Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 5, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:35:17

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #82

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast, The Low-T-Seaters, for Friday the 5th of March 2021.
	I'm joined by Callum.
	Before we begin, I'm going to let you know about an article that we put up yesterday called A Chance To Be Heard, A Citizen Journalist's Account of the Capitol Protest.
	Now, this is really, really interesting because this is Eliza Parrott and Brandon Parrott, who describe themselves as centre-left college professors who went to the protest.
	They voted for Bernie and then they voted for Trump.
	And they have a first-hand account of going into the capital and the events thereof.
	Now, it's really, really interesting because it's written in a very normal style, I guess we could describe it.
	It's just them giving their experiences and it's not written in hyperbolic fashion or anything like that.
	But the things that they say had happened, especially one bit, which I'm going to read you a quick clip of, I think is just astounding, the implications of it.
	They say, we spent some time standing by one of them closely on the right.
	He was wearing a full camo outfit.
	These are the people trying to get them in the building.
	Plus a camo mask and helmet.
	The walkie-talkie on his hip periodically buzzed into life, but we couldn't make out the voices on the other end in the din.
	He looked up and listened to it frequently, but never spoke into it.
	He frequently said through his bullhorn, exhorting others to violent acts, saying things like, get in there, the revolution is now, down with liberalism, hang Pelosi.
	He also said to them, they're right up there taking your country away from you, go and hurt them.
	Very interesting.
	Now, they weren't riled up revolutionaries, so this was really inappropriate language, and so it was a very, very interesting piece to read, and I think it might be worth sending it to normies who don't really know much about what happened, so you can give them a kind of first-hand account.
	Anyway, I just thought it was honestly really, really worth your time to read, and really, really thankful that Eliza and Brandon were brave enough to send this across to us, to be honest, to allow us to publish it.
	Because I can't imagine that if the Eye of Sauron came down on them for it, it's going to be very forgiving.
	But anyway, right.
	So let's talk about the Republican War on leftist values.
	Have you been following what's been going on in the sort of social sphere in the red states in America?
	No, to be honest.
	Well, I have, because I find this eminently fascinating.
	So the first thing, I think, is to begin with Tennessee, who has recently attempted to ban abortion.
	Again, all of this is from 2020, but a lot of this comes from literally the last month or so.
	But this happened back in 2020, where they tried to pass legislation on Friday, well, in their time, Seeking to place restrictions on abortions, which means the legislation bans abortion after a fetal heart beat can be detected, which could be as early as six weeks, and the procedure is prevented from taking place because of the fetus's race or sex, or if there has been a diagnosis of Down syndrome.
	So you can't abort on these reasons.
	It also bans abortions from minors in the custody of the Department of Children's Services and scraps the current option to petition a judge to secure permission for it.
	It also mandates that the physician performing the abortion has to inform the mother of the gestational age of the fetus and conduct an ultrasound before the procedure and includes an exception if a woman's life is in danger but does not provide an exception for cases of rape or incest.
	So that's pretty stringent.
	The only real exception here is if the woman's life is in danger.
	Even for rape, they're saying.
	Even for rape, right?
	So this is a pretty heavy-handed abortion bill, and it passed 23 to 5 in their state senate.
	I haven't followed up on this one, but this is just the beginning of it, because Arkansas is doing the same.
	See, Americans, notice how I'm not calling it Arkansas now.
	This, literally, what, two days ago, this was published on Star Tribune.
	Arkansas lawmakers approved legislation banning nearly all abortions, which is basically the same bill, as far as I can tell.
	bans all abortions except those to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency, and this passed 75 to 18.
	So you can see the kind of impetus that's behind it, right?
	The mindset is that most of them, by quite a large majority, think that this would be a good thing.
	There's 14 other states that outright abortion bans have been proposed, and of course this is because they're on a moral crusade against abortion because they think that abortion itself is an evil to begin with.
	Well, they think it's murder.
	They think it's murder.
	It's time for this decision to be overturned in the Supreme Court, Republican Representative Mary Bentley, sponsor of the measure, told House members.
	So this is clearly something to do with their Christian beliefs.
	And...
	The question would be, well, they're going to be imposing this on people against their will.
	This will be awful.
	Not if you consider the polling on it, really.
	A recent poll indicated from October 2020 revealed that 60% of likely voters believe that abortion ought to be legal only in certain circumstances, for example, like the life of the mother is endangered, whereas nearly a quarter of them thought it should be illegal in all circumstances.
	Which means only around 16% of Arkansas likely voters that were polled believe that it should be legal for the mother's choice, right?
	Okay, but that's not the argument when you said it's going to be forced on people.
	The people it's going to be forced on from that side would be, let's say a mother has a child who has Down syndrome, they don't want to have a child who has Down syndrome, therefore they want the abortion.
	That's where the argument of force is.
	I'm not saying that there'll be no people who don't feel this forced on them, but what I'm saying is...
	There are going to be 84% of people who basically agree with it.
	Which is a huge amount.
	That's massive.
	Right.
	And so it's, yeah.
	So saying, well, these people don't know what they're doing or they're being unfair.
	It's like, no, they almost all kind of agree with this.
	Yeah, I mean, it's sort of like when you see in Portland, the mayor courting Antifa, well, they vote for him.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The moral system is the same, from the legislators to the majority of the people, the vast majority of the people.
	I don't really have much of an opinion on abortion, so I'm probably not going to give too much, but I do know an interesting statistic about Down syndrome cases.
	In Iceland, they do allow you to abort if you know the kid has Down syndrome.
	100% of all That's very interesting.
	I didn't know that.
	But anyway, so in the case of Arkansas, a judge has blocked the bill because this has been – and it was expected that they would because this is an unconstitutional thing.
	I imagine the same thing had happened in Tennessee, although I didn't check.
	I couldn't even find polling on Tennessee views on abortion, but I'm going to guess that it's fairly conservative.
	Anyway, yeah, so this was ruled as unconstitutional because essentially they were making the claim that the doctors would be forced to say something untruthful.
	I don't really know the details of it, but the point is a judge has stepped in and prevented this from happening.
	And then this, so this is very, very, very much the conservative worldview on the march.
	Remaking the world in the conservative view of what a good world will look like.
	And a good world in the conservative view includes as little abortion as possible.
	It's not really the radical left-wing view, which requires abortion on demand up until the point of birth.
	That seems to be their moral standard.
	Why not post-birth?
	Well, that's been proposed by left-wing academics, because they'll try and extend and stretch or contract the definition of what we consider to be a person to be, and it's suddenly this categorization of person, but it's like, I don't actually agree with that.
	If you can get yourself to the point that a day before is fine, why not the day after?
	Exactly.
	And I don't agree that persons should be the standard.
	Even if I don't consider someone to be a person, they're still a human with a human life, and I don't have a right to take that away from them.
	So I actually find myself kind of...
	I think this is way too extreme, obviously, but I don't agree at all with the radical left-wing perspective, and if it's one or the other, then I would choose prudence over post-birth abortions.
	I guess I'm a conservative that way.
	So anyway, this also bleeds into the issue of trans people because obviously these are social politics based around gender and sex.
	We've got a great article by Josh that I asked him to write up the other day about trans women and how they are succeeding in sports because they are.
	And there are some quite brutal examples like What was the...
	Fallon Fox?
	Yeah.
	Breaking a woman's skull and stuff like this in MMA. But that's just an extreme example.
	But the more regular examples are like USA powerlifting banning transgender weightlifters because they have an unfair competitive advantage from having been men and men having physically bigger bodies and stronger bodies.
	And you've got a good example of this.
	Laurel Hubbard in 2020 in the Rome Golden Weightlifting won...
	The gold medal for the 87 plus kilogram category.
	I can understand where the concern is coming from because it really looks like eventually the mediocre male athletes, a lot of them will end up transitioning and winning in the women's sports.
	And the thing is the bar for entry then will be set so high, the women will essentially never be able to actually win in their own sporting competitions.
	And I think that is something that will eventually become true.
	So Alabama has, again, leading into the conservative mindset, Tennessee is proposing a ban on transgender school sports because of this precise thing.
	And there was another example in the previous one.
	It was in 2019 the lawsuit began, but two male students had transitioned to becoming female, and then they were setting records in the women's track racing and stuff like this.
	And so some of the girls and their parents are suing the school because...
	Well, we can't win.
	And so Tennessee is going in this direction already.
	They voted, senators voted to ban trans youth from participating in middle and high school sports corresponding to their gender, which from Pink News means not corresponding to their gender.
	The Tennessee Senate voted 27-6.
	Again, look at the level of people, the scale of the swing there.
	And so this would apply to everyone.
	At the time of writing, again, this is fairly recent, so at the time of writing it hasn't gone through the House yet.
	But it's something that...
	I mean, how do you argue against that?
	Their argument is, one of the Republican governors, Bill Lee, said that transgenders participating in women's sports will destroy women's sports, and it seems likely to proceed with little pushback.
	That's only because the facts seem to support it.
	What are you going to do?
	But of course, the left have been like, oh, they're peddling the myth that trans athletes have an unfair advantage in sports.
	Well, I think the Olympic Committee had a lot to say about that as well.
	So it's like all of these official sporting bodies are like, yeah, that is.
	You've got people like Joe Rogan who's like, yeah, they definitely do.
	And then you have the activists.
	We have the records that they're setting.
	And so it's like, look, we have more than enough inductive evidence to suggest that this is an inductively strong conclusion.
	It seems to be true.
	And I think that's not controversial.
	It's just a fact of life.
	And so you've got other conservative states that are essentially following the British lead on this.
	Because remember, we're Turf Island, right?
	According to philosophy tube.
	We're Turf Island.
	And so we're the home of the Turfs because we're empiricists, which makes us essentially gender essentialists because we think, well, look at you.
	You've got physical strength of a man.
	You're not a biological woman.
	Right?
	So, anyway, Alabama has gone in the same direction as we have.
	They've voted to make hormone therapy and surgery for trans youth a felony.
	Under a new law, they could not be treated with puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or surgery, and the vote in this was 23-4 in favour.
	The Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, this is called.
	And so, yeah, medical professionals would be committing a felony for treating transgender minors under the age of 19 with gender-affirming care, as it's described.
	They could face 10 years in prison or a $15,000 fine.
	And, yeah, so they also have to disclose to their parents that a minor has a perception that his gender is inconsistent with her sex.
	So here's her sex.
	And their reason is that children are not mature enough to make these decisions on surgeries and drugs.
	The whole point is to protect kids.
	It seems like the medical worldview.
	It seems like the medical worldview, yeah.
	So yes, so the next one is that this from the activists is being interpreted as a kind of defensive way.
	So they're saying, well, trans kids therefore think that the world hates them, thanks to the British High Court puberty blocker ruling.
	And this, like I said, we're actually ahead of the curve here because we're Turf Island.
	We have transgender-only prisons.
	Yes.
	Do we?
	Yes.
	We set up Transgender Only Cells in response to trans women raping women.
	I mean, tell me that's wrong.
	Well, I mean, it is wrong that they're raping women, obviously.
	No, no, but don't tell me that setting up transgender-only prisons is wrong, Alexis.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Be pro-rape, go for it.
	Yeah, and be anti-woman.
	Distinctly anti-woman.
	But anyway, so in December 2020, obviously our High Court, in the case of Kira Bell, ruled that under-16s can't go through hormone replacement therapy and gender-affirming surgery.
	So, like I said, the Americans are catching up here.
	And they're outraged.
	They hate it.
	They hate everything about it.
	The academic, is it an academic?
	Yeah, it is an academic, right.
	Speaking at an academic conference on the medical and legal consequences, Dr. Jay Stewart and co-founder of trans charity Gendered Intelligence said the decision is already having an impact on the mental well-being of trans youth.
	Young trans people who work with gendered intelligence have spoken of feeling a lack of control over their lives as a result of the judgment.
	Young people have described it as offensive that they do not have the appropriate autonomy of their bodies and choices.
	We've got a situation where there are more strangers, not less, making decisions about what's in the best interest of a young person.
	And there's a fear that the wishes and needs of the young person are not being put front and center.
	I'm honestly not against that.
	I don't think that kids have very much control over their own bodies, and I don't think they should have that much autonomy.
	I think that they should actually have a fairly strict set of rules.
	And I've come to this conclusion after being a dad for many years now.
	Why do we not let them drive?
	Why do they not have the right to vote?
	Why do they not have the right to just eat cake all day?
	Because it's bad for them.
	That's why.
	And I know better.
	Because I'm their parent.
	But if we're literally going to take the view that a person who's a child in any given country is so intelligent and has such autonomy that they can decide that they're the wrong sex...
	Well, then what's stopping them from having the right to vote?
	What's stopping them from being able to drive?
	You know, if they can be responsible enough for that, why everything else that requires responsibility are you happy to keep away from them?
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's such a huge, huge, life-changing decision.
	And we know this because there is actually quite an awful lot of trans regret out there.
	Now, if you want to, and we'll probably do a premium podcast on this soon, just going through some of these trans regret stories, because they're heartbreaking.
	They're genuinely harrowing.
	And if you want to get an impression of it, just search Trans Regret Stories on Google and you'll find subreddits and posts and viral images and things like that of people describing what happened to them.
	And it's really quite...
	Just awful stuff.
	It's not something I'd wish on someone, you know?
	This is an example from The Federalist where someone called Walt Heyer had been a woman for nearly a decade, undergone the sex change surgery, and then detransitioned back to being a man, and had written a book with 30 transgender stories, regret stories, in it.
	Because this is something that is, well, apparently happening fairly often and not getting much coverage because the activists, of course, don't want people to think this.
	But it's a fact.
	There are people who are like this.
	In Walt's particular case, he was actually traumatised by some early childhood trauma and this had done some damage to his personal identity and given him dissociated identity disorder.
	And with the clarity of this realization, he says his gender dysphoria simply vanished.
	His life as a woman amounted to an attempt to escape reality.
	And sadly, too few people consider the possibility that gender dysphoria can manifest as a byproduct or symptom of other mental conditions.
	Most certainly of all did.
	And so I'm not saying there's not a problem, right?
	I'm not saying that bad things haven't happened to these people and they're not suffering.
	I think they are.
	I think they are suffering.
	But I think that what the trans lobby is saying is not really very helpful and I don't think accusing people of bigotry is actually very helpful either when it comes to this.
	Because any kind of clear-headed analysis of this will come to the conclusion that actually it looks like the people on the pro side are being irresponsible with the level of knowledge that they claim to have and the level of self-possession that they think that children have And they're not giving heed to the sort of, I guess we'll come to the traditionalist position, that actually we've learned a lot about children after many thousands of generations of raising them, and you childless academics might not know as much as you think.
	So anyway, moving on.
	The reason that I'm putting all these things together is because what underpins this is a set of values that has suddenly become absent, right?
	So there was a set of values that was superimposed over what's happening here, And this has been removed.
	And so suddenly everything's springing back to a very conservative perspective.
	For example, this was a court case in which a school had found that what they decided was they weren't going to publish a pro-trans story in a school booklet.
	And the parent went to court and the court said, well, no, they don't have to.
	Because, I mean, of course, First Amendment.
	So what happened here is the child was 10 years old when she was assigned to write an essay to society in 2019.
	And the court heard that her maternal grandfather is part of the LGBT plus community and that the child themselves is, quote, a proud advocate of LGBTQ rights.
	Yeah, of course they are.
	And then everybody clapped.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But let's assume that they are, right?
	Let's assume this child has been kind of brainwashed into this worldview.
	That child is not the author of those thoughts.
	They're not the author of this worldview.
	They don't know what they're talking about.
	You know, they're being fed something by an activist grandparent and...
	That's what they're projecting forth here.
	I mean, this is the letter, right?
	To society.
	I don't know if you know this, but people's view on transgenders is an issue.
	People think that men should not dress like women, saying mean things, that they are choosing the wrong thing in life.
	In the world, people can choose who they want to be, not what, not being told that their diction is wrong.
	I hope people understand that people can hurt themselves from others hurting their feelings.
	People need to think before they speak because one word can hurt someone's feelings.
	We need to fix this because this is getting out of hand.
	Like I said, the child is clearly not the author of this.
	This is clearly something that has been projected onto them by their grandparent.
	The child has been, you know, trusting and taken in by this and now is trying to do their best, right?
	So the child has been misled here, I think.
	So who cares?
	It's a child, you know?
	It's like, why would you even take a lecture from a child?
	Well, yeah, but the point is you have someone who's trying to indoctrinate the child into a worldview.
	And, of course, this went to court and the court said, no, this is fine.
	And conversely, there's another example of this kind of event going on, which is a Texas school trying to teach girls how to be chivalrous.
	Very interesting, isn't it?
	Again, I don't endorse these things, but I think this is quite interesting.
	So this was a chivalry assignment given to the students at Shallow Water High School in Texas that instructed girls to, quote, dress in a feminine manner to please men and walk behind men daintily as if their feet were bound and not to complain or whine.
	So I assume the principal is a follower of Wahhabism.
	Well, that's what it sounds like, isn't it?
	That's what it sounds like.
	It sounds very Islamic.
	The assignment asks girls to demonstrate to the school how the code of chivalry and standards set in the medieval concept of courtly love carries over to the modern day.
	That's very interesting.
	Okay, that sounds far more reasonable.
	Which is just like, right, in this context of medieval chivalry.
	Yeah, but it's something there's a lot more to go into, but we don't have time.
	So a set of rules was listed with a line for an adult witness signature next to each.
	The assignment said that all ladies deemed worthy of the honour by the gentleman would get 10 points for each witness signature.
	The list states that ladies must address all men respectfully by title, with a lowered head and curtsy, and ladies must never criticise a male.
	It also said ladies must not initiate conversations with males or show intellectual superiority outside of the classroom.
	If it would offend the men around them.
	It also says that they must cook for the gentlemen in their class and should clean up after the men.
	Again, it seems from the Wahhabist school of gender relations.
	Yeah, it really does.
	Ladies must obey any reasonable request of a male.
	If not sure if it's considered reasonable, ladies can check with their teachers.
	Yes.
	I mean, I'm going to be raising this with my wife when I get home tonight.
	So I've seen what this Texas high school is doing, darling.
	Maybe you should consider...
	I'm going to get a slap.
	So, and when this...
	This is all in the context of, like, in medieval times.
	Not really.
	It's about how these concepts of honour and chivalry translate into the modern world.
	So they used to be very strict and they still somewhat exist.
	We're going to record the premium podcast about thick concepts after this and you'll understand where all this is going when we go through it.
	I mean, ladies is an interesting one there.
	Well, this is the thing.
	It's all about titles and status.
	There's a stature in the term ladies.
	You have to work to become a lady.
	You're not just born a lady.
	You're not just a lady just because you're an adult woman either.
	A lady is a title of honor, of respect.
	And there are certain behaviors that are expected in the case of this Texas high school.
	The same way of being a gentleman.
	Exactly.
	You have to behave in a certain way.
	You have to dress and act in a certain way.
	And this is all important stuff, but we'll talk about that in the premium podcast that people can watch when they sign up to lotuses.com.
	Anyway, so this, I think, I wrote a piece on how the left broke the moral compact on abortion a couple of weeks ago, because I've been following this on a sort of philosophical level for a while now.
	And I find this to be really important because I think what has happened is the intersectional worldview, the radical left worldview, has completely overtaken left-wing politics at this point.
	And what this is and what this means is that effectively the agreement that the left and the right had on abortion that was set by, I think it was Bill Clinton in 1992, which would be the safe, legal and rare abortion, has been broken by the left.
	Because in 2016, in her run towards the presidency, Hillary Clinton dropped the rare bit from the line.
	She liked the idea of it being safe and legal, but now it doesn't have to be rare.
	And as I explore in this piece, that's actually important because what she's saying there is that women don't have to be virtuous.
	Because when you say rare, that requires a specific amount of conduct on the women themselves.
	As in, you're going to have to patrol your own sexuality, make sure you don't get pregnant.
	You need to thought patrol yourself.
	You do.
	That's exactly it.
	Try not to need an abortion.
	Make virtuous choices.
	So you're not in a position where you need an abortion.
	But if that does happen and you have an accident or you're raped or something terrible happens, then that option is there, right?
	And so that's a fairly fair compromise.
	That's the left getting most of what it wants to make sure that women aren't suffering because they can't get access to abortions if they really need them.
	But also the Republicans, the right, again, a lot of what they want say, look, we don't want very much of this happening.
	It's understanding the moral point, though, which...
	The compromise.
	Any government that wanted to be popular, that would be the policy.
	It's a great policy.
	And I still stand by it to this day.
	I think it's exactly the way we should do it.
	But that requires a certain amount of tolerance and acceptance of the ills of the world and the reality of the world.
	You know, the fact that sometimes bad things happen to good people and they have to do something that is morally dubious in the most perfect view in order to be able to cope, right?
	And that's just a part of life.
	Everyone does this.
	But the left also has to accept that actually women...
	We have some standards that are placed on them by wider society because women are powerful and influential and their actions have an effect.
	You know, they have a long-term effect.
	And so the left abandoning this.
	This is what I mean about the sort of lifting of one side of the moral argument.
	This means that the Republicans are now just like, well, okay, well, if we don't have to worry about compromising with you because you're refusing to compromise with us by going like, we want abortion up to the point of, you know, whatever, birth, then...
	Screw it.
	We'll just make sure that the boys are as masculine as possible, the girls as feminine as possible.
	You don't have transgender anything because you're a bunch of lunatics and we don't care.
	And it's like, well, this was a predictable response when you abandoned their moral concerns about the amount of abortions conducted.
	Or the behavior of women in society.
	These things matter.
	And it's no surprise at all to me that the Republicans are just defaulting back to what they consider to be moral legislation.
	Because they've decided, I think, at this point that the left are not authors of moral legislation.
	They can't be reasoned with.
	They can't be dealt with in this way.
	So screw them.
	We've got the numbers in these state senates.
	There go your abortions.
	Let's go on to the alphabet wars.
	Alphabet Wars.
	To be honest, it kind of sounds like a game show.
	It does.
	I actually would watch that if it was on YouTube or something, you know?
	Anyway, so this is a story which I stumbled across, and I thought it would be one thing, and it turned out to be another, and it's amazing, and I hope you enjoy this.
	I'm actually quite pumped for this.
	So, everyone knows about Pride parades.
	Pride parades are a thing globally.
	In the West, they, you know, were always a thing of acceptance, tolerance, and now that it is accepted and tolerated and promoted, quite frankly, people are wondering what the hell is the point of these things.
	So, a lot of weird stuff keeps happening, like they're getting turned into fetish parades.
	I can tell you that the sort of Republican Deep South right are looking at them going, Pride's a sin, you know?
	Yeah.
	But, I mean, you compare it to, I mean, if you take it probably in the Deep South or Japan or somewhere where homosexuality isn't accepted, the pride parades there look entirely, what would be the right word?
	Proper.
	Civilized?
	Civilized.
	Proper.
	Like, it's just people who are like, right, we want to be tolerated.
	But you go to some places in the West and it's not that.
	It's become fetish parades because they've got nothing to campaign on anymore.
	Well, yeah.
	What rights don't you have?
	So it becomes a political thing as well.
	Anyway, so this is one of the story here.
	Pride in London rejects ban on Met Police taking part in Parade.
	Good.
	Hmm, okay.
	Move follows plea from Commissioner to allow LGBT officers to be in the march.
	And I was thinking, maybe this is like the BBC thing, so we can get the next link.
	This is something we've talked about before.
	Where the BBC said, well, the new director general, implied that you couldn't go to LGBT parades because it's politically biased.
	Any kind of political activism, wasn't it?
	Yeah, I mean, like, you know, there's gay acceptance and tolerance is a conservative part of this country.
	And LGBT is not that.
	It comes under the Labour Party's view of how things should work.
	So that's a reasonable inference from what was going on.
	His statement exactly was, judgment is required to what issues are, quote, controversial with regard to marches or demonstrations.
	And the Guardian took this as, well, LGBT parades are banned.
	Unfortunately, he...
	I mean, lots of things are banned.
	BLM parades, anything like this.
	A Voldemort rally would be banned, you know?
	I mean, I don't know if that comes under political bias.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	It's a political position.
	He's a political activist.
	Oh, Voldemort Voldemort.
	British Voldemort.
	Yeah, British Voldemort.
	Sorry, which Voldemort?
	I was thinking of the ones from Harry Potter.
	Oh, you could call that a political position too, as I understand it.
	But yeah, British Voldemort is a political activist.
	A man who cannot be named.
	Yeah, you can't go to his rallies either.
	No.
	Unfortunately, the conservative over here decided that he would just give up on his position immediately.
	So the next one's the BBC reporting that he said that, no, you can go to Pride parades.
	He said that journalists could attend if they were not taking a stand on politicized or contested issues.
	They always think that it's not a politicized or contested issue because they think their worldview is right and everyone should agree with it.
	But they think that everything is political.
	That's also a thing.
	So if the person is political and nothing that you do is non-political, they can't go to these.
	I'm for BLM. I'm a conservative.
	It's pathetic.
	Anyway, but this is not about impartiality.
	It's not this issue.
	So if we go back to the article, this is a different issue.
	So, quote, Pride in London have voted against a motion to ban Metropolitan Police from taking part in their possession at an annual parade following pleas from the Commissioner to allow our forces to be in the march.
	So the Commissioner for the Police is like, please let us come to the Pride Parade.
	Crissy the Dick.
	Yeah, Crissy the Dick.
	So they say, Mm
	Yeah.
	The BLM activists are saying that the...
	The taking the knee police.
	The Met cannot come there because they're not proper LGBT activists.
	Even though they've been going for years.
	I mean, we saw the pictures of them wearing the rainbows.
	We saw the pictures of them taking the knee at the BLM protests.
	Yeah.
	The Met police, for people who don't know, we have different sections of police.
	The Met are some of the wokest nonsense organisation in Britain.
	They're the police of diversity and tolerance.
	Literally the Mutawa of London.
	I mean, most of the police in this country have problems, but the Met police are probably the worst.
	If not Brighton or Manchester, perhaps.
	Yeah.
	I mean, Bristol's probably not brilliant either.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, they say in here, Toronto Pride banned uniform officers from taking part in 2019.
	And it's like, well, okay, but that's actually before George Floyd and all this nonsense.
	So that was just, I don't know, they just don't like the police?
	Or at least the gay police, because that's the other point here.
	It's not all officers to come, it is officers who support LGBT ideology to come.
	Why is the Mets police woke?
	That's the question.
	Because they unironically buy into it.
	It's because Christina Dick, the commissioner, is woke herself.
	It's not just her, though.
	No, it's not just her.
	But she's the person at the top, and this kind of influence, this malign influence, I think, comes from the fact that she's a wokest.
	But it also comes down from the government.
	I mean, the Equality Department for ages has been promoting this stuff.
	I'm glad Kemi's in there destroying it brick by brick, but there's a lot of bricks.
	So good luck with that.
	Anyway, they note that the report noted that every LGBT person had a right to take part in the parade, but not every organization shared that right.
	So this is a public thing.
	You know, you can't just ban people from coming to a public march, but not every organization.
	So we could ban the police.
	The Community Advisory Board had previously criticized Pride in London for not being inclusive enough, with Stonewall, a gay organization as they would call themselves, pulling out of the parade in 2018 because the event perceived to have a lack of diversity.
	The The gay rights organization was like, there's not enough brown people at this LGBT parade.
	We're leaving and taking our gays with us.
	I mean, what a thing!
	And now you have the BLM type saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we can't have gay police officers here.
	Get them out!
	They're the wrong kind of gays!
	It's something you mentioned before.
	It's funny to see the power dynamics here.
	They're all turned on each other.
	It shows how pathetic conservatives are.
	They're not able to affect anything.
	From the conservative point of view, the police should be entirely a non-partisan, non-political body.
	So they shouldn't have Gadsden flags on.
	They shouldn't have...
	You know, Nazi flags or communist flags.
	They shouldn't have LBGT or they shouldn't have Black Lives Matter and they should have absolutely no sort of public affinity for these things.
	You know, they shouldn't be painting pride flags.
	Police and maybe British to identify them as British police.
	Yeah, with presumably like a number and name and stuff so you can identify who they are.
	And that's it.
	And you stand around like the good old constabulary making sure there's no trouble.
	That's what you do.
	You know, it's not your job, police officers, to be in any way involved in politics.
	I mean, it's just not...
	What's weird is we sort of understand this for the army.
	You cannot go on an LGBT parade in your army uniform whilst being in the army, for example.
	But for some reason we've completely slipped on that for the police force.
	And it's bizarre as well because it assumes that the public at large agree with what's going on, which I don't think they do.
	And that's the point, isn't it?
	Because otherwise it's kind of an ideological occupying force.
	It's not government by consent.
	It's not policing by consent.
	Because by consent means that you're either going to have to make sure that everyone has this one political position, or you don't take a political position.
	And there's only one of those that you can actually do.
	You can't guarantee that everyone agrees with your views on LGBT and BLM, but you could abstain from getting into the arguments.
	I mean, the police are not going to turn up to a British Voldemort march and march with him, are they?
	Exactly.
	And just again, just to hammer this point home, this wouldn't matter if the police weren't a government-backed monopoly of force.
	If they weren't something that had to rule over everyone, then this wouldn't be a problem.
	But they are, so you don't get a choice in this.
	It's immoral what you're doing.
	So just going to Stonewall, them pulling out because of a lack of diversity at Pride London.
	The charity said they will instead support UK Black Pride.
	Okay.
	What is Black Pride here?
	Is that black nationalism?
	Is that just gay nationalism?
	I don't even know.
	It's black gay nationalism?
	I guess so.
	We're going to have a black gay ethnostate.
	So the charity will instead support UK Black Pride instead of Pride in London, and its advisory board raise concerns about the lack of diversity and inclusion at Pride in London, particularly with black and minority ethnic communities.
	So the BAMQs, the black Asian minority queers, the BAMQs are upset that the LGBTs do not include BLM. Why are the very socially conservative immigrant groups not coming out as gay and trans?
	Good question.
	I wonder if we'll ever answer it.
	So Pride UK responded by saying embracing diversity in all its forms and supporting organizations like UK Black Pride is essentially at the heart of its mission and team.
	So they were like, Stonewall comes along and is like, you don't have enough brown people.
	We're leaving with all our gays to support Black Pride.
	And Pride UK were like, no, no, we support Black Pride.
	Come back.
	It's like, what?
	What is even going on here?
	It's just weird.
	Well, it's a kind of ideological insurgency that's going on.
	And didn't Stonewall get in trouble about trans people as well?
	Yeah, Douglas Murray criticizes them a heck of a lot because they essentially have the view that anyone who's gay is trans.
	So it's sort of like all the gays are disappearing.
	And this is what Glenn Greenwald got in trouble for.
	He was saying that all the lesbians are becoming trans and so the lesbians are going to die out.
	Yeah, so the argument is sort of like they're an anti-gay group, really.
	Because they're sort of like trying to destroy the gays.
	And if the gays set up a thing for gay people, instead they're like, no, no, no, this is for blacks.
	It's like, what?
	And the whole trans issue could be kind of framed as anti-woman.
	And so the inherent contradictions within the LGBTQ alphabet soup groups coming to fruition.
	But that only happens when there's not a common enemy for them to rally against.
	So they view themselves to have defeated conservatism by getting to this point.
	So, Cressida Dick was in conversation about this in the original article again, so this is Cressida Dick.
	She's the lesbian commissioner of the police force.
	I just can't get over the clown world-esque.
	The meme magic of it all.
	She argued that they should be included in the Pride Parades, the LGBT officers, because getting the confidence of black communities is core area of focus for the police.
	I was like, okay, of course it is.
	I mean, we could talk about the reasons for that.
	You know, the mass increase in stabbings, the amount that that is affecting young black men in London, and that's the real crime wave of interest.
	But no, we're all talking about this instead.
	This is more important.
	Yeah, I mean, we have covered it on notices, but the police have very little interest in such things.
	Yes.
	So...
	The Guardian also understands that Pride in London also held meetings with the Great London Authority and the Mayor's Office on the issue.
	They called in the Mayor of London to arbitrate this.
	So they've got the BLM types on one side, the Met LGBT on one side, and the LGBTQ plus lobby.
	And Sadiq just rubbing his head like, oh god, dabbing it like, which button do I press?
	They're all looking at each other like, I don't know who's oppressing Hugh, but let's call him the most oppressed.
	Get the Muslim mayor, and then we'll bring him in, and he can arbitrate the whole thing.
	But you know Sadiq Khan's going to be sweating bullets here, because if he's wrong and he chooses the wrong one and the argument online on Twitter goes the other way, then Sadiq Khan's a transphobe or a racist or a homophobe or something, and something he doesn't want to be labelled, so he's in real trouble here.
	Yeah.
	I just love the idea of them all in the room together, like sat across in this round table, which I don't know who's a presser cue.
	It's like the good, the bad and the ugly, isn't it?
	At the end of it, they're all got guns trained on each other.
	Who's going to pull the trigger?
	Yeah.
	So they say officers for the Met were present at these meetings where the board put forward a list of changes that they want to see implemented.
	Pride in London has since been invited to advise the Mets on diversity and inclusion on a new strategy called Stride.
	So they've got a privileged position within the police force to lecture them on their wokeness, because that's what that is.
	So there we go.
	Met police are down.
	It's just BLM and the LGBT still standing.
	That scene in the good band, that end scene has got the best music as well.
	I'm going to go listen to it after the podcast.
	There's going to be some good memes made out of this, I hope so.
	Like, guys at home make some good stuff.
	So Pride UK then gave a statement after this meeting.
	Many were clear that exclusion would be the best way to show solidarity.
	LAUGHTER What?!
	Others felt the exclusion of LGBT plus people from Pride did not align with the inclusive nature and values of Pride.
	Oh god.
	Sorry I'm laughing too much, but I'm just like, what am I reading?
	This is where they end up.
	This is where they end up.
	Totally confused.
	And then they end this with, and if we allow this to take place, this will give right-wing and racist groups an unwelcome platform.
	What platform?
	And who the hell are you talking about?
	What, excluding the police would help the racist group?
	I mean, are they calling BLM the racist group here?
	That's all I can get at.
	Where they're like, no, we're not siding with a black nationalist.
	You know, gay police, come here.
	Come stand with us.
	I just...
	What?
	I... I know, right?
	I don't even know what to say.
	It's just like, what's going on?
	Why is this the thing that's occupying their thoughts, you know?
	The mayor of London, in the middle of a pandemic, you know, we've got a million other problems going on.
	He's got a campaign to do.
	But no, he's got to sit down and arbitrate between the LGBT mafia, the BLM mafia, and the woke police of diversity and virtue who are getting shot from every side by the looks of it.
	But it's also just an interesting synthesis of every alphabet people, as Dave Chappelle put it.
	So you've got the LGBTQI plus people, the BLM plus, and then you've got the MET LGBTQ plus as well.
	It's just like, what's...
	I don't know.
	It's mad.
	But I found an article a while back sort of demonstrating how much of a garbage fire all of this is.
	And I just have to show it, so if we can get the next Guardian article up.
	So this is...
	That's just the quote of the year.
	If we can just get the next Guardian article up.
	This is some article in which the economic person for Labour who wants to be Chancellor is whining about the Conservative Chancellor being bad because he's not doing Labour things, even though he's doing plenty of Labour things, but whatever.
	Don't worry, he's destroying the economy.
	I don't know what you're complaining about.
	You see just that image there?
	We can scroll down a little bit.
	Yeah.
	Oh, this is where you got that image.
	So let's put the image up, make it full screen.
	Yeah.
	Look at that.
	I put this on Gab with just the caption, the ashes of civilization.
	Yeah.
	Because I can't think of any better description.
	It's surreal, isn't it?
	I mean, look at it.
	I mean, for people who can't see, it's just rows of pubs and shops and God knows what else, all boarded up, all with the shutters down, covered in graffiti.
	Looking dingy and run down.
	There's a sign above one of them that says, shop to let.
	You know, everything looks really ill-kempt.
	A place you would not want to be.
	And then there's the LGBT crosswalk in perfect condition.
	Yeah.
	In bright shining colours with no scratches or anything like that.
	Obviously recently painted.
	That's the thing that has been overlaid on civilisation itself.
	But this is just the image of progressive governance in my mind.
	Like, this is what it is.
	As long as the virtue signaling and propaganda is kept clean, who cares about anything else?
	Because they have nothing else.
	There is nothing there.
	And that's what these groups are for.
	All this endless arguing I've just told you about, where they have to call in the mayor of London, the police force, you know, all this other stuff.
	I mean, how much money and time is wasted on such things?
	And yet, that's all that matters.
	You know, what is happening in the country?
	I mean, I wonder how old that pub is, the Elephant's Head.
	That could be hundreds of years old.
	Too bad.
	Too bad.
	We've got to spend money on the LGBT crosswalk.
	And it looks gross as well.
	It's not even like it's boarded up in a neat fashion.
	This is all boarded up and the pavement looks messy.
	It's awful.
	It's absolutely awful.
	I just have to show people this.
	Sorry I'm lingering on it.
	I think it's important.
	Look at the aesthetics of it.
	This is what your country is when people who have just arrived, this is what they see.
	And this is what The Guardian used as the image to demonstrate how bad the Conservatives are.
	Oh, yeah!
	I mean, I agree with the leftist wing of the Conservative Party.
	This is what they produced.
	But of the actual Conservatives, no.
	This is definitely not their fault.
	And something the Conservative Party has done good in regards to the economy...
	Imagine if we could go back to the 90s and talk about the economy instead...
	I wanted to just end on.
	It's something interesting.
	So the next article here is, so the Guardian complaining about the Conservatives again, but I wanted to use them because then, you know, I'm not being biased.
	You can see that it's not bull.
	Like, they're not bigging them up.
	And one of the things they've done here, they cite basically special economic zones in England, which is really cool.
	Low tax zones?
	Yeah, so after we left the EU, Boris decided to set up free ports, is what they're called.
	So you get lower taxes, lower regulation, and also there's no tariffs.
	So if you bring in a shipment, and then you're shipping it out somewhere else, no tariffs to be paid.
	Which means it's eminently desirable for you to use it.
	So you're a trade hub.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So he set up five, and the Chancellor's just announced he's going to set up another eight, and he wants to set up even more going down the future.
	Wow, unironically, this is a return.
	I wish I knew you were going to bring this up.
	But this is exactly what happened under Louis XIV, where one of his ministers, he's a very famous chap, I can't remember his name, but he's essentially an economic chancellor, went to the merchants and he was like, right, we've decided the greatness of a kingdom is contained entirely in its wealth, so how can we help you make money?
	And they were literally just like, leave us alone.
	Laissez-faire.
	Laissez-faire, leave us alone.
	And that was the birth of that.
	I mean, of course, I would love him to bring out lower taxes and everything.
	Yeah, why can't we have that everywhere?
	But it's a good step.
	It's a good step.
	Taking the point, a lovely little special economic zone in which we can basically siphon money away from the Europeans.
	Great.
	All up for it.
	Interesting point in here, they raise that the European Union has 80 special such ports.
	Oh, do they?
	The European Commission has been desperately trying to shut them down, and they're closing a load.
	Brilliant!
	Because they're under the opinion that such things are...
	Haram.
	Yeah, it's actually haram because they threaten the status of the EU, I guess, and they're shutting all them down.
	And we're opening them like mad.
	You can see why they'd be offended by it, because the whole point is to have a kind of protectionist trading block.
	And if you carve out special areas of that that are outside of these protections, don't follow these rules, it kind of undermines the rules.
	It makes it look like the rules aren't very, very productive and necessary and helpful.
	And it's like, yes, that's what we've been saying the whole time.
	One of the other great points, the reason these were so easily able to be set up is because we didn't have to ask the EU for about it.
	Anyone in the EU has to consult the EU first.
	Oh, what are the benefits of Brexit?
	It's like, well, there you go.
	We just set up eight economic zones.
	But I'd love to extend.
	I mean, why not just make all of Cornwall a special economic zone?
	Why not make the entire country a special economic zone?
	I'd love to.
	There is some...
	So the reasoning for this, I think, is politics.
	So they have...
	Labour, yeah, of course.
	No, they have...
	So you could do it for the whole country, and that would be nice, but why not get some political capital out of it if you're in government, right?
	So they're trying to centre these places on areas where they can win over a couple of constituencies, because here, we just gave you low taxes and a bunch of money.
	Look how many jobs we've created.
	Labour want to shut this down.
	Who are you going to vote for?
	Great question.
	And it's a great little tactic, if nothing else.
	So, yeah, that's Alphabet Wars.
	I look forward to the sequel.
	Well, it's not over.
	These are the opening salvos of the Civil War.
	There's going to be some kind of Franz Ferdinand event where something triggering happens that is unacceptable to certain sides involved, and then the battle lines will be drawn, and then it'll be the full-on get deplatformed I mean, the TERFs have already been deplatformed.
	So there's going to be BLM or the trans lobby that gets deplatformed first.
	Who do you think will win?
	I don't know.
	The trans are pretty oppressed.
	Yeah, but not black.
	But black people, historically, most oppressed, surely.
	I don't know.
	The trans need to work on their victim narrative a bit.
	They're going to have to create...
	No, essentially...
	Actually, no, because they can argue that blacks are disproportionately killing them.
	No, no, not just that.
	What they're going to have to do is essentially create a kind of trans-holocaust narrative, where all of human history up until this point was essentially a trans-holocaust, because they weren't allowed, and they were killed for trying to beat these.
	And that could give them a greater victim status, maybe?
	Good luck.
	Yeah, good luck with that, trans people.
	Not our dog to fight.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Last thing I want to talk about here is Joe Rogan.
	So this is something I found that he had said on a podcast a few days ago, that he admits he was censored by Spotify.
	This is something people have known for a long time.
	Everyone's speculated.
	Everyone's been saying it, but he's always denied it, and now he has openly said that he has been censored.
	So this first article here from Vice is just to get the timeline right.
	So this was when he first signed up.
	Apparently employees in Spotify were very upset that he was transphobic and therefore they didn't want him.
	And the CEO had to be like, shut up.
	Do the job I hired you for.
	Joe Rogan coming from the MMA world is very, very sensitive.
	And he was Adam Ruins Everything.
	He amazingly annihilated him.
	Yeah.
	Adam was like, well, I don't see the problem.
	And Joe was just like, well, it's this, this, this, this, and this.
	And oh my God, Fallon Fox.
	And by the end of it, Adam just looked like an uninformed moron.
	You know, Joe is very, very learned on this subject, I would say.
	So they're saying here, some staff inside the company feel alienated by Spotify hosting a certain Joe Rogan experience and their episodes according to copies of some of the questions presented to the meeting obtained by Motherboard.
	So they got in the internal memos.
	So they're saying here specific episodes they didn't like.
	And Spotify made a response to this in which they said, our diverse team of experts, of course you have to phrase it like this, reviewed the content in question and determines that it did not meet the criteria for removal from our platform.
	So they were officially not backing down.
	They gave the narrative of we're not censoring anything.
	So officially Alex Jones said nothing wrong.
	So that's one thing.
	And then there's another article here in which Joe Rogan himself is apparently responding to this.
	And he says that they have literally said nothing to me about it.
	So he's saying Spotify never told him about this being a problem.
	And then we had him transferring over and a bunch of episodes were missing, like a lot of episodes.
	This is a list of what is currently still missing.
	Yep, you're one of them.
	Gavin McGinnis, Sagan of a Cad.
	Alex Jones, twice.
	Milo Yiannopoulos, twice.
	Gavin McGinnis, twice as well.
	Stefan Molyneux, he's not there.
	Louis Theroux.
	Yeah, you've got some strange ones in there that you wouldn't expect.
	Stephen Greer, the UFO guy.
	Hmm.
	I was like, okay.
	That's weird.
	But there were a lot more missing.
	Jerry Diaz, Janet.
	There were like tons and tons of them missing.
	And now it's down to a smaller number.
	But they're still not transferred over.
	Yeah, but a lot of these people like...
	I mean, A, I don't think any of them should be removed, obviously.
	But from a left-wing point of view, there are a lot of these people who aren't especially notorious.
	No, but you have to wonder if they had said something about transgenderism, which is heresy.
	But then Joe Rogan has got a much stronger view on transgenderism in sports than most people generally.
	But he's also got the potential to make Spotify a lot of money.
	But he's the one, yeah, he's the one who's making the money, yeah, I suppose so.
	So, what's more important, I guess?
	Yeah.
	Anyway, so this upset a lot of people, including myself, who was kind of peeved, and so apparently Alex Jones spoke to Joe Rogan about this, and then he released this video of him talking to camera, explaining what had gone on, and this is his words.
	so he said that he wanted to keep his 100 favourite episodes on YouTube until he goes exclusive to Spotify and then those 100 favourite would stay on YouTube because he thinks they would get more views and that he was not being censored censored and alex jones would be on further shows on spotify which he was he was so that's true but the claim was that he wasn't being censored in not bringing those videos over yeah now i i just want to say uh alex
	that's obvious nonsense because i'm well aware that my my episode of joe rogan was definitely not one of his favorites uh I was kind of embattled at the time, and it was on the day where I was supposed to be heading home, and so the whole thing was kind of rushed, but he wanted to get me on there before I got the plane, and I ended up missing it anyway in the end.
	But it was at the end of the VidCon debacle, so I'd basically been under attack by...
	Various left-wing activists who are a lot more famous than I am.
	And all of the institutions were...
	This was before, like, cancel culture had become a proper thing.
	But they were obviously looking at me like, what are we supposed to do about this?
	And I was being treated as the villain when I was the one who was being abused from the stage.
	Yeah, I mean, this was after VidCon, immediately after?
	Immediately after, yeah.
	So I wasn't exactly in the best headspace, right?
	And so I was quite combative with Joe.
	And I didn't know I was doing it at the time.
	It wasn't about him.
	It was about...
	Yeah, it wasn't about him at all.
	It was me because I was in a very unfamiliar environment in a foreign country with a lot bearing down on me.
	And I had like, you know, I've got to catch a plane or I'm never going to get home, blah, blah.
	And so there is no way I believe that my interview with Joe Rogan was one of his favorites.
	I'm sorry.
	It wasn't one of my favorite interviews.
	It's not because of him.
	So the question here is, what was Alex told?
	I mean, did he speak to Joe?
	He's friends with Joe.
	Well, there's two scenarios.
	Either he had lied to him, and then Alex said this, and then Alex was saying something wrong.
	Or is him trying to be friendly to Joe and saying, okay, I can't be well down, because I know you've got a lot of pressure on you for certain things.
	I suspect that's the one.
	But that's...
	Thanks.
	So this is Alex on the podcast afterwards just to show that, yeah, he did go back on and it was a great episode.
	It really was, yeah.
	And the press were seething about this.
	They were very upset.
	This is BuzzFeed moaning endlessly and they just showed a bunch of tweets.
	I like the way you frame them as the oppressed.
	The oppressed were busy moaning and trying to cancel him.
	Yeah, and then the BBC also reported on this.
	And what was interesting is Spotify defended this action that Alex Jones came on.
	Let's just stop for a minute, pause on this.
	BBC, right, when you use a thumbnail like that, you are trying to dishonour and humiliate the person you're talking about.
	Now, one of the things that I find very interesting about Fox News and their thumbnails is their thumbnails, no matter who their guest is on or who the subject they're talking about, they never use these kind of thumbnails.
	They always actually use a fairly nice representation of the person.
	And I find that really bizarre because it's Fox News and I would expect them to not do that.
	And it's annoying watching the BBC using a thumbnail that's designed to humiliate the man and degrade the man by just the impression of him doing the thing that Fox News is doing.
	It should be the other way around.
	BBC should have a generous thumbnail and Fox News should be the ones with the ridiculous bulging eyes, you know, Fox thumbnail.
	But too bad.
	We live in the clown world where the partisan right-wing press look better than the state-funded centrists.
	So the...
	Arthur Nettles is quite comical, but he's a comedian, so I don't think it's unflattering.
	So the statement from Spotify in response to Alex coming on the show was defensive, and they said, we are not going to ban specific individuals from being guests on other people's shows.
	Good.
	Yeah.
	Good start for a liberal democracy.
	You should be hosting his show as well, not just saying he can come on to other people.
	It's embarrassing.
	But the interesting part was YouTube said that they still host the interview and they ban channels but not individual speakers.
	And they gave a quote from Joe Rogan, Joe Rogan saying he fact-checked all of Alex Jones' claims in the interview and all of them were true.
	And this is also backed up by YouTube because they're saying we didn't delete it because it didn't break any of the TOS on misinformation.
	So YouTube is implicitly saying Alex Jones is correct.
	Everything he said in that interview is true.
	It's like, Well, I mean...
	Alrighty then.
	Where's the lie?
	And then we get to the point, which I want to do, which is just this video of him in this interview saying that actually those initial videos, yeah, they were censored.
	Spotify demanded those get taken down.
	So let's play the video.
	Because I feel like there's too much corporate involvement.
	There's too much influence on content.
	Anytime anything gets big enough, you're going to get shit like that.
	There's going to be strings attached.
	Yeah, that's the criticism of me being on Spotify.
	Yeah, how's that been?
	How's the move been?
	They don't give a fuck, man.
	They don't care what you do?
	They haven't given me a hard time at all.
	There's a few episodes they didn't want on their platform that I was like, okay, I don't care.
	But other than that, in terms of what I do in the future, the big test was having Alex Jones on.
	Let's see how this relationship really goes.
	A lot of people are like, you know, they're telling Joe Rogan what he can do, what he can't do.
	I'm like, they're not.
	They're not.
	And let's show you.
	Alex Jones and Tim Dillon was one of my favorite podcasts I've ever done.
	I love Tim.
	To be fair.
	I can't get over that.
	He's saying, yes, those initial episodes were at the request of Spotify, but they're not interfering with my show because I'm allowed to have Alex Jones on.
	Well, I mean, he's not wrong, specifically.
	If he can have any...
	And Alex Jones, he is right, is the proof of this.
	If he can have Alex Jones on a show afterwards...
	It's proof that he has that freedom.
	Yes.
	That he does not have the freedom to put up certain podcasts that Spotify doesn't like.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But that then begs the question, well, why?
	Why does it matter if I have Alex Jones on after...
	And it's okay, and you're not going to tell me I can't do that.
	Why does it matter if these previous ones also then come over?
	Because, I mean, the Alex Jones episodes are just the best episodes of anything I've ever watched.
	They are.
	They're amazing.
	Yeah.
	You know, I don't want to be...
	For entertainment, I don't know.
	It's crazy.
	No, I'm just trying to get the point.
	I don't know what Joe agreed with Spotify.
	Maybe there's a piece of small print he didn't read or something like this.
	Well, I mean...
	I just...
	I can't get over how he seemed to have given out this narrative of...
	There was no censorship.
	This is because of technical reasons or this and that.
	Yeah, that wasn't true.
	And then it's just obviously false.
	And he now admits that, yeah, it was a complete lie.
	I'm just like, that's...
	I don't like it because I really like the guy.
	Yeah, you're a fan, aren't you?
	I'm quite upset seeing him lie to...
	I'm part of his audience, me.
	It's...
	Yeah, I didn't like it.
	Understandable.
	Understandable.
	Right, let's go for some video comments.
	If you want to leave us a video comment, folks, you can become a gold member on locities.com and then just film one and then send it across to us.
	Hi Galen, Galen.
	So we've all been watching the consequences of indoctrination and echo chambers.
	How do we stop ourselves from falling into the same trap, especially given that a lot of alternate opinions are so far from our internal worldviews that they evoke a visceral, almost physical reaction to what appears to be an existential threat?
	Cheers!
	I feel like I've given my answer to this many, many times, but it's not very complicated, but in some ways it's kind of unpleasant.
	You have to find content creators from all around the political spectrum and regularly listen to them to get essentially the sort of weather vane of that community and then use that to create a kind of meta-analysis of the political environment.
	I've actually not been doing my due diligence recently because I haven't actually been watching much content because I've just been working all the time.
	I'm not sure where the progressive echo chamber is.
	I'll see the video titles in my subscription feed, but I've not been consuming much of their media.
	But basically, what I recommend is, you know, watch some Steven Crowder, watch some David Pakman, watch some Young Turks, watch some Carl Kalinske, watch some, you know, and then just branch out from various, I mean, if that's the sort of two American parts and sides, basically.
	But then, you know, you've got, like, watch Owen Jones, watch Maya Tosi.
	Like, watch us talk about free speech and then go watch Owen Jones talk about free speech.
	Yeah, exactly.
	For anyone who hasn't seen our episode on it, he did a stream about it and it's...
	With a radical activist who's like, well, actually, we're against free speech and we should shut them down.
	And then make your decision.
	Who are you siding with?
	Yeah, who do you want to side with?
	But that's essentially the only solution I think I have to that problem.
	So, was that the only question we had?
	Great.
	Right, we have a breaking news report from White Hot Peppers, our roving reporter from on the ground inside the Capitol.
	Because, of course, yesterday was meant to be the day when everything was supposed to kick off, and we would have done a segment on it, except nothing happened.
	Nothing happened, you paranoid lunatics on the left.
	This was CNN's QAnon conspiracy theory.
	Yes, their conspiracy theory was that a massive QAnon assault was going to happen, and White Hot Peppers was telling us, yeah, they were doing test drills for civilian attacks on the Capitol, and everyone was like, what the hell is going on?
	Obviously, I follow the right-wing echo chambers, and I'm not seeing any boogaloo-type noises.
	No one's like, ah, we're going to go over the top now.
	Everyone's just like, Joe Bunch, shh.
	They're banging the table going Trump 2024.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You know, Joe Biden, Joe Biden is illegitimate.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Trump 2024 beat him the third time.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And so, yeah, the fact that everything was supposed to kick off yesterday, and it didn't.
	And, like, Joe Biden getting cut off after saying, I'll take questions.
	Did he even give a State of the Union?
	I don't think he did.
	I'm sure he didn't.
	I'm sure he didn't give a State of the Union.
	Someone in the comments, let me know, or in the chat, let us know, because I can't remember.
	I've just been a bit busy.
	Benny, Whitehall Pep says, Good morning, good afternoon, everyone.
	Our lovely woman governor, Gretchen Whitmer, from Michigan, is supposed to be visiting us sometime today or tomorrow.
	Every single person that I've talked to on the line despises her, but our commander told her we have to be nice to her regardless of what our political views are.
	I personally don't like her because she abused and murdered the elderly, isolated children and vulnerable in our state, declaring supreme power over everyone.
	Yeah, for anyone who doesn't know, she's a total tyrant.
	We could go into it one day, I suppose.
	Nothing to do with her political views, just human rights violated and laws broken by her.
	Correct.
	Being deputised here in DC, we have the right to detain people we believe have committed crimes and tell them of DC police to be arrested.
	I have half a mind to detain her for negligent homicide to the most vulnerable in our state of Michigan and bring it to its knees.
	That'd be quite the headline.
	I would have a great laugh for a long time.
	Unfortunately, nothing good would come of it more likely because the crime probably had to be committed in D.C. Shame she's probably going to get away with it.
	I hope justice comes soon.
	Yeah, don't do anything crazy.
	God, what an amazing idea, though.
	No, but not just her, but the National Guard walking into Congress and the House.
	And she'd be like, you're all under arrest.
	We're all arresting you for crimes.
	The food situation still hasn't been solved yet, because for anyone who missed it, the guards in DC are being given uncooked food with metal shavings in, because it seems like they want them to betray them or something.
	They gave this whole briefing on how loose lips sink ships, even though they were knowingly poisoning their own soldiers.
	Yeah, but a few soldiers got sick from this, of course.
	I know, but the bull's on the brass to be like.
	I know.
	We know you hate us.
	We know you hate this person.
	We know we just poisoned you, but shut up about it.
	And we know we're using you as an occupying force behind the razor wire in the capital, but we're the legitimate government and loose lips sink ships.
	So, you know, do as you ought.
	They are right that you shouldn't, in principle, leak anything about the military.
	But when you are literally being given poisoned food from the state that you're meant to be protecting...
	Yeah.
	Public interest, I think, takes precedence.
	Well, not just that.
	There's a certain level of...
	Expectation and appropriateness that the authorities are clearly not fulfilling here, right?
	Why should we uphold our obligations if you can't uphold yours?
	Exactly.
	That's exactly it.
	Anyway, and how we raised our right hand to do with what the government told us to do and so on.
	I did not sign up to the military to do what the government told me to do.
	I signed up to the military to defend the Constitution, and I feel absolutely no shame in sharing that information.
	If it didn't get out of the public, then they wouldn't do anything about it.
	We've been eating food like that for months, and they've known about it for months.
	It's just a matter of saving a quick buck.
	They have every opportunity to stop paying for the bad service they're getting and give us the money to spend on our own food.
	We were literally in the middle of the capital of the United States.
	There's plenty of places to eat.
	They're just mad they got egg on their face again.
	Sorry for rambling.
	I've had a lot of things on my mind.
	I just wanted to say, but I can't.
	Keep your chin up, lads.
	We'll get through this and be stronger for it.
	Love every single one of you.
	Oh, that's lovely, isn't it?
	But thank you for the updates.
	It's really, I mean, this is quite privileged, really.
	Yeah, thank you, Private Preppers.
	Yeah, because nobody else has that kind of direct information.
	We have an actual reporter in the Capitol telling us what's going on, which is fantastic.
	So yeah, thank you, and don't do anything silly, but stay safe.
	Ignacio says, greetings from the communist regime in Spain!
	We are on the peak coup of hypocrisy with the coming Women's Day on the 8th of March, having been approved to have a massive demonstration, but restaurants and bars are still subject to curfew and regulations destroying the economy.
	I worry for the future of all of us.
	The thing is, right, it's one thing being put under these, and it's the same with the Black Lives Matter protests that the police were kneeling for in the middle of the summer.
	It's like, sorry, you should be arresting them for breaking quarantine and for breaking the regulations, but no.
	It's one thing.
	It's one thing being put under that, but it's another thing for them going, yeah, but accept these people.
	I can't stand it.
	It's also, at the same time, they're happy to put women away for going out for a walk.
	Yeah.
	Manhandling a granny and things like this.
	What are you doing?
	But the BLM folks, no, no, no.
	They're not spreading the coup.
	They're fine.
	They're protesting.
	Anyway, on a side note, if you ever come to Madrid, I'll get you some good old traditional bread to break the Keto Sharia.
	You will not, my friend.
	You will absolutely not.
	I mean, don't get me wrong.
	I love bread.
	I would love some traditional bread, but I'm not going to do it.
	Shaitan tempting you.
	Exactly.
	Yes.
	Get behind me, Shaitan.
	Nicholas Malson says, Hi folks, another week gone by already.
	Crazy how time flies.
	Yeah, it's weird, isn't it?
	How things seem to have been going really, really quickly.
	Is dadism the only name of the ideology?
	I think there could be a good synonym such as fatherism.
	Well, I mean, we could really call it patriarchy, couldn't we?
	If you decide to make it sound a bit more sophisticated.
	I suggest paternism as well, but I think it means something else.
	Padreism, maybe.
	Well, I mean, I'm happy to start filling the term patriarchy with positive content.
	Ah, that's patriarchy!
	Yes, yes it is.
	I kind of don't want to intellectualize it, because it should be as down-to-earth as possible.
	Yeah, part of the fun of it is just a gut instinct.
	What would your dad say?
	My dad would tell me not to do it, and then don't do it.
	You know, that's how this is going to work.
	Yeah, theorizing about it isn't the essence of dadism.
	George Happ says...
	Dadism is a very anti-intellectual ideology.
	Anti-theoretical.
	Anti-theoretical, yeah.
	George Happ, do you think conservatives in general are too attached to the system, even when it's corrupt beyond repair?
	We've seen this in Peter Hitchens' recent portrayal of his principles.
	What did Peter Hitchens do?
	uh, do you think?
	Did Pete Hitchens recently betray his principles?
	I don't know why he's referring to it.
	No, I don't, I don't, uh, I didn't see it in Douglas Murray's conversation with John Peterson, accepting the fortified results of the US election and the Republican establishment doing the same.
	Uh, I honestly, I think it's fear because really, if you believe the time magazine allegations that the elections were fortified, And I don't see why we disbelieve them.
	Believe people when they're telling you what they think.
	Then the implications of that are absolutely staggering.
	And it would be way easier to just go, well, there's no proof and we'll just go on to the next election.
	It's just easier.
	The easy thing to do in British politics at the moment is just to accept it.
	But I think the difficult thing, which is the right thing to do in this case, is to say, well, not necessarily saying it was taken, but look at what they are saying.
	It's shown the Time magazine.
	Again, there's quite a strong inductive argument, I would say, about something that we don't know the answer to.
	And we could have done with these investigations or court cases maybe not being dismissed on the standing if we wanted to get an actual answer to this.
	Yeah, I mean, if you wanted to satiate people's suspicions, that would have been the way to deal with it.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't know why Joe Biden wasn't leading the charge there, saying, well, hang on a second, I didn't steal this bloody election.
	What are you even saying?
	Apparently he's referring to Peter Hitchens getting the COVID vaccine after complaining ragers about...
	Whether or not the vaccine was the right thing to do so fast.
	But I don't have an opinion on that, to be honest.
	Yeah, but at the end of the day, though, that's a contingent argument.
	So it's like, well, we haven't tested this vaccine.
	I don't know if it's going to be dangerous.
	I'm not going to take it, which is a good argument.
	You know, that's fair.
	And then, but if 15 million people have taken it and there seem to be no major adverse side effects, I mean, I haven't actually heard of any, to be honest.
	I'd have the reader's piece to know.
	Yeah, I've heard the odd, you know, there have been single examples, but I'm like, you know, Seen like, you know, 10,000 elderly died the moment they had the injection or something.
	If I'd seen something like that, I'd be like, okay, fair enough.
	There's clearly something going on.
	But if millions of people have taken it and there aren't any particular problems that we know of, then it's not irrational for Peter Hitchens to actually change his mind on that.
	Because it's not necessarily a principled position he's taking.
	It's more of a practical one.
	But...
	I didn't know about that, anyway.
	But anyway, AmmoniumMetavendate says, If you want to have a laugh, look at the Reddit's 2xChromosomes subreddit, which is one of the default subs and supposed to be about women, unsurprisingly.
	Its front page is currently entirely populated by biological men.
	Males, you mean.
	In paraphrased words of the great Ryan Long, 20-year-old girl politics is coming back to bite them.
	Yep.
	I've seen that subreddit.
	It's on the behold.
	I'll send you a link.
	It's amazing that people with XY chromosomes populate the XX chromosome subreddit.
	It's amazing that we have to reduce people to that now.
	If I want to identify someone, I can't call them a woman, but I guess I could describe them as an adult human female.
	Hello, I'm looking for an adult human female to date.
	You know, as long as you're not looking for a woman, that's fine.
	David, fake last name, says, It almost feels like the transgender athletes are the result of a monkey-poor wish being used by feminists who wanted a better world for women.
	Can't wait for the lesson to be adopted in future Fables for Our Children.
	Yes.
	Chris Wolfe says, Yeah, it's very interesting as well, because the whole point of a sporting competition is exclusivity.
	Not everyone can join it.
	It's not inclusive.
	The point is that a certain group of people have to compete, and within this much broader group of people, a very, very narrow band of people will even bother going into the sport, and an even narrow band of them will actually compete, and then an even smaller band of them will win, and those people we give honour to, because that was a hell of an achievement.
	Unless, of course, you happen to be naturally stronger and faster than the people competing, and then it's not very much of an achievement, which is why this entire issue is a spectacle.
	Anyway...
	That's always the Paralympics.
	You didn't get that, did you?
	The Paralympics?
	Yeah, for the women.
	That's horrible.
	I'm joking.
	Anyway, Alex L. Whenever I think of late-term abortion debate, I remember the high school girl who gave birth on her porch in the middle of the night, beat the baby's skull in, set fire to it, and burned it in a shallow grave.
	Oh my god, that's a horrible story.
	Thanks, Alex.
	But this is why I agree with the safe and legal stuff, but I also agree with the rare stuff.
	Is all this pro-abortion education teaching girls they have the right to throw away a baby's life?
	I can't help but wonder if the abortion was discouraged or even illegal, whether something like that would have happened in the first place.
	Well, I hate to tell you this, but female infanticide is...
	It's unbelievably common all the way throughout human history and up until the modern day.
	It's got nothing to do with feminism and it seems to be a part of the human condition, frankly, from the female perspective.
	It's not obviously that every woman's going to do this.
	It's just that when babies are killed, they tend to be killed by the mothers.
	And it's...
	Yeah, it's a nature thing.
	You know, it's a part of humans being animals thing.
	So yeah.
	Anyway, MEP Flyerboy says...
	Who is MEP Flyerboy?
	Is that the guy who went flyering with us in Torquay?
	Yeah, Torquay, I think it was.
	Well, if it is, hello and thank you for your service.
	Because the plan of the left is that when you give that kind of autonomy to a child, they can argue the case for paedophilia.
	There does seem to be an element of the left that is arguing in that direction.
	Unfortunately.
	We keep seeing it in Vaush.
	Torbay.
	Torbay, yeah, that was right.
	We keep seeing it in Vaush particularly, where it's like, I've never seen an argument as to why having child porn should be illegal.
	And in a socialist system, the age of consent would be lowered.
	And it's like, why are you going in this direction?
	What's the animating principle here, Vaush?
	Why are you even thinking about this?
	His desire to be put in a wood chipper, I imagine.
	I imagine.
	His desire to get his hard drive checked by the FBI, I imagine.
	But anyway, as a leading proponent of dadism, I think the age of consent should be raised.
	Carrying on, Christian S says, Yeah, and it was unlisted as a mental health issue because of political activism.
	Current left-wing social policy on this is akin to helping alcoholics by making it cheaper and easier for them to buy alcohol.
	Yeah, I think that's actually a fair comparison.
	Beck says, whether in the case of state abortion limits or limits on the medical gender transition of minors, the left-wing case is really weak.
	Unlike gun laws that ban possession, a woman in conservative states that outlaws late-term abortion need only to take a weekend travel to a neighboring state that will give her what she wants.
	These laws don't make abortion or minor sex changes impossible.
	They just set the moral standard of the state.
	Yeah, the left's case as well.
	If they're going to abandon the virtue requirement on the position of women for abortion, then I honestly can't see myself...
	Being able to adequately argue against the Republicans by saying, well, look, it's still got to be safe and legal, right?
	Because the Republicans are like, no, because that's going to create a baby holocaust, and we don't want that already.
	Like, 600,000 abortions a year take place in the United States?
	I mean, you know, if I was the Republicans, I can see why they don't like it.
	I really can.
	I don't have much of a strong opinion on abortion at all, but the point you made earlier, in which you look at the leftist perspective, in which it's like, well, we can do it the day before, in which case, why not the day after?
	Yeah, there's nothing sacred about having passed through a birth canal.
	Versus the also, in my view, somewhat tyrannical saying that even if you're raped, we're going to force you to have the baby.
	Yeah.
	You know, both of them are terrible, but I just have to come down on the Republican side then.
	Yeah.
	Because I'm not going to start murdering children who are fully formed.
	Like, what's wrong with you?
	Up until the point of birth, are you insane?
	Like, that's...
	I mean, I've got a three-month-old baby, and it's just that for...
	But if that's what the left's willing to argue, how do you even...
	Exactly.
	It's monstrous.
	It's monstrous, right?
	If some left-wing academics are like, well, I've intellectualized it, that actually babies don't become people until they're like, you know, six months old or something, then you go in the wood chipper right along with the pedos.
	Like, this is an evil, monstrous thing that you're suggesting.
	Like, I can't accept it.
	I mean, and the thing is, It's only when you're holding a newborn baby that you realize this is just not something that you could kill the day before, right?
	You can't.
	It's crying.
	It's a real thing.
	It needs your help, and it wants your help, and you need to feed it, you know?
	And if you're like, yeah, well, I can just kill this, that means that's something wrong with you.
	If the doctor turned around with a scalp on us, right, right, let's end it.
	Yeah, God, man.
	It's such a horrible, anti-human perspective to have.
	I can't stand it.
	Anyway, Henry says, I can hear the alphabets yelling into their speak rights now.
	Double plus ungood crime think.
	Rectify with femboy peace squad.
	Stop.
	Long live Joe Biden.
	Stop.
	End message.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's genuinely getting to Orwellian territory, man.
	I can't wait until we've done all of these podcasts so we can actually get around to talking about Brave New World, because it was the most prophetic.
	Orwell's good, but not quite as on the point as Huxley.
	But very, very close, and they're both going down the same road.
	Christopher says, Will you ever do a book club on Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle?
	Obviously.
	One day I will.
	You refer a lot to Aristotle's philosophy.
	It'd be nice to give people a wider context.
	Yeah, I'm going to do a kind of series on...
	Aristotle at some point, it's just at the moment I've just been snowed under with work and family life and things like this, but it will definitely come.
	It probably won't be for a little while, to be honest, like a year or so, but when I do it, it'll be very, very good, and you'll see why I waited so long.
	Simon P says, Toronto Pride kicked the police out of the parade due to BLM being introduced into the parade in 2016.
	BLM used the parade to organize and protest when they held up the parade for 25 minutes in the middle of the summer.
	I remember this.
	BLM said stop the Pride parade because they were like, this isn't black enough.
	It's like, yeah, but this is about gay people.
	Alphabet wars.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Let them fight, you know.
	I don't think they've returned to the parade since 2018 when they got kicked out.
	William Payler says, if the Pride people can vote to exclude police from their march, can British Lord Voldemort or Piers Corbyn do the same?
	Good question.
	No, because you're exposing them from being part of the march, not policing the march.
	Well, yeah, that's true.
	Well, I mean, that's the difference as well.
	It's not like they're going to march with Piers Corbyn.
	The Pride collades have the police in them, whereas the Voldemort marches have the police policing them.
	Around them, yeah, exactly.
	I mean, you can see where the institutional endorsement is, yeah, where the power is.
	Shaka Saba says, Yoda voice, begun the alphabet wars have.
	I can't do a Yoda voice.
	You do a Yoda voice?
	I'm not going to try it, I'll be embarrassing.
	Yeah, good point.
	For real, though, intersectionalism can only ever lead to factional wars over Gibbs when these groups intersect and aren't just focused on the supposed oppressor group.
	That's exactly right.
	That's what we've been saying.
	Baron von Merxhausen says, I originally came here for the news and were not here otherwise.
	Now I'm staying for the repeated message about working to improve myself.
	Also got a pull-up bar, did ten pull-ups, and now my biceps ache a bit.
	Dude, doing ten pull-ups is really good.
	I can only undo...
	I did...
	I did six the other day.
	Chin-ups or pull-ups?
	Well, chin-ups.
	The pull-ups, I did five pull-ups.
	Doing pretty well.
	But ten, that's really good.
	Chris W says, The military operating domestically, training for insurrection, defending against rampaging civilians isn't a new phenomenon.
	Look up Operation Jade Helm.
	Yeah, I don't doubt it's not a new phenomenon, but it just seems...
	Excessively, like, it ties into the meme magic of the thing, right?
	If Biden is being widely viewed as an illegitimate president, and he's occupying the capital with thousands of soldiers, and they put up razor wire walls, and then they're testing civilian uprisings, and they're paranoid, constantly paranoid about the civilian uprising.
	They're being told, oh God, March the 4th is when it's all kicking off QAnon, set on a message board, and nothing happens.
	It makes them look like lunatics.
	And it makes the people making accusations against them seem more correct.
	You Google Jade Helm 15, immediately you get an article saying, Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories.
	That's the article from Wikipedia.
	I'm reading it, though.
	Okay.
	Francesca Ward says, I'm a traditionalist Catholic.
	I'm happy for us to return to patriarchy and chivalry.
	I already bow my head respectfully to my spiritual father, a Catholic priest, and all Catholic priests.
	I extend my submissiveness to reasonable men if they act like real men.
	I'll act right and I'll cook and clean and obey.
	That's fine.
	Man, maybe I should have got a Catholic wife.
	I'm constantly fighting with my wife to get her to cook.
	No, I'm joking.
	I'm joking.
	You could always convert.
	Get a few more.
	I don't think it's going to be in her character to become a Catholic.
	No, no.
	Islam.
	Oh.
	Can I get a Catholic wife under Islam?
	No, but I mean, you could hire four Islamic wives.
	I'm sure they add up to one.
	Yeah, but my missus is going to get mental if I say, look, I've converted to Islam and taking another three wives.
	Yeah, but now you're an Islamic family, so you didn't get a say anyway.
	Okay, well, it's one thing saying that, but it's another thing stopping her mouth, isn't it?
	Because I'm never going to hear the end of it.
	Did she watch the podcast by any chance?
	No, thank God.
	Or at least not to my knowledge.
	I might be in trouble when I get home, though.
	She's in a bad mood with me when I get home.
	Now I'm going to know.
	You know, in Christ.
	Love you, darling.
	She's going to be like, I'm going to get a second husband.
	Yeah, well, Michael, maybe patriarchy is just right.
	Michael Chiasen says, how far along do you and Callum think it will be before we get our Heinleinian Republic?
	Great work by you and your whole team.
	I can't stop the signal.
	Thank you, by the way.
	And the problem with that is that Heinlein, his timeline comes after the collapse.
	It's after the anarchy and chaos and murder in the streets and violent gangs of delinquent youths that the veterans take over.
	So it's going to get worse before it gets better, in Heinlein's view, which I share.
	Joseph Hibbert.
	Carl and Callum.
	Sometimes you bring up Bernie being cheated, but actual Justice Warriors have done videos on why he wasn't screwed over by the DNC. He didn't get the votes where he needed them.
	Right, okay, I'll have to check those out.
	It's been a while since I looked into it, but when I looked into it, it looked very, very obvious that there was some kind of conspiracy happening behind the scenes.
	I think it depends on which run you're talking about.
	I believe in the second one it was...
	2016 DNC. Okay, because I know in the second one he didn't...
	No, no, yeah, in the second one he just got beaten by Biden.
	The first one, what are the accusations?
	It was that they were conspiring to smear him as an atheist.
	Yes, but there's also behind-the-scenes things where they were leaking questions to Hillary in advance and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Kaine had done something.
	I can't remember exactly because it was a few years back.
	So not vote-fixing in the 2016 primaries of Democrats?
	No.
	But it was just an unfair playing field?
	No, no.
	There was something stronger than that.
	I'm going to have to go back and look into it, though, because I keep mentioning it.
	We'll watch actual Justice Warriors channel.
	I will.
	He should anyway.
	He's a good channel.
	He is, yeah.
	He's a good boy, Sean.
	But no, we're not talking about the most recent one.
	We're talking about the one with Hillary.
	Against Joe Biden, he just lost, which is embarrassing.
	How is it that you lost to Joe Biden?
	I don't know.
	Tom Ricketts, I would love to see a reversal of the Life on Mars TV show where a grisly hard-nosed detective from the 1980s travels forwards in time and finds himself in the modern day and has to try and make sense of the new limp-wristed police of vice and virtue.
	We truly are in the ashes of civilisation now.
	Have you watched that, Life on Mars?
	Yeah, I love Life on Mars.
	I've got to re-watch that.
	My wife's been making me watch it, and I didn't think I was going to enjoy it, but who's the guy who's angry at everything and goes around kicking everyone?
	I can't remember.
	It's been a while.
	I just remember I loved him.
	He's hilarious.
	And, I mean, if that's what policing was like in the 70s, we need to return.
	Jack Williams says, I shall be donating $1776, the correct amount, to Carl's Reparations, White Lives Matter 2.
	Anastair Crowley.
	There you go, brown boy.
	Thank you.
	Alice Crowley, this is why we shouldn't pay taxes.
	They're spending it on Rainbow Egg Police, thought patrols and illegally carrying spoons outdoors instead of actual criminals.
	Yes.
	Heathcliff says, now that you're no longer on YouTube, well, we kind of are.
	You can say out loud that Joe Biden is obviously an illegitimate president and all the censorship is proof of that.
	Do you know what happened to Donald Trump's speech?
	Yeah, it got deplatformed, because he said that.
	Yeah, he said the whole speech.
	And what was interesting is the, what was it, the right stuff or right report?
	Right side broadcasting?
	Right side, like the guys who do live streams.
	They're not like white nationalists or anything, they're just partisan right wing.
	Yeah, they platform right wing conservatives in America so you can see what they're saying.
	That's it.
	They don't even edit it, they just put it up.
	Yeah, there's no commentary.
	And I presume they put it up, they had it taken down, and they were told or inferred that they wouldn't have been taken down if they had given an opposing viewpoint.
	So they said, well, if we had played all of Trump's speech, and at the end said, there is no evidence for this, there is nothing going on, I swear, then it would have been fine.
	Yeah.
	But that's...
	Properly Soviet-style politics.
	Yeah, they were happy to get shot in the head for a...
	Yeah.
	And the Independent had their stream taken down for the same reason, didn't they?
	But did they get a strike?
	I don't know.
	I bet they didn't.
	Because Right Side Broadcasting got a strike, didn't they?
	Main Street Meter will never get a strike.
	Exactly.
	They'll probably just get...
	Exactly.
	There we go.
	Well, we'll take it down because we have to take it down because these are the rules and you made us set them and then you gave Donald Trump a platform to say all of these things that we said he can't say and so we'll take yours down but we won't give you a strike.
	It's all right, okay.
	The game is rigged.
	Just be well aware.
	Joseph Woodland says, what do you think would happen if the UK didn't enforce the Irish Sea border and told the EU that if they didn't like it, they could set up the checkpoints on the island?
	Our half, which we just leave unmanned.
	Doesn't seem to be a lot the EU could do and still hold international approval, Republic of Ireland being a neutral country like Switzerland.
	Well, I mean, it's not neutral.
	It's part of the EU. So it's not neutral.
	Independent in the EU. But this is what they did.
	This is what we did.
	This happened.
	So, I mean, it just makes them look really bad.
	It makes them look oppressive.
	They did set up checkpoints.
	We told everyone they would.
	We told them we're just not going to do it on our side because you don't have to enforce a bureaucracy if you don't want to.
	Alistair Crowley says, I love this, Alistair Crowley, for anyone who doesn't know, is obviously someone using a pseudonym of the famous Satanist.
	I'm personally anti-infanticide.
	Stunning and brave.
	Yeah, I mean, that's a very conservative position that you hold, Mr.
	Crowley.
	But apart from the usual mother's life case, I do believe that mental disabilities should be allowed.
	Mainly to me, believing that what defines human beings as having a certain degree of consciousness, I think it's fairly reasonable, unreasonable, sorry, that some heavily mentally disabled people have more rights than some very intelligent animals.
	I don't really have a view on this, I don't know anything about it, but what is your view on, say, the Iceland situation, where it was 100% of all diagnosis of Down syndrome were aborted?
	Well, so the argument is always, well, it would be a horrible and difficult life, right?
	That's the left-wing argument.
	It's going to be a horrible and difficult life.
	And from the perspective of someone who doesn't have Down syndrome, yeah, right?
	There's a lot of life that you're missing out on.
	But from the perspective of the Down syndrome child, I don't think they would rather have been aborted.
	I think they'd rather have their life as it is than not at all.
	And if you don't know that you're missing out on something because you're impaired from understanding it, then you can't say that they've been robbed of a quality of life because they didn't have that and they don't have the capacity for that sort of quality.
	Because we're talking like, you know, the sort of detailed social life, right?
	You know, they may well never fall in love, start a family, get married.
	And I mean, I don't know, maybe there are, but like, let's just assume worst case scenario.
	And so the argument being like, oh, if they're going to be robbed of all of this and they won't understand art and science and philosophy and all this sort of stuff, then their life sucks.
	From their perspective, they don't know that these things are missing and they can still enjoy their life as it is.
	So it doesn't seem to hold up.
	What about the, because the mother argument would be, I don't know.
	It's going to be a burden on my life.
	And it's like, well, that's the question of your moral standards then, isn't it?
	I mean, I'm not saying that that's wrong.
	I'm saying that it's made from a selfish perspective, right?
	It's not because of consideration for the quality of life of the child.
	It's not a moral argument there.
	It's not a moral argument.
	Right.
	It's not based on the quality of life of the child because that's not the subject that you're discussing.
	You're discussing how difficult it would be for you.
	And I don't doubt that it would be difficult.
	I don't doubt it would be difficult.
	I mean, I don't know what time frame they also find this out is after a week or several months.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, I don't know either.
	I don't know.
	But yeah.
	Yeah, that's a complicated one, isn't it?
	It is.
	And abortion is a real minefield, morally.
	And I just don't like it.
	I just don't like the subject.
	It's just...
	Would rather not have to worry about it.
	I don't want to embarrass him or anything, but there was a friend of mine who had a miscarriage with his wife there trying.
	And it was the point of like, well, if this means nothing, if that opinion from the leftist is that, why did we feel bad for him?
	Why did we, you know...
	My wife had two miscarriages.
	It's rough.
	If it means nothing, why aren't you just like, eh?
	Exactly.
	It doesn't just mean nothing.
	That's the thing.
	It doesn't just mean nothing.
	It's difficult.
	So it's not an easy subject and I don't think there's any good resolution either.
	But I just think that the left wing perspective on this is...
	It's kind of anti-human.
	It's out of the window crazy.
	Yeah.
	Sam Bauer says, what would be the current equivalent of Charles I raising his standard at Nottingham or Caesar crossing the Rubicon in the current culture war?
	I think it would be Trump marching on DC's complex, walking up to the troops and being a Napoleon.
	Would you shoot your emperor?
	That would be the best.
	Yeah, that would be thematically and narratively perfect.
	Because what are they going to do?
	What are they going to do?
	Why help peppers?
	What are you going to do if Trump walks up to the guards where you are and says, I'm the legitimate president and you know it?
	I want to see that comment tomorrow.
	You've got to tell us.
	Yeah, you've got to tell us, dude.
	You've got to tell us.
	And ask some people around.
	What do you think they would do?
	I'm curious.
	Just as a hypothetical.
	So yeah, that's what we think, Sam.
	Actually, run the full experiment on a few guys as well.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Let's get an impression from around you.
	What do you reckon?
	Doug Dimmy-Done says, if Wommickson dehumanizes trans because trans women are supposedly real women and trans men are real men, then isn't the entire trans movement dehumanizing trans people by calling them trans to begin with?
	Why are you a trans woman then?
	Exactly.
	You have arrived at the final perfect end of the contradiction of the language games that they're playing with the definitions of man and woman and how even the very nature of gender confirmation surgery and hormone therapies and all this presupposes a kind of biological essentialism that the most radical trans activist.
	Exactly.
	The most radical trans activist is like, well, there's no such thing as male characteristics or female characteristics.
	So there's no such thing as transitioning because all of these things were in the purview of what a trans person could have chosen from the word go.
	And therefore, all of this is transphobic.
	Transitioning is transphobic.
	Yes.
	Transitioning itself is transphobic, is the radical end position of the trans thought process, the train of logic.
	And I've seen posts on the internet, people saying this and then being widely ridiculed by their own trans supporters.
	I bet they turned on a few lights along the way.
	Yeah.
	That's the thing.
	It's just like, but that's what you end up having to kind of accept.
	So Hannibal Reincarnated says, I keep meaning to ask, what is your view on self-teaching?
	I do an awful lot of it.
	There's nothing stopping you from reading a book or watching a documentary or learning, you know, like I learned to code by just doing it, you know, just sat down and started doing it and then A few years later, I had a few prototypes for games I could have carried on with, but instead I became a political activist instead.
	But one day, one day I'll return to my video games, when the world has been fixed, and I can retire, and I can then make the video game that I've been planning to make for years.
	But until then, he says...
	Well, I agree.
	And at the end of the day...
	What you are theoretically paying for with an academic qualification is a special access to knowledge that, in fact, you probably can get in other ways.
	You just won't get a qualification.
	But at the end of the day, if you've got the knowledge and the skills, then what difference does that make?
	So, at the end of the day, it's up to you and your particular circumstance, as most things are.
	Forcing people into it though, in the UK context at least, I do know that that's more about government trying to cover up their failures.
	So you remember this used to be you could leave school at 16, get a job, and now they've made a requirement that you have to go to college for two years.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	So your son will have to go to college for two years.
	Mandatory.
	But what if you're not academically inclined?
	Too bad.
	That's interesting.
	That's the point now in which he can get a job.
	And it's because of unemployment.
	They just try and cover up their failures.
	Right, because it's interesting, because this all seems to stem from Tony Blair, where he was like, education, education, education, back in the 90s.
	And I'm not obviously against education, but I'm against the idea that all people are scholars, right?
	That's just not true.
	Not everyone is a scholar.
	Not everyone is, like, academically inclined.
	But that doesn't mean they're stupid or can't learn.
	Some people learn by doing, right?
	And this is one of those things, like...
	I'm quite lucky.
	I can actually do both.
	I can learn by doing or learn by reading a book.
	I don't think you need to say that.
	You do not need to study physics or biology at a significant level and A-level to be a car mechanic.
	Yeah.
	You're just wasting your time.
	Sure.
	There are plenty of subjects I took where I'm just like, why am I doing this?
	Yeah, you don't necessarily need a theoretical understanding of the thing.
	But this kind of obsession is kind of a self-feeding mechanism.
	Because once everyone has agreed, oh, well, you have to do this.
	And it comes with a cost.
	It puts you in massive debt.
	It's like, well, I want other people to confirm that I made the right choice by also making the same choice.
	Otherwise, I am actually going to be like...
	Did I make the wrong choice?
	I'm an idiot.
	So you've got this kind of emotional investment in the process of it.
	And if you've made rationality and reason itself the supreme thing, rather than action and doing of the thing, then of course you're just going to turn that into nothing but that.
	So it's not going to go away.
	And he is right.
	It encourages people to do the same thing.
	But at a governmental level, it's just because they keep having up, mate.
	And they keep trying to cover up the unemployment statistics.
	But this is the thing.
	They'd probably have fewer F-ups and unemployment problems if they had accepted that a certain percentage of the population, probably about a third of the population, is more sort of technically minded and physically minded and put them in apprenticeships.
	Anyway, we'll go for the last one.
	From Student of History, Republicans on a proper moral crusade.
	Nice to see.
	Can dadism apply to women?
	Abortions for thottery is unacceptable.
	Dadism, of course, can apply to women, and women will end up being the primary proponents of dadism by the time I'm finished.
	Because they're going to want decent husbands for their numerous children, which I think is a completely proper thing for them to want.
	Anyway.
	Sounds like blood for food or something.
	Abortions for thottery.
	Right.
	Anyway, thank you everyone for joining us.
	If you'd like some more from us.
	Oil for guns, there we go.
	Yes.
	If you'd like to see more of us, you can sign up on Loadsies.com, become a premium member, get access to our premium podcasts, which we are going to record one of after this, which will be on the thick concepts, at least part one of the thick concepts, because the second part is going to have to talk about ethical knowledge, because it turned out that to be able to adequately explain the new book club for Brave New World...
	We've got to do quite a lot of setup because I'm going to give people the best evaluation of this book they'll ever see and I'm going to introduce you to new things you never knew were possible to know or understand in a clear way, I hope.
	And this is why Callum's going to be doing this podcast with me because he's going to be the layman I'm going to be trying to explain this to.
	Hopefully I'll ask some good questions and I'll be able to explain it properly, but obviously I'll be reading all the comments on it afterwards because if there's something I didn't clearly explain, then we will do a follow-up.
	We've got a title of the Thick Concepts Podcast, THICC. Yes.
	Yes, good.
	Obviously.
	Just confirm it for the chat.
	Yes, of course chat.
	You've seen the notes, have you?
	I've already got it written like that in the notes.
	I didn't know if you were actually going to make that the official title.
	Of course I didn't.
	What are we going to do?
	Not be meme lords about it.
	That would be boring, wouldn't it?
	I'll see.
	Anyway, so for the podcast, we'll be back Monday, 1pm UK time.

▲