they found that about half of all universities were curbing free speech.
	So that's the next link, Times article.
	So this is in some way that we're instituting ridiculous rules.
	Yeah, I remember covering this at the time.
	So just some of the examples here of how weird the UK's system has gotten.
	So the University of Bristol had it so that speakers who came to the university must avoid needlessly provocative or offensive language.
	God, that sounds so dull, doesn't it?
	So all the conversations have to be monotone, I guess.
	And then the University of Warwick rules where the outside speakers must avoid insulting other faith groups.
	So you literally couldn't insult anyone on the basis of religion.
	And this led to an anti-Islamist who came there to give a talk about why she'd left Islam.
	And she was banned because she was insulting the Islamic groups.
	And you'll find that interesting also because it's not like they were writing that with the feelings of Catholics in mind, were they?
	No, no, no.
	Of course they weren't.
	Probably not Jews or Christians either.
	And then the Guardian switched their heels.
	So left-wing outlet saying that this was essentially a big myth that people were coming after free speech.
	Free speech warriors mistake student protest for censorship.
	So this is a vice-chancellor at the University of Sussex.
	Shut up, Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate.
	You're mistaking student protest for censorship.
	They're just protesting your Islamophobia.
	Exactly.
	Stop being such a bigot, Nick.
	So this is, the University of Sussex got a red rating from Spiked for being censorious, and in their response, there's just this amazing point here, the online magazine Spiked has over the years given Sussex its lowest free speech rating when our so-called crimes have been not allowing transphobic material in our teaching.
	It's like...
	Yes.
	Right, so you accuse them of saying you've got censorious practices, and to prove that you don't have that, you censor...
	You cite your censorious practices.
	Yeah.
	Absolute idiot.
	Moron.
	And then the next one here is just Jacob Rees-Mogg.
	You remember he tried to give a speech.
	Some people bust in.
	It was very British.
	And then our very own...
	Me.
	You.
	You as well.
	As the Times reported, alt-right speaker, which goes to show how bad the media is here.
	They have no idea what they're talking about.
	Yeah, they really don't.
	They just think anything from the internet is alt-right.
	It's like, no, alt-right is white nationalism.
	Why are you calling me a white nationalist?
	I'm not a white nationalist.
	Sorry.
	Sorry, go on.
	So just looking at the timeline here, we can see the, let's say, cancel culture, for lack of a better word, on campuses.
	It mainly started going after left-wingers who were coming to give speeches, at least from what I can get.
	And then you can see as the time goes on, it starts beating into everyone else.
	More militant with right-wingers, as Jacob Rees-Moggling herself.
	Honestly, that was a really great day, though.
	Looking back on it, it went really, really well.
	Yeah, it is a shame you weren't there, John.
	Yeah.
	But I've still got the flag at home, actually, that we captured from the Antifa flag that we took as a trophy.
	And yeah, we had them totally corralled and a few of them got punched in the face for bursting in.
	Well, they started the fight.
	Yeah, they did.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Justified in your response.
	Well, I didn't throw a punch.
	I just, like, stood my ground.
	But a few people in the audience were like, we're not having any of this.
	Wallop.
	And since this has got more and more that way, the Guardian have now doubled down and being like, this is all nonsense again.
	The free speech panic, how the right concocted a crisis.
	But look at all these examples, you know?
	Yeah.
	Like, this is a phantom.
	This is nothing.
	And in the middle of this, they're talking about...
	Jermaine Greer, the noted right-winger, concocted this crisis.
	Nick Laws.
	With Peter Tatchel in support, you know, yeah.
	So they're saying this, the alarming narrative can be found in news stories, political speeches, and op-ed columns in Britain on a daily basis.
	Op-ed columns such as The Guardian.
	On a daily basis, though, oh, this concocted narrative that just seems to be coming out of nowhere.
	So I'm not going to waste my time with this one because it's obvious, just obfuscation, but they are doing it today.
	So we mentioned earlier that now you will get fined if you engage in this practice as a union or a university because you are being funded by the government, you cheeky little...
	I don't know how they thought they'd get away with this.
	So this is the headline I wanted to show from The Guardian, which is their initial headline.
	Again, look at how they all changed their headlines.
	Phantom Threat.
	Phantom Threat.
	Proposed free speech law for English universities is criticised.
	Well, how...
	Okay, let's assume that it is a phantom threat.
	Let's assume that all of these people being deplatformed were totally lying and making this up.
	Even if that's true, how is a free speech law bad?
	We'll get into it.
	So they then change their headline if you go to the next article.
	This is just the new version, which they're accurately describing, I believe, just showing that they're going to be liable for breaches.
	And they give the defense in here.
	So the defense is from the unions of the universities who are stacked with leftists just by reading their own words.
	Oh, God.
	And it's not even a controversial thing to say that the student union, the National Student Union, is just unbelievably leftist.
	What was the name of the girl?
	Oh, the president who was like, I want to kill all white people?
	Yeah, she was an insane radical.
	And this is the person they elected to lead them, so...
	So they have here, so this is not just the student unions, the university and college unions, so this is representing the universities, responded by saying, it is extraordinary that in the midst of a global pandemic, the government appears more interested in fighting a phantom threat to free speech than tackling and can turn real and present dangers which the virus poses to staff and students.
	So you didn't address the point at all.
	So they were just like, no, it doesn't exist.
	When the virus doesn't pose a threat to students.
	But you'll notice there, that's actually the narrative coming out of the Labour Party at the moment, whenever the government does anything.
	It's like, why are you not focusing on the virus?
	So it also tells you that this person is just in the Labour...
	Well, it's because all the vulnerable people have had their vaccines cured.
	I don't know what to tell you.
	Yeah.
	Let's talk about that culture war that you're so weak on.
	So they continue.
	In reality, the biggest threats to academic freedom and freedom of speech come not from the staff and students, or from the so-called cancel culture, but from ministers' own attempts to police what can and cannot be said on campus.
	Which?
	Name them.
	Which ones?
	This guy?
	This guy who's trying to fine you for breaking free speech rules.
	Police what can and cannot be said.
	Policing what can be said means guaranteeing that everything can be given a platform.
	So that's actually promoting human rights.
	Policing what cannot be said is the problem because then it's people arbitrarily silencing you.
	So the guy's coming in and saying, I think the law should be that what can be said should be widened.
	This is authoritarian.
	We're trying to restrict our freedoms, aren't you?
	Yeah, exactly.
	This is the opposite of authoritarianism.
	What the hell is wrong with you?
	And the National Union of Students vice president also gave a comment.
	They said that there is no evidence of a freedom of expression crisis on campus.
	And student unions are constantly taking positive steps to help facilitate thousands of events every year.
	Oh, well, then there's no problem.
	The people being accused of all the deplatforming have said they're not doing the deplatforming, and therefore we should all stop.
	Sorry, Nick Loles, there's no problem.
	Yeah, told you.
	Pizza Tatchel, Jermaine Gray.
	There is no evidence, but then also the defense there, we put on thousands of events, therefore there's no problem.
	It's like, right, but what events don't you put on?
	That's the censorship part of this.
	It's not even what events you don't put on, it's what events you actively seek to silence because you don't like the speaker.
	I mean, this is why...
	So the next article here is just from Matthew Godwin.
	He's a politics professor at the University of Kent.
	And he's pretty good.
	He's good on populism, if you want to get into him.
	And I'm not going to read this article, but it's like, why does he have to write this?
	Why do academics keep coming out and saying that, no, the universities are horrible places to be in?
	Why does the Free Speech Union exist?
	Why are the Conservative Party putting in laws to make sure that people can sue the universities if they deplatform them?
	Why do those free speech rankings exist?
	With notes on every university and what they did specifically.
	Why is there a large body of people on the internet talking about how free speech is under attack if none of this is real?
	How has this huge ecosphere of anti-censorship people come into existence if there's no problem at all?
	Because the universities are highly progressive places to be.
	I just wanted to show you the next one.
	So this is just Matthew Godwin's page on the University of Kent.
	Look at that flag in the top left.
	Scroll back up.
	Like, I can't believe that that flag's become mainstream.
	Like, I understand the LGBT flag, right?
	Sure.
	But with the black and brown stripes...
	And the pink trans stripes as well.
	Like, the trans one, I can kind of get the argument.
	But the black and brown one are exclusively black and brown bodies.
	Oof.
	But that was, like, a meme that was made up on Tumblr.
	Well, I swear, if you go back, you will actually find this was someone, like, S-posting.
	Probably.
	And then it's now become real.
	I can't get over it.
	Probably.
	But, I mean, it's just total cringe.
	Mm.
	And speaking of total cringe, the reaction on Twitter.
	So I just wanted to end up with this.
	So the first one here, this is fascism.
	You might wonder, why am I showing you some random account with some anime profile?
	You know, what's he got?
	A thousand followers?
	Who cares?
	Because this is actually the narrative from the checkmarks as well.
	But a law to guarantee free speech is not fascism.
	It is the very opposite.
	This is some idiot, so who cares?
	Well, actually, the next one is a checkmark saying essentially that...
	Policing, thinking, and controlling history.
	The sort of thing done in the most egregious dictatorships on Earth.
	What?
	All done under the guise of protecting free speech.
	Orwellian.
	Not allowing us to censor people is Orwellian.
	Just...
	Oh, just get out.
	The kind of thing done by the most egregious dictatorships on Earth.
	Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao...
	Free speech warriors.
	That's how they define themselves.
	Like, we are going to bring in anti-censorship laws, said the Nazis.
	Like, come on.
	Come on.
	It's just comically...
	Oh, man.
	It's so dumb.
	And then the next one here is the editor of Channel 4.
	So if you're ever one of the kind of people who actually run the TV you're watching, if you're still watching TV, it's these kind of people.
	This is why I love Twitter, because they're so stupid.
	They just put up their own thoughts.
	Yeah, it's great, isn't it?
	It exposes them.
	Yeah.
	So this is his response to Gavin Williamson putting in these free speech rules.
	Trying to accuse him that if he doesn't come on Channel 4 to debate this, he's deplatforming himself?
	You could see, like, oh, I'm so important, you need to come and talk to me at Channel 4.
	You're not coming.
	I mean, I guess I am, yeah.
	I guess I am, but that's okay because it was voluntary.
	Don't worry, I don't need the platform.
	It's Channel 4.
	No one's watching.
	Screw that.
	And then the next one here is just a Labour MP. So this is the Labour response.
	She's the person who will be in charge of education if Labour win.
	Oh, God.
	And her response at this shows that they're completely out of touch with the people's priorities.
	And again, talking about the pandemic.
	Oh yes, the people's priorities about transgender flags and Black Lives Matter kneeling and things like this.
	The genuine kitchen table issues.
	Labor.
	Yeah, labor.
	Like, shut up.
	Like, if you talk to anyone in this country about free speech, you will actually get a response.
	Oh yeah.
	You talk to them about what a woman is, so they're just like, what the fuck are you talking about?
	And it wasn't just one.
	There was another Labour MP here who also retweeted it, saying this was all nonsense.
	It's like, of course, this is Labour's position, but I can demonstrate it.
	This is all nonsense.
	Let us talk about pronouns.
	Yeah.
	It's like, oh yeah, that's not nonsense.
	That's not a waste of anyone's time.
	And then Toby Young, I think he's like the president of the Free Speech Union, responding to the lady who was saying that this was not real, that there was no evidence of a free speech crisis on campus.
	Yeah.
	With her own evidence from her own organisation showing that 35.5% of academics self-censor out of fear of the negative consequences of saying what they believe.
	That's crazy.
	What is that?
	That's over a third.
	That's more than a third.
	Of academics are saying, I'm self-censoring because I don't want to be thrown out.
	I'm afraid of the Maoist cultural revolutionaries on the student campus.
	I mean, this happened all the time in America as well.
	Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay being literally persecuted by mobs of woke students in their own offices and stuff like this.
	What happened to Brett Weinstein at Evergreen?
	We've seen all of the videos.
	We know that this is happening.
	And if in the UK, over a third of academics are like, look, I just can't say...
	This probably quite tepid and reasonable thing that I want to say because otherwise, you know, it's crazy.
	And this is the state of British universities.
	So good on the Conservatives for actually doing the thing, which is that if a university or their student union engages in such practices as deplatforming speakers or trying to get rid of staff who say naughty words or say an opinion that they don't like, they will actually have to pay the consequences in cash.
	They will have to pay cash consequences, which is the right thing to do and...
	Good job, conservatives.
	You did a thing, which is actually good.
	And we will give you head pats for doing this.
	You did good.
	I mean, let's hope that this actually has some effect.
	I mean, if there's one thing that talks, it's money, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	I mean, I don't know what's going on in the US. Like, I remember there were some noises about doing something in response.
	Sure, but Joe Biden has probably come in and been like, yeah, okay, now de-platform everything.
	Yeah.
	You would have been fine under Trump, no doubt.
	You'd be rolling out the patriotic education, you know?
	Oh yeah, you would.
	In fact, we actually have a great article on Lotuses.com today from John, I can't pronounce his surname, unfortunately.
	An academic called John who is talking about the 1619 Project and Trump's patriotic 1776 education.
	And it's really like, look, these are the two narratives about the founding of America that have to be decided on.
	They're contradictory.
	One is going to be the one going forward.
	The other is not going to be the one going forward.
	Which ones are going to be?
	Obviously he's laying out the case why it should obviously be the 1776 narrative, because that's actually the founding of America.
	Like, the 1619 narrative is the founding of the English colonies, but that's...
	so what?
	You know, you're not the English colonies, you are the United States of America, and that's an inherently liberal position.
	Like, that's about human rights.
	It's not about ethnocentrism, incidentally.
	But, uh, anyway.
	I'm trying to think of, like, a comparison for that.
	French Revolution, maybe?
	I don't know.
	Like...
	It's like the Japanese defining themselves by the day the Americans turned up or something?
	I don't know.
	Anyway.
	Yeah.
	I'm trying to think of how to show that it's so absurd, because it is obviously absurd to say that the United States starts with the English colonies.
	It's like, no, that's the start of colonisation of America, that it's not the United States of America.
	Yeah, and that's the English Empire, then, that becomes the British Empire, which the American colonies revolt against...
	That's the thing that defines them.
	Yeah.
	But that's not the only thing that defines them.
	The thing that also defines them is the ideological foundation upon which they set.
	And they know very clearly that this is an anti-slavery, anti-racist ideological foundation of individual rights.
	So you can't even make the argument.
	But of course, if you think that in and of itself is white supremacy, then you're a lunatic and Get against the wall.
	Well, they're not quite that far.
	I'm joking, YouTube, Jesus.
	We just don't need to hear from your opinions.
	No.
	Okay.
	So I want to talk about Copium Incorporated for the last segment.
	So we're working together on this.
	So this is something we spoke about yesterday.
	So this was a lady who was a Democrat in response.
	Jennifer Pro-Reality Rubin, which is not how she's known by everyone else.
	Or this tweet makes it perfectly clear.
	So this was in response to the Democrats getting absolutely chewed out at the impeachment hearings, shown to just be liars, like you were faking evidence.
	So then they lost the vote, and her response was, House managers utterly vindicated.
	They got every vote possible.
	I mean, I guess that's true.
	Utter cutter cope.
	So, we wanted to go on to the next article.
	Yeah, so I want to talk about the way that the Democrats have been approaching American politics, really.
	And I really, as an outsider, I find it really gross watching the Democrats, every time they take a loss, like, right, okay, democracy has failed, flip the table, we need to change the system so this won't happen again.
	It's like, it's not wrong when you lose an election or when you lose a motion in a court or in the Senate or anything like that.
	That's not wrong.
	That's not saying the system is wrong.
	That's saying that there are enough people who don't agree with you That you can't get your way.
	And again, this isn't accusations that malpractice has taken place.
	No, no.
	It's just the practice ran and we didn't like the outcome.
	The procedure went as the procedure was intended to go and you didn't get the result you wanted because there are people who were not persuaded by your arguments.
	So instead of reassessing yourselves and changing your arguments and thinking, okay, what did we do wrong?
	Why is this happening?
	They're like, right, okay, we need to jury rig the system.
	We need to gerrymander the system so that we can win.
	No, they're not even asking to gerrymander it.
	They're asking to destroy the whole thing.
	Yes, well, yes.
	But it's an embarrassment.
	It's really, really embarrassing.
	Because what they're saying is, look, actually, we have no persuasive power to what we're saying.
	And, yeah, we can't change your mind because what we're asking for is insane in most cases.
	And deeply anti-American in other cases.
	And so what we need is a kind of dictatorship that you're not involved in.
	And that would be better for us.
	But we'll get to the dictatorship that they're proposing in a minute.
	This is just an article from 2019 from CNN about how the Democrats want to overhaul everything.
	And they're not wrong.
	I mean, you know, like, this is the way they frame it.
	A big list of systemic changes that some Democratic presidential candidates are pushing is getting longer and longer.
	Such foundational changes to the U.S. system of government are a step further than Democrats' massive ambitious proposals, blah, blah, blah.
	So they've got these general social proposals that aren't a radical restructuring of the United States, such as ambitious proposals to improve social safety nets, remaking the health service, testing job guarantees, doing nest eggs to American children, responding to the threat of climate change.
	Okay, fine.
	But then you get the concrete proposals, right?
	It's like expand the Supreme Court, remake the voting system, add a new state.
	In fact, add two new states, lower the voting age.
	It's like, what are you doing?
	So what you're trying to do is, again, gerrymander the way that the process works in order to, by legal mechanism, annex to yourselves a whole slew of new votes.
	To get new electors, to get new senators, to get whatever it is.
	New population when it comes to immigration.
	When it comes to lowering the voting age, it's never going, right, okay, this is the demos of the United States.
	We've defined it.
	It has been defined by our founding fathers.
	And so to them, we need to pitch our wonderful ideas.
	It's always right.
	We need to get children voting so we can persuade the children to vote for us.
	We need to get immigrants in and voting so they can vote for us.
	We need to, you know, add new states in areas that we already control to increase the number of senators that these areas send and things like this.
	It's like, that's what I would call cheating, right?
	This is what I would otherwise call cheating.
	The game is set.
	The board is set.
	We're not changing the rules.
	Now we play the game, right?
	Well, if they had run on a campaign, you know, changed people's minds on the issue of children should be able to vote and then got in, fair enough.
	But, I mean, do you remember any of Joe Biden's policies?
	Was children voting the thing people were voting for there?
	I mean, he probably did have lowering the edge of voting.
	But that's the thing.
	Was it in anyone's mind?
	No, no.
	Yeah, of course.
	None of the things that they've been doing have been what they were campaigning on, really.
	But this, again, from US News, it really does seem that the Democrats actually kind of hate American democracy.
	And it's like, oh, you know, the Democrats just look at democracy and go, well, democracy's failed.
	And this is presumably the impetus behind the Time article revealing they've fortified the election results.
	Because otherwise, democracy might have failed again and not elected a Democrat.
	But yeah, this was during the Democrat primaries.
	And one of the things that they were clinging to here was Bernie Sanders having like three big wins in the initial caucuses.
	And one activist, a 38-year-old adult educator, said she'd like to see the United States remade into a nation with stronger social safety nets, as well as more funding for schools and healthcare.
	I want fundamental change.
	I would settle for restoration.
	I'll take what I can get at this point.
	So desperate for change.
	This is the continual message.
	And so, October 2020.
	This, I think, is a hilarious title for any article.
	The most democratic thing Joe Biden could do is pack the courts.
	Why not?
	Why not?
	Of course it is.
	That is, I believe that when they say democratic, they mean that with a capital D. The most democrat thing he can do.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The most democrat thing he can do is change the system in order to make sure that he can get his way.
	That's it.
	This apparently isn't radical.
	Even Abraham Lincoln did it.
	Well, if you're going back that far, I mean...
	Civil War territory?
	Yeah, that's exactly it.
	I mean, Lincoln did it in 1863 as a means of denying the pro-slavery movement a foothold in the highest court.
	It's like, okay, but that's not exactly a fair comparison.
	I mean, for a start, Lincoln was a Republican, and you want to do it to the Republicans as Democrats, presumably for the purpose of increasing your sort of Democrat fiefdoms and your plantations of welfare dependence.
	So, I mean, you know, you're kind of culturally appropriating the Republicans' concern for civil rights here, Democrats, as usual.
	But anyway, so it doesn't really matter what their argument is.
	Their argument is a bad argument because it is.
	And then we get to abolishing the Electoral College.
	There's no democratic will for it.
	You remember during the campaign, Joe Biden himself was asked about this, and he just says, I don't believe that the people deserve to know my position.
	Right.
	Which means yes.
	Which means yes, I will do this.
	If you're not going to say no, then that's a yes.
	Because this is the thing.
	So with the number of Supreme Court justices, it's set by statute, not by the Constitution, according to the Dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law.
	There is nothing to keep Congress and the President from increasing the size of the court.
	So this is clearly like an oversight that the Founding Fathers had not considered or something like that.
	And so, yeah, I guess that is the case.
	And so obviously they're like, oh, well, you know, Trump's packed the Supreme Court with far-right people.
	I was like, no, he hasn't.
	You know, everyone wishes that he was, because then none of this would have happened.
	You would have gotten nowhere.
	And maybe the election results would have been challenged in the court had he actually packed them with far-right Trump loyalists.
	But he didn't do that.
	And the Supreme Court stood back and said, we're not taking any part in this.
	They literally recused themselves and refused to hear the case.
	Literally.
	And that wouldn't happen if it was, like, hard-right people, Trump supporters that were in there.
	They'd be like, okay, partisan advancement, you know.
	It was hard-right.
	They'd probably shut it down and get Joe Biden in.
	But anyway, so you get places like the Brookings Institute, which are left-wing think tanks that produce policy ideas like this.
	It's time to abolish the Electoral College.
	And I love the framing of this, right?
	Because it's hard to frame that in a way that isn't just, well, we've got loads of immigrants in Democrat-run cities now, and so now's the time for us to get direct democracy.
	Because then we get everything we want, and you get nothing that you want, right?
	Right.
	For years, when I taught campaigns and elections at Brown University, I defended the Electoral College as an important part of American democracy.
	I said the founders created the institution to make sure that the large states did not dominate the small ones in presidential elections, and that power between Congress and state legislators was balanced, and there would be checks and balances in the constitutional system.
	Well, I mean, I'm persuaded.
	That sounds like a great argument for an electoral college.
	If you're going to be a federation of states, and some states could, I don't know, arbitrarily open their border to Mexico and bring in millions and millions and millions of immigrants who they then want to give voting rights, that could indeed swing the way that presidential elections work in the United States.
	And, like, you know, some small state, like, I don't know, Georgia or something, that's miles away from all of this, is just like, what are you talking about?
	My electoral college vote's worth nothing now, because California's got, like, 50,000 of them, because they're letting 20,000 million billion immigrants.
	And it's like...
	Well, you know, billions and billions.
	Sorry, just Trump's voice in my head.
	Yeah, but like, that's not fair.
	And it's the same thing with Germany and the European Union, just being like, right, we're going to arbitrarily open our borders to all of these refugees.
	Millions of refugees.
	By the way, Latvia, you need to take some refugees.
	It's like, what?
	Who agreed to this?
	I didn't consent to this.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I didn't consent to this is exactly the point, right?
	And so that's a really great argument for an electoral college style system in a federal organization.
	If you're going to have that, if you're going to have this kind of autonomy, you need these kind of overarching protections for other people because these decisions matter.
	But I like this.
	In recent years, though, I've changed my view.
	Right, okay, so you became a doctrinaire leftist, right?
	I've changed my view and concluded that it's time to get rid of the Electoral College.
	Several developments have led me to alter my opinion on this institution.
	Income inequality, Democrat problem, right?
	Problem for Democrats in Democrat areas.
	They've brought in their surf class into San Francisco, into Los Angeles, and the Hollywood moguls and the Silicon Valley moguls.
	Yeah, they're not right-wingers.
	They're not right-wingers, but there is massive wealth inequality between the billionaires and their self-class.
	That's true, right?
	Again, not something that happens in rural flyover America, where the boss of a business might be earning 100 grand and then his employees are earning 50 grand, right?
	It's not the same sort of comparison at all.
	And so, like, the problems the Democrats have created have become the first reason that he wants to get rid of it and punish the Republicans, right?
	Okay.
	The next one is geographic disparities.
	Yeah, okay, so the coastal elites have let in millions of serfs, and yeah, I guess that's a geographic disparity, sure, but again, not the Republicans' fault.
	Why should they be punished for this?
	And how discrepancies between the popular vote and Electoral College are likely to become more commonplace given these economic and geographic inequalities.
	Right, so A, the popular vote means nothing, so shut up about it.
	That's not an issue.
	I mean, is that even in the Constitution?
	I doubt it is.
	I doubt it's part of anything.
	I think it's something they've just coined in retrospect.
	But even then, so what?
	So what if that's the case?
	Maybe you shouldn't have let in millions of immigrants into your Democrat-run states to create massive inequality.
	But no, the things that we have done are now reason to punish the Republicans.
	I can't stand it, man.
	And then he obviously goes on to explain that in the essay.
	But it's like, no, these are not justified, in my opinion.
	You can't say, look, we've created a load of problems, so we're going to mess things up for you.
	And when you look at the statistics as well, it's very obvious that this is a partisan case.
	So this is the Hill who had done a Hill-Harris X poll of 1,000 registered voters.
	And 44% of respondents said they want to get rid of it, while 37% said they want to keep it, and the rest said they don't know.
	19% said they don't know.
	So the combined will is not really in favour of getting rid of it if unsure means don't change anything, which I think there's a reasonable interpretation of what an unsure person would probably want to do in any given situation.
	Should we change something?
	I don't know.
	It doesn't mean change it, does it?
	I don't agree with that.
	You don't agree with that?
	I feel like they've dropped themselves out of there.
	They're not making a decision.
	Sure, it could be, but...
	But you can see how this sort of goes, like his argument there, where it's...
	So it turned out that 60% of Democrat voters did want to get rid of it, whereas with Republicans, 25% wanted to get rid of it.
	So you can see this massive partisan divide when it comes to left and right.
	And obviously the Democrats are looking at this as a political strategy.
	They think we'll gain more power, we'll have the presidency more often, we'll have more influence...
	In government, if we get rid of the Electoral College, and therefore it's clearly just a partisan move to do it.
	And there are lots of left-wing...
	If you go back 10 years, it was the left-wingers going, oh, we need to keep the Electoral College.
	You go to Slate.com in 2012, and they've got a very sterling defense of the Electoral College, because obviously they look like they needed it for Obama and things like this.
	But now, now it's Republicans, oh, we need to get rid of it.
	It's so transparent.
	Well, it's not that.
	It's that there's a large, large increase in immigration, and all that immigration is going to certain places.
	But it's only when they know it benefits them.
	If they thought it was going to hurt them, they would get rid of it.
	That's sort of politics.
	You know, you kind of expect that the underdog's going to be complaining about the system.
	But these guys did it to themselves.
	You know, they're the ones importing massive amounts of people, and then they changed their opinion on it.
	So it's not just that they're not in power this time round.
	It's like, no, we've changed the structure, and now we want to destroy the structure that was there.
	It's just that they so obviously do not adhere to principle, right?
	And in principle, I think the Electoral College is a good idea for a federal system.
	And that, I think, is uncontroversial.
	If you approach it from, like, John Rawls' sort of veil of ignorance position, where it's like, look, going into the system, you don't know where you're going to land.
	So would you rather a system that operated fairly for whichever side, it will restrict the power and influence of the great in order to protect the power and influence of the small.
	And you think about, okay, well, if I was, you know, I don't know where I'm going to land here.
	So if I, I mean, if the country happens to go full Republican overnight for some reason, then whatever Democrat strongholds are left, they're going to be like, yeah, we'd love the Electoral College, please.
	And so if that were the case, they'd be like, okay, well, we want to keep the Electoral College.
	So in principle, that is a good thing for whoever is on the weaker side of things, right?
	And again, it's to maintain a kind of central sort of balance of democratic politics to make sure that the system stays together.
	And it's not just one group stamping down on the other group.
	And so in principle, it's definitely a good idea.
	But when they're like, oh, well, it advantages us now to get rid of the Electoral College, let's get rid of it, then you can tell they're not applying by principle.
	They're just playing politics.
	And it's really gross.
	I can't stand it.
	No, I think you're right.
	But this is the weird thing about his argument, which is that essentially they look at it through a prism of direct democracy is the good end goal that they want to get to.
	It's just, why?
	Why do you want that?
	I don't know.
	I don't think there's any real good arguments for direct democracy being the way that all of your government should work.
	It's just absurd.
	I mean, it depends if we want a demagogue to persuade us to invade Sicily or not.
	Well, if I wanted to appeal to a leftist for a second, I'd probably just point to segregation and be like, well, if the majority of the population decide that they want to engage in this, shouldn't you think there should be some mechanisms to try and help the minority here?
	Guess not.
	Guess not.
	Well, the thing about direct democracy as well, I can only think of one really major example of it, and that's Athens.
	And that ended in tears.
	So it turns out that people are really susceptible to charismatic speakers getting them to do crazy things.
	So there should be some kind of moderating force.
	It makes sense, yeah.
	It's probably a moderating force.
	So I think the next one here is meant to be the argument that they now want to get rid of the Senate.
	So...
	Well, yeah, yeah, that was where this was all going.
	It's like, okay, so if there's, you know, they're like, okay, so the Electoral College is a problem, the Supreme Court's a problem, because we didn't win everything that we wanted.
	And now it's like, right, the Senate's the problem, get rid of the Senate.
	And it's like, oh, Ave Caesar!
	We're getting rid of the Senate now, are we?
	Because this is one of the things that Julius Caesar did, right?
	After conquering Gaul, he wanted to pack the Senate with hundreds of Gallic senators, and the Romans were like, why?
	It's like, well, because you're not going to give me everything I want, and these people are going to give me everything I want.
	This is exactly the same principle in play.
	He had to just win a civil war, so he kind of could do what he wants.
	No, this was before the civil war.
	No, this is one of the reasons the cause of the Civil War.
	Because people are like, what the hell are you doing?
	We're not having hundreds of conquered people coming into the Senate and acting as if they're the equivalent of Romans, right?
	And understandably so.
	But the point is, you do this when you want to end democracy.
	This is an argument for the ending of the Republic.
	Getting rid of the Senate leaves, like, just the sort of executive branch, really.
	And the judicial branch that they will have packed out with, you know, it can mean that if there's no limit to the amount of Supreme Court justices they could have, why not have 20?
	Why not have 50?
	5,000 Democrat Supreme Court justices and, like, three Republican ones or six Republican ones.
	What stops them?
	Nothing.
	But anyway, sorry.
	They want to abolish democracy.
	What were they saying?
	Yeah, well, I didn't want to go over it too much, especially if we don't have time now.
	But he was basically saying that you could get a minority of the population and still have 50% of the Senate.
	So the Republicans have X amount of senators, what is it, 50 or whatever.
	But if you add up all the population of their states, it's not enough to be 50% of the population.
	It's just like, dude, who cares?
	No one wants to make democracy.
	If you want to make an essay for that, write that.
	Have direct democracy in California if you want.
	Try it out.
	That's what the states are for, you know?
	Yeah, that's exactly what they're for.
	Try all these experiments.
	And, well, I'm sure California's going great right now.
	But the last thing I wanted to mention was...
	Oh, no, no, no.
	We'll point to New York as a state of...
	The state that's been brilliantly governed by the Democrats.
	So the last thing I wanted to mention here was the will to do a 9-11-style commission.
	What about Portland, in fact?
	Portland's going pretty great, isn't it?
	Sorry.
	They want to do a commission on the insurrection, so they want to investigate what happened there.
	And the framing sounds pretty weird, and this was reported ages ago where Hillary Clinton's podcast, because she has one now, she had Pete Pelosi on.
	And Pelosi said in the podcast, with you, Mr.
	President, all roads lead to Putin.
	And it's just like, they still haven't gone over this.
	It's cringe.
	That's such cringe.
	Because nobody in their right mind thinks that Putin controls Trump.
	Yeah.
	Like, both of them are still of the opinion that the 2016 election was orchestrated by Putin.
	And they even say in here that they're wondering whether the people storming the building were orchestrated by Putin as well.
	Oh, just get over it, you bloody monomaniacal idiots.
	But she's actually gone ahead and got disagreed by both sides, so the next link here is her announcing that she's going to do that.
	So this is a commission into what went on.
	But I'm actually in favour of this after reading the details, because of course the framing of this is they want to be like, well, we lost the impeachment, so we'll do a commission, and then we'll just, in the commission, blame everything on Trump.
	And I know that that's what they're going to try and do.
	Of course it is.
	We have a quote from Senator Chris Coombs saying that they will lay bare the record of just how responsible and how abjectly violating of his constitutional oath Mr.
	President Trump was.
	So it's like, okay, that's your narrative coming to this?
	Yeah.
	But they also mention that one of the things they want to go into is, well, how did this actually happen?
	Because Washington, D.C. is controlled by Democrats, isn't it?
	Well, not that.
	The police.
	Like, the police standing outside of the courts.
	Yeah, but the people in charge of the police.
	They're not going to be, like, hardcore Republicans, are they?
	Well, I don't know the details, because the Capitol might have its own department or something like this.
	But either way, like, this was, you know, a planned thing.
	You knew what he was saying.
	You would have had precautions.
	And we've seen the videos now.
	Like, anyone can go on Twitter of the cops standing by getting shouted out for not intervening.
	Some of them opening up gates and it's pretty revealing.
	It's like, okay, this doesn't seem like a good job.
	One of the ones where they've literally opened the door and you can see the protesters politely filing into the building.
	It's like...
	Why is that happening?
	Why did you do that?
	Yeah.
	I would like to know.
	I mean, would you like to know at home?
	So they mentioned here, so Nancy Pelosi saying, now, as always, security is the order of the day.
	The security of our country, the security of our capital, which is the temple of our democracy and security of our members.
	Which, okay, like, I don't like Nancy Pelosi.
	I don't like the way she's coming at this.
	But I would like to know what happened with security on that day.
	Why was it so bad?
	And why do we have so many videos of the police seemingly...
	Facilitating?
	Facilitating would be the right word.
	That's a very, very good question.
	And the last thing I just want to show is a Trump parade.
	Because while this is all going on, what's Trump been up to?
	This is him after getting acquitted, driving through.
	Just crowds of people turning up to celebrate him.
	And it's like, yeah, where's Joe Biden's crowds?
	The loser of the 2020 election, unlike the most popular president in the world, in fact, in history, who is now in his occupied armed fortress of a capital that has walls, barbed wire, and 7,000 National Guard.
	Got the National Guard to parade for him.
	Doesn't need supporters.
	I love this.
	This is so great.
	I love it.
	But this is the thing, right?
	You can see that people genuinely really like Trump.
	They genuinely like him.
	No one genuinely likes Biden.
	I think it was his birthday, or was it Valentine's Day?
	Someone flew over with that plane as well.
	It's like, happy birthday, Mr.
	President.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, that looks like a really good day out as well.
	It looks like a really fun day out.
	I'm totally envious.
	I'd love to be able to go there.
	Joe, you're not the only one.
	I bet Joe Biden's very envious of that support.
	Exactly, yeah, I bet he is.
	When he's sat there alone in his castle, surrounded by his soldiers and razor wire.
	I don't know, man.
	One of them is clearly wholesome, and the other one clearly isn't.
	That's what I'm saying.
	That's the difference in these camps right now.
	There's Copium Town, where all this nonsense going on.
	There's just Trump playing golf and having a good time.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And the Biden voters are constantly posting their L's on Twitter going, I can't believe he's done this to us!
	It's like...
	Get what you deserve.
	Anyway, if you want to send us comments, you can sign up and become a member at the Gold Tier, I think, at the Silver Tier as well, and send us video comments.
	And just any registered sign-up member on the site can leave us just normal comments on the page that has the stream on it.
	And we'll obviously stream to the site.
	So if you're watching on the site, thank you very much.
	So let's go for a video comment.
	Hi.
	How may we best negate the impact of cancer culture on normies hearing non-MSN and non-left discourse?
	Real-world marketing, perhaps?
	With supporters utilizing approved PDFs, etc, etc, etc.
	Peaceful marketing.
	Did you understand that?
	Not very well.
	How can we fight back against cancel culture?
	Was the general thing I took from it.
	I have an idea, because I watched Andrew Torber getting interviewed by Christian media, and he's floating the idea now, so Gab is the social media that can't be cancelled.
	He also wants to float what he called a Christian economy, because he's very Crusader, but...
	The fundamental there is that basically all the Christians should trade with each other over the internet because that gives you that ability, that infrastructure of the internet.
	It cuts out the leftists.
	So we can cut everyone off and make your own, I don't know, Christo state, let's say, in digital space.
	I think we call it a theocracy.
	Yeah, but it means that even if Gab was to go radical and start doing silly things anyway, no one would trade with them.
	And it means that the people inside of those groups can't be cancelled because they're all supported by everyone else in the Christian world, let's say.
	And I see that's how the internet is going.
	It's going to end up with these bubbles where you won't be cancelled because you will have the support of...
	You'll be in a bubble that agrees with what you're doing.
	But that's the shame of it.
	That's the downside.
	Yeah, I mean, this is the end of civic society.
	Again, civic society being the sort of anonymous society in which people can just interact with each other apolitically.
	And the left has ruined that.
	And so this is the necessary consequences.
	Well, political...
	In the Netherlands, like someone was saying about the pillars...
	The different pillars of society that end up, like, not really interacting with each other.
	That's what it's going to have to be.
	It's like, I didn't want this.
	But another thing that regular people can do is, I mean, just support those people who have been cancelled.
	Like, it's got to be done.
	Like Ben Shapiro, that lady got kicked out of the Mandalorian.
	He's like, right, you're hired.
	Gina Frano, yeah.
	And one thing about that whole saga that people aren't making a big enough deal about is the fact that she's a babe.
	Like, I'm not even joking.
	I keep seeing these pictures.
	I'm like, yeah, she's a good-looking girl.
	Did she?
	Yeah.
	Let's see, you come in for the real cutting-edge commentary.
	Gina Carano, is she an 8 out of 10 or a 9 out of 10?
	Alright, next comment.
	I just had a question for the team.
	If the globalization in the world ends up with an American-like constitution, would that be for the better or worse?
	Well, I mean, that would be good if the entire world had an American-style constitution.
	The question is, is America going to have an American-style constitution, given the Democrats' constant whittling away at it?
	I mean, the thing is, I'm not actually an imperialist, though, because a lot of...
	All good conversation to start with that, carry on.
	Well, unlike the left.
	The left are genuinely imperialists.
	They want the entire world to be run along one single order.
	And this is their order, and I actually don't like that.
	I actually like a plurality of these things.
	So, I mean, if some people, wherever, want to run a horrible state, I mean, okay, as long as they leave me alone, I'm not going to be like, right, we've got to go and stop them.
	But I'm not going to approve of it, you know.
	So, it would be better for the individual, probably, to have an American-style constitution, but, you know, it's their culture.
	I can't make them do it.
	I don't want to make them do it, because I'm not an imperialist.
	But, I mean, if you are a sort of imperialist, maybe you'd want to.
	No, I disagree with you.
	I'm on the side of the British Empire.
	We should go around like the SJWs of the world, bullying people into not doing slavery.
	I mean, yeah, there's the argument for slavery, but then when it gets to the point of...
	Against slavery.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	There's the argument of getting rid of slavery, which is fine, but then that will inevitably transmogrify into the argument for abolishing transphobia, and so then we'll be invading places and clubbing them down for being transphobic.
	I don't agree.
	It definitely will.
	We're already there.
	No, no.
	Because you're taking it from, like, if the progressives will become the world policemen, you get that.
	But if you are taking English liberals doing that, they're not going to go around clubbing people over transphobia.
	But look at where we are.
	We're not run by English liberals, are we?
	No, exactly.
	That's the point.
	We used to be, and now we're run by radical progressives because they have subverted their way in.
	Sorry, is England the hegemon?
	Well, we, the collective royal we, but we're the ones dropping rainbow Black Lives Matter bombs on Syria now, right?
	Like, the royal we here, like, the cause will forever change and adapt.
	I'm actually kind of tired of telling the foreigners that they're being naughty.
	Yes, they are.
	We can make sure that where we live, it's well-governed.
	That's a good starting point.
	That is a good starting point.
	That's the sort of Kingdom of England mentality.
	You know, we can move forward.
	We tried to explain to the world that they're bad and should stop doing what they're doing, but they don't agree.
	That's actually more convincing to me.
	Where it's like, look, we tried.
	It's up to them now.
	We've shown them what works.
	They can't blame ignorance.
	Like in the 1700s, the Japanese could blame ignorance of not knowing the world or whatever, right?
	Or the Saudis.
	But no, we've told them.
	We leave now and they mess it up.
	Their fault.
	Don't care.
	Yeah, exactly.
	We did our part.
	Core Wizard says, Hi Carl, I drove 40 miles to one of your UKIP tours in Salisbury, but I was late and I got chased out of town.
	Oh, you got chased out of town to a nearby car park by a bunch of nutters, so I missed it.
	Yeah, it was great.
	No, that's not actually correct.
	We weren't chased.
	So we were meant to be meeting at the square, and then they told us, the council, that they wanted to use this area for something else.
	So we went to a park instead.
	Queen Elizabeth Park.
	Yeah, and it was a really good day, actually.
	Yeah, there was a milkshake involved, but it was a beautiful day.
	I was going to say that...
	No, the police never got back to me on that.
	No, they're not?
	No, I contacted both the times.
	They just ignored it.
	One was American, and he ran off to America, so they couldn't get him.
	The other guy, they just never bothered.
	The Devon police did get in contact with me, but I was like, I don't really care if it's a milkshake.
	They were like, oh, you'll have to come down and talk to us about it.
	Yeah, you're in Devon, I'm bored.
	Yeah, I mean, don't get me wrong, I didn't even mind getting milkshakes.
	It was a hot sunny day, it was a laugh, you know, it was quite fun.
	Because more, it shows how pathetic the leftist people were.
	Exactly.
	It's like, you've got nothing, have you?
	Absolutely nothing.
	But anyway, I was going to say then, when my dad told me he was voting UKIP, I felt sick and like I didn't know what was wrong with him.
	Long story short, I looked into it and realized I was fed lies, and you helped wake me up to things in a comforting way.
	Oh, thank you.
	Glad to hear that.
	I voted for you.
	Shame you didn't get in there, but show them what for.
	That's all right.
	The Brexit party did a good job.
	Show them my support for the Lotus Eaters with a silver sub from today.
	Well, thank you very much, sir.
	Zen Chan says, hey, Carl.
	Sorry about with the comments, by the way.
	Vicky's pulling a selection of like 10 or so comments off because it's just about time constraints.
	After this, me and Calum will be recording a premium podcast on...
	What was it on?
	Stakeholder capitalism.
	But it's basically why woke companies are garbage.
	Yes.
	And they are garbage as far back as the English guilds.
	Yeah.
	So it's going to be a really good podcast and I'm really looking forward to it.
	But the point is we're always on time constraint.
	Ethical capitalism gets a bit.
	Yeah.
	Anything that has an ethical agenda is...
	It's essentially going to become fascist, eventually.
	Hi Kyle, I caught you streaming Shadowversity last night.
	I really think you should consider doing a stream with someone like ShortFatOtaku, where you actually talk to someone with an opposing opinion.
	Instead of just being in your breed-focused echo chamber, hell, I'll volunteer.
	So who's this from?
	Zenchan.
	Well, yeah, it was a conversation with Shadow.
	He wanted to talk about just the merits of fatherhood.
	And as a dad, promoting dadism, I thought I would.
	And maybe don't tell people, if you're not sure you want kids, just have them.
	We've got enough awful parents in the world without you encouraging more.
	I don't think that's actually an encouragement of awful parenting.
	I think it's the people who don't even consider the people who become the awful parents.
	If you have just the question, will I be a good enough parent?
	Yeah, you will be a good enough parent.
	It's the people who don't care about whether they're a good enough parent that are the bad parents.
	I'm telling you.
	Get married and get a job first, though.
	Don't get pregnant.
	Well, don't just wantonly impregnate people.
	Yeah.
	The way you're like, oh, just go for it.
	I'm like, maybe put a cap on that.
	Obviously, use your own practical wisdom and judgment.
	But basically, all I'm saying is, look, you are sufficient for the task, even though it sounds daunting.
	It's not as daunting as it seems.
	And it will make you happy.
	Yeah.
	George Happ.
	First things first, you've finally reached the gaming number of podcasts.
	Nice.
	Thanks, George.
	Do you think we have some common ground with the BLM types when it comes to defunding the police?
	I'm all for law and order, but these days the police are just COVID restriction enforcing automatons, so if there are fewer of them, there would be less tyranny than normal people to deal with.
	Well, I mean, yes, I don't like the COVID Stasi, and I think that's...
	That's largely not their fault.
	That's the irritating thing, though.
	This is Parliament's fault.
	I was going to say, I was literally about to say, I don't actually think it's their fault.
	I think they're being...
	I think that the police culture is not very independent of the institutions, right?
	So they're not sat there thinking, oh, is it right and wrong for us to do this?
	They're sat there thinking, what have I been told by my superiors?
	And if their superiors are like, persecute people for breaking lockdown, it's illegal to go on holiday.
	Or making things on Twitter.
	Or making things on Twitter, whatever it is, then...
	Because, I mean, I've dealt with a few police in my time now, and they're not ideologically plugged in to all of this.
	They're just doing their best.
	They get ideologically led by what they are being told to do.
	Of course there are individual cops that you meet that are absurd and go beyond the law.
	Absolutely, yeah.
	And, I don't know, I think there's a few good ways about defunding the police in the sense of there are a few things they do that I find silly.
	Oh, sure.
	Defund the police types are not arguing for that, are they?
	No.
	I don't think there's any common ground there.
	Yeah.
	Just, by the way, for the previous one, I will, I'm more than happy to do a stream with Short Fat Taku talking about these things.
	Zen, I didn't mean to sound dismissive there.
	I felt like I may have sounded a bit dismissive.
	I didn't mean to sound so dismissive, but don't feel personally attacked, is what I'm trying to say.
	I'm just thinking in my head, take the hate crime unit in London that's cost like £5 million to set up, defund it, get rid of it.
	If they can agree with me on that, sure.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But George, yeah, we agree.
	I mean, the problem with the COVID restrictions is coming from the top, right?
	The police wouldn't be doing this if the government wasn't telling them to do it.
	So there lies the problem.
	Derek Pratt.
	Interesting.
	Another response to the stream I did with Shad yesterday.
	Carl, amazing stream last night with Shad.
	It was incredibly wholesome and very fulfilling.
	Considering some of your supports view you as a father figure in their lives because of the advice and encouragement you give, what would your advice be to a young man trying to turn his life around, where to start, etc.?
	I can't just give a blanket, these are the things you should do.
	But you just have to commit to something, work hard, and don't spend your life on Tinder or dating apps or whatever, searching for women.
	Spend your life making something of yourself and you'll find women are attracted to that.
	And so you don't even have to go hunting for them, they'll come hunting for you.
	That's the best thing you can do.
	And like Shad was saying, value yourself.
	And if you've been working on yourself and building something up, then you'll have something to value.
	So that's good.
	MEP Flyboy says, Yeah, whenever the Brits have to talk about slavery, it's just like...
	Pride.
	Your pride.
	Yeah, I'll get my pride flag out.
	Yeah, we should get a rainbow British flag.
	This is our ending slavery pride flag.
	We're very proud of it.
	But yeah, no, it is.
	It is something that Britain should be proud of.
	Charlie Rogers.
	Hey guys, can I get a shout out from my wonderful girlfriend, Dr.
	Claire?
	Hello, Dr.
	Claire.
	It's our anniversary and I love her so much.
	Congratulations!
	Both big fans of the show.
	Hope you're well.
	Also, can you do keto pancakes if you use almond flour?
	Get on the car.
	You know, my wife made me some almond flour muffins for Valentine's Day and they were amazing.
	It wasn't even the taste of them.
	Whenever you use ersatz materials to make something new, you know that there's something wrong with it.
	It's not the genuine article.
	But the almond flour was really great.
	The taste and texture was fantastic.
	It was weird that it was the texture of the cake that I'd missed more than anything else.
	Because I've got chocolate.
	I've got sugar-free chocolate and stuff like that.
	So I've still got the chocolate thing.
	But it's the spongy texture.
	And I'm thinking, right, I need to get some sugar-free custard next so I can have cake and custard.
	Man, I haven't had cake and custard in years.
	I really like cake and custard.
	But keto pancakes is a good idea.
	Ryan Bratson.
	I'm officially calling for the Black Death to be cancelled.
	Death is bad and associating it with blackness makes people think that black people are bad by way of mental gymnastics.
	That's a good point.
	Rissim says, currently there's not a lot to be proud of, being a Scotsman.
	However, seeing 19 out of 23 of the Scotland team not taking a knee compared to the 11 English players brought me some pride.
	Damn it!
	Vicky said they got it, yes!
	Then for Scotland to win in Twickenham was quite a day for rugby.
	Yeah, we're moving on now.
	The Cuomo charges and Gavin Newsom's recall are all products of Kamala Harris' backroom backstabbings.
	Everyone knows the geriatric Joe is on his way out, and all the 2024 Democratic hopefuls are busy playing Game of Thrones.
	I can't imagine they think that Kamala Harris is going to get the commanding number of votes that Joe Biden got.
	Really?
	Surely you can't fortify an election to that extent, right?
	When it's such an unpopular candidate.
	I am interested, because if Trump...
	He said nothing to the contrary.
	I know you have your opinions on he should not run again or something.
	But he seems to keep saying...
	I'm not against him running again.
	I will support him if he does.
	It would be preferential to have someone else.
	It would be preferential to have someone.
	that he's going to go for it in four years again in which case i do wonder because joe biden's saying he's going to back out like will it be kamala versus trump in which case are we just going to rerun this world since 2016 where it's just the same thing every four years because you know like a lot of people use this last election as a rerun of 2016 yeah but but again like like how far can you really fortify an election because Because Kamala Harris, when she dropped out of the presidential primaries, she was on like 5% support.
	Joe Biden always had like a steady 30% support, right?
	So there is at least the boomer Democrats who are like, yeah, Joe Biden, I know who he is.
	He was Obama's VP. He's a known quantity.
	You can see that there is something there, right?
	There's some anchor there.
	At least Joe Biden...
	It has some kind of support, even if it's tepid.
	But what does Kamala Harris have?
	5% of, like, millennial Karens.
	It's like, ugh.
	Why would you...
	That's not a voting demographic, is it, really?
	But anyway...
	White Hot Peppers, our roving reporter in the capital, dispatches from behind enemy lines, of which she's forced to be one of the enemy, I'm afraid.
	She says, Normally we do training a few times before we get to the actual point we're guarding and that's it.
	These fake breaches are being treated like the real thing to the point where we are being told that we are not doing a drill and we have live ammo, mind you.
	No one on the line knew about it and the only reason why I knew was because a concerned high-ranking officer happened to tell me about it because he was worried about someone getting shot during the drills.
	Now I'm not sure why they wouldn't tell us to be ready for some kind of drill while we're here.
	Even if they did tell us what we are doing, recording us, I'm worried about what they could use the footage.
	Oh, sorry.
	And even if they did tell us what they were doing, training on the actual Capitol is very strange.
	Tons of media are recording us, and I'm worried about what they could use the footage for.
	We will see what happens.
	I'll keep you posted.
	Also, being called Sergeant Peppers yesterday may be so giddy it put me in a Beatles mood.
	Ha ha, thanks for the laugh.
	Uh...
	P.S. Nice.
	Thank you for your service, Sergeant Peppers.
	But no, it's really useful that you can send us these messages because this is going to be the font of many a conspiracy theory.
	If there is an attack on the Capitol, there's been a breach, a bunch of attackers got shot because they've got live ammo, and it could all be a mistake, but the media may not suggest it like this and may frame it in a particular way.
	As she's saying, and this will be the spout of a bunch of conspiracy theories, and who knows?
	Who knows?
	But thank you for keeping us apprised of the situation.
	Liam says, Hi Carl, enjoyed the Demographics podcast a few weeks ago and I've seen more people in various comment sections advocating ethno-nationalism as a solution.
	Instinctively, I'm opposed to this because it seems to be a slippery slope into radical racial supremacy movements.
	Be interested in hearing your thoughts on a liberal conservative response to this as it addresses both issues.
	Also, your rugby knowledge is painful to watch.
	Maybe hire a sports correspondent to cheers.
	Well, we weren't there to talk about the rugby.
	We were there to talk about the identity politics.
	One of the things that I've long pointed out when it comes to demographic issues is the main problem comes from immigration.
	It's almost all immigration.
	The concern about childbirth is actually a really marginal one.
	And every year we get hundreds of thousands, like something like 650,000 immigrants in, and there's an outflow as well of hundreds of thousands of immigrants.
	But that leaves a net inflow of something like 250,000.
	And really what we, I mean, before anything happens, what we should do is just stop the inflow, and the outflow has got no reason to think that will stop continuing.
	And so the problem will kind of solve itself through people choosing to move and live wherever they want.
	Yeah, I do have a problem.
	I keep hiring immigrants.
	Well, no, you don't actually.
	We're all British.
	Except one.
	Well, I mean, no.
	Yeah, I guess.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But anyway, sorry, we're going to have to hurry up because we haven't got through any of the soup chats.
	I think I'll just go straight to the soup chats.
	Do you want to get some of the soup chats up, John?
	Oh, are they?
	Right, okay.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Also, just why would you engage in ethno-nationalism to deal with this problem?
	You don't need it.
	There are plenty of liberal states that can show that you don't need that.
	Yeah, but I mean, again, you don't have to have open borders.
	And if you close the borders, then the problem will solve itself, because the problem comes from open borders.
	So we don't need to do anything other than take sensible action.
	Yeah, it's just irritating that, I don't know about the US, like Trump, I think he got it down by like 20%, something like that.
	I think it was more than that, actually.
	More than that, perhaps.
	Yeah.
	But in the UK, the Conservatives have had 10 years about now, if we include the coalition, if I've got that right.
	Yeah, yeah, 2010, it was Nick Clegg.
	And it's exactly the same.
	Yep.
	Nothing has changed.
	In fact, it's probably gone up.
	Pubs open.
	Pubs closed, borders open.
	And they've said for the last 10 years we will get it down.
	Yeah, Theresa May, we'll get it down to the tens of thousands.
	David Cameron said that.
	Why don't you get it down to zero by just saying no?
	I'd like a visa to come and live your country, please.
	Sorry we're not offering visas at this time.
	My board is my choice.
	Yeah, but I just don't understand.
	It's like, oh, there's nothing we can do.
	So what do you mean there's nothing you can do?
	I'd like a visa, please.
	And you say, sorry we're not offering them.
	No means no.
	Yeah, just what are they going to do?
	Anyway, Stigma of the Rose, for $69, says...
	Nice.
	That's a great soup chat, thank you.
	Very clever.
	Nonya to Give, for $30, thank you, says...
	Ote, saw your chat with Shad.
	Great points.
	Read Way of the Superior Man.
	Gets the nub of your chat.
	Man needs a purpose.
	Yeah, I think men do need purpose.
	Thank you as well.
	I didn't realise how popular this chat with Shad was going to be because it was really late and I was tired.
	Because Shad's in Australia, you've got to do it either really early in the morning or really late at night.
	So I was like, right, I do want to have a...
	And he was the one who said, like, I want to talk about, like, masculinity.
	I still have a good forum to do it in.
	I was like, well, actually, I guess my channel's a pretty good...
	My old channel's a pretty good place for that.
	But, yeah, it was a good chat.
	This is for the plaque I suggested while you're on the quartering stream.
	You know, the Aquila Hughes Memorial Lou.
	Keep up the great job.
	Thank you very much.
	Anthony Willis, 69th Podcast.
	Nice.
	And Nathaniel Larson for $17.76, which is the correct amount.
	Things more important than what BLM tells us, focusing on families, end human trafficking, end pedos, end tyrannical government policies, and the right to be left alone.
	Yes, they are all things that are way more important.
	Did you see pedophile hunting was trending on Twitter?
	It was just full of boomers who are...
	An Income Project!
	It's like, oh God!
	Democrats are just like, uh-oh.
	Yeah, I didn't see any leftist checkmarts using that hashtag.
	They've got nothing to say about that.
	Weird.
	Daniel J. Carica for $17.76, the correct amount.
	I recorded 30 seconds of a cool t-shirt with the Gadsden flag snake on top, but it says you've been warned on the bottom 30 seconds of your conversation was in the background.
	I hope that's okay.
	Yes, I think so.
	And TrueChaos6 for, again, $17.76.
	Wow, there are so many correct people super chatting us today.
	I was wondering if you would be open to making a video explaining leftist gaslighting.
	I have friends who don't understand what it is, and when I explain it, it's like a veil pulled from their eyes.
	Yeah, I mean, I suppose that's definitely one thing we would do.
	This is actually why I want to hire more video content creators, so we can do more things like this, because there's only so many hours in the day, and we're constantly working hectically every day to make the content as good as we can.
	So, yeah.
	Email us.
	Contact at lowseasons.com.
	If you are a charismatic policy wonk and you want to talk about things like this, we want to hear from you.
	And you can work from the office.
	We keep getting people from...
	Well-meaning people are like, I'm in Australia.
	Can I do it?
	I'll relocate.
	It's like, no, you can't.
	The government won't let you.
	But it's like, you have to be able to...
	Live in Britain, work in Britain, I'm afraid.
	But anyway, thank you everyone for joining us.
	We will be back tomorrow with, of course, more coverage.
	If you want more content from us, we have absolutely loads at Logistics.com and loads that you don't even have to be a member for.
	Australians in the chat, gives us a job, mate.
	I mean, I would if you weren't, like, on the other side of the world.
	But yeah, we've got loads of great, really great news coverage from the news team.
	We've got loads of great exclusive guest articles from various authors that you'll know and love.
	And we, of course, have all of our premium content, the book club.
	We've got loads of stuff.
	It's amazing.
	You've literally got nothing better to do with your afternoon than go to lowseas.com and check it out.

▲